Interprofessional Attitudes and Interdisciplinary Practices for Older Adults With Back Pain Among Doctors of Chiropractic: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on attitudes of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) toward integrative medicine and their self-reported interdisciplinary practices for older adults with back pain. METHODS: This descriptive survey was conducted with licensed DCs in a Midwestern community in the United States. Respondents completed a 53-item postal survey of demographics, practice characteristics, referral and co-management patterns, attitudes toward interdisciplinary practice, and the Integrative Medicine-30 Questionnaire (IM-30). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven DCs completed the survey (29% response). Geriatric-focused chiropractic practices were uncommon (<15%), although 56% reported that 25% to 49% of the patients treated each week were older adults. Respondents had a moderate orientation toward collaboration with other health care providers (IM-30 mean [standard deviation] 61.3 [11.5]). The IM-30 subscales placed DCs high on measures of integrative medicine safety; moderate on patient-centeredness, openness to working with other providers, and referral readiness; and low on learning from alternative paradigms. Doctors of chiropractic most referred older patients to neurologists, family physicians, massage therapists, orthopedists, and other chiropractors. Doctors of chiropractic reported the highest levels of co-management with family physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists. Most DCs (92%) were confident in their own ability to manage back pain in older adults, with modest confidence expressed for treatments from professionals using manual therapies. Most (77%) responded that older patients would experience the most improvement if DCs collaborated with another chiropractor, rather than with medical professionals. CONCLUSION: Doctors of chiropractic in one geographic community are moderately oriented toward interprofessional practice with other health care providers for older adults with back pain. Follow-up studies in representative national and international samples are recommended.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys. RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway. METHODS: Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended. CONCLUSIONS: An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation.

PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps. RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used. RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records. CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Anesthesia Capacity in Ghana: A Teaching Hospital's Resources, and the National Workforce and Education.

BACKGROUND: Quality anesthetic care is lacking in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Global health leaders call for perioperative capacity reports in limited-resource settings to guide improved health care initiatives. We describe a teaching hospital's resources and the national workforce and education in this LMIC capacity report. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) in Kumasi, Ghana, during 4 weeks in August 2016. Teaching hospital data were generated from observations of hospital facilities and patient care, review of archival records, and interviews with KATH personnel. National data were obtained from interviews with KATH personnel, correspondence with Ghana's anesthesia society, and review of public records. RESULTS: The practice of anesthesia at KATH incorporated preanesthesia clinics, intraoperative management, and critical care. However, there were not enough physicians to consistently supervise care, especially in postanesthesia care units (PACUs) and the critical care unit (CCU). Clean water and electricity were usually reliable in all 16 operating rooms (ORs) and throughout the hospital. Equipment and drugs were inventoried in detail. While much basic infrastructure, equipment, and medications were present in ORs, patient safety was hindered by hospital-wide oxygen supply failures and shortage of vital signs monitors and working ventilators in PACUs and the CCU. In 2015, there were 10,319 anesthetics administered, with obstetric and gynecologic, general, and orthopedic procedures comprising 62% of surgeries. From 2011 to 2015, all-cause perioperative mortality rate in ORs and PACUs was 0.65% or 1 death per 154 anesthetics, with 99% of deaths occurring in PACUs. Workforce and education data at KATH revealed 10 anesthesia attending physicians, 61 nurse anesthetists (NAs), and 7 anesthesia resident physicians in training. At the national level, 70 anesthesia attending physicians and 565 NAs cared for Ghana's population of 27 million. Providers were heavily concentrated in urban areas, and NAs frequently practiced independently. Two teaching hospitals provided accredited postgraduate training modeled after European curricula to 22 anesthesia resident physicians. CONCLUSIONS: While important limitations to capacity exist in Ghana, the overall situation is good compared to other LMICs. Many of the challenges encountered resulted from insufficient PACU and CCU provisions and few providers. Inadequate outcomes reporting made analysis and resolution of problem areas difficult. While many shortcomings stemmed from limited funding, strengthening physician commitment to overseeing care, ensuring oxygen supplies are uninterrupted, keeping ventilators in working order, and making vital signs monitors ubiquitously available are feasible ways to increase patient safety with the tools currently in place.

Patient-centered professional practice models for managing low back pain in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a debilitating condition for older adults, who may seek healthcare from multiple providers. Few studies have evaluated impacts of different healthcare delivery models on back pain outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of older adults receiving back pain treatment under 3 professional practice models that included primary medical care with or without chiropractic care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with 131 community-dwelling, ambulatory older adults with subacute or chronic low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of individualized primary medical care (Medical Care), concurrent medical and chiropractic care (Dual Care), or medical and chiropractic care with enhanced interprofessional collaboration (Shared Care). Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity rated on the numerical rating scale and back-related disability measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects regression models and general estimating equations. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, participants in all three treatment groups reported improvements in mean average low back pain intensity [Shared Care: 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.6; Dual Care: 3.0; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.8; Medical Care: 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2)] and back-related disability (Shared Care: 2.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 4.0; Dual Care: 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7; Medical Care: 1.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8). No statistically significant differences were noted between the three groups on the primary measures. Participants in both models that included chiropractic reported significantly better perceived low back pain improvement, overall health and quality of life, and greater satisfaction with healthcare services than patients who received medical care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Professional practice models that included primary care and chiropractic care led to modest improvements in low back pain intensity and disability for older adults, with chiropractic-inclusive models resulting in better perceived improvement and patient satisfaction over the primary care model alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01312233 , 4 March 2011.

Spinal manipulation and home exercise with advice for subacute and chronic back-related leg pain: a trial with adaptive allocation.

BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is often disabling and costly, and there is a paucity of research to guide its management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise and advice (HEA) compared with HEA alone reduces leg pain in the short and long term in adults with BRLP. DESIGN: Controlled pragmatic trial with allocation by minimization conducted from 2007 to 2011. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00494065). SETTING: 2 research centers (Minnesota and Iowa). PATIENTS: Persons aged 21 years or older with BRLP for least 4 weeks. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of SMT plus HEA or HEA alone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was patient-rated BRLP at 12 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfaction, medication use, and general health status at 12 and 52 weeks. Blinded objective tests were done at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 192 enrolled patients, 191 (99%) provided follow-up data at 12 weeks and 179 (93%) at 52 weeks. For leg pain, SMT plus HEA had a clinically important advantage over HEA (difference, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 2 to 19]; P=0.008) at 12 weeks but not at 52 weeks (difference, 7 percentage points [CI, -2 to 15]; P=0.146). Nearly all secondary outcomes improved more with SMT plus HEA at 12 weeks, but only global improvement, satisfaction, and medication use had sustained improvements at 52 weeks. No serious treatment-related adverse events or deaths occurred. LIMITATION: Patients and providers could not be blinded. CONCLUSION: For patients with BRLP, SMT plus HEA was more effective than HEA alone after 12 weeks, but the benefit was sustained only for some secondary outcomes at 52 weeks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: While older adults may seek care for low back pain (LBP) from both medical doctors (MDs) and doctors of chiropractic (DCs), co-management between these providers is uncommon. The purposes of this study were to describe the preferences of older adults for LBP co-management by MDs and DCs and to identify their concerns for receiving care under such a treatment model. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups with 48 older adults who received LBP care in the past year. Interviews explored participants' care seeking experiences, co-management preferences, and perceived challenges to successful implementation of a MD-DC co-management model. We analyzed the qualitative data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Older adults considered LBP co-management by MDs and DCs a positive approach as the professions have complementary strengths. Participants wanted providers who worked in a co-management model to talk openly and honestly about LBP, offer clear and consistent recommendations about treatment, and provide individualized care. Facilitators of MD-DC co-management included collegial relationships between providers, arrangements between doctors to support interdisciplinary referral, computer systems that allowed exchange of health information between clinics, and practice settings where providers worked in one location. Perceived barriers to the co-management of LBP included the financial costs associated with receiving care from multiple providers concurrently, duplication of tests or imaging, scheduling and transportation problems, and potential side effects of medication and chiropractic care. A few participants expressed concern that some providers would not support a patient-preferred co-managed care model. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in receiving LBP treatment co-managed by MDs and DCs. Older adults considered patient-centered communication, collegial interdisciplinary interactions between these providers, and administrative supports such as scheduling systems and health record sharing as key components for successful LBP co-management.

Contextualizing the lived experiences of patients with low back pain from different countries according to the ICF framework.

OBJECTIVE: To explore perspectives, including social and psychological aspects, of patients seeking manual care for low back pain, in order to understand constructs of functioning that are important across different cultural contexts. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) emphasizes the importance of these aspects to describe health-related functioning. DESIGN: Focus group interviews. PATIENTS: Patients from Botswana, Canada and Norway seeking manual care for their low back pain. METHODS: Interviews were conducted in the 3 countries, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and linked to the ICF according to established rules. RESULTS: Seven focus groups yielded 1,863 meaningful concepts that were linked to ICF categories. The largest proportion of responses linked to the Activities and Participation domain. The most frequently mentioned chapters related to pain and its mental aspects, suggesting that the psychological impact of living with low back pain is important to patients. CONCLUSION: Despite cultural differences, patients seeking manual care for low back pain in Botswana, Canada and Norway reported similar experiences of disability across ICF domains. The relatively high ranking of psychosocial factors highlights their importance for patients, in addition to factors of biological origin, and indicates that the contextual nature of the lived experience of low back pain may not be covered in standard examinations used in manual medicine.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Practice patterns of doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing in popularity, especially within the pediatric population. Research on CAM practitioners and their specialties, such as pediatrics, is lacking. Within the chiropractic profession, pediatrics is one of the most recently established post-graduate specialty programs. This paper describes the demographic and practice characteristics of doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate. METHODS: 218 chiropractors with a pediatric diplomate were invited to complete our survey using either web-based or mailed paper survey methods. Practitioner demographics, practice characteristics, treatment procedures, referral patterns, and patient characteristics were queried with a survey created with the online survey tool, SurveyMonkey. RESULTS: A total of 135 chiropractors responded (62.2% response rate); they were predominantly female (74%) and white (93%). Techniques most commonly used were Diversified, Activator, and Thompson with the addition of cranial and extremity manipulation to their chiropractic treatments. Adjunctive therapies commonly provided to patients included recommendations for activities of daily living, corrective or therapeutic exercise, ice pack\cryotherapy, and nutritional counseling. Thirty eight percent of respondents' patients were private pay and 23% had private insurance that was not managed care. Pediatrics represented 31% of the survey respondents' patients. Chiropractors also reported 63% of their work time devoted to direct patient care. Health conditions reportedly treated within the pediatric population included back or neck pain, asthma, birth trauma, colic, constipation, ear infection, head or chest cold, and upper respiratory infections. Referrals made to or from these chiropractors were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed mode survey identified similarities and differences between doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate to other surveys of doctors of chiropractic, CAM professionals, and pediatric healthcare providers. The pediatric diplomate certificate was established in 1993 and provides didactic education over a 2 to 3 year span. The results of this study can be used for historical information as this specialty continues to grow.

Regional anesthesia training model for resource-limited settings: a prospective single-center observational study with pre-post evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Educational initiatives are a sustainable means to address provider shortages in resource-limited settings (RLS), yet few regional anesthesia curricula for RLS have been described. We sought to design a reproducible training model for RLS called Global Regional Anesthesia Curricular Engagement (GRACE), implement GRACE at an RLS hospital in Ghana, and measure training and practice-based outcomes associated with GRACE implementation. METHODS: Fourteen of 15 physician anesthesiologists from the study location and three from an outside orthopedic specialty hospital consented to be trainees and trainers, respectively, for this prospective single-center observational study with pre-post evaluations. We conducted an initial needs assessment to determine current clinical practices, participants' learning preferences, and available resources. Needs assessment findings, expert panel recommendations, and investigator consensus were then used to generate a site-specific curriculum that was implemented during two 3-week periods. We evaluated trainee satisfaction and changes in knowledge, clinical skill, and peripheral nerve block (PNB) utilization using the Kirkpatrick method. RESULTS: The curriculum consisted of didactic lectures, simulations, and clinical instruction to teach ultrasound-guided PNB for limb injuries. Pre-post evaluations showed trainees were satisfied with GRACE, median knowledge examination score improved from 62.5% (15/24) to 91.7% (22/24) (p<0.001), clinical examination pass rate increased from 28.6% (4/14) to 85.7% (12/14) (p<0.01), and total PNB performed in 3 months grew from 48 to 118. CONCLUSIONS: GRACE applied in an RLS hospital led to the design, implementation, and measurement of a regional anesthesia curriculum tailored to institutional specifications that was associated with positive Kirkpatrick outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial comparing 2 types of spinal manipulation and minimal conservative medical care for adults 55 years and older with subacute or chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.

If I was more informed about what exactly they do: perceptions of Botswana district hospital healthcare providers about World Spine Care.

Background: In 2011, World Spine Care (WSC) opened their pilot clinic at the Botswana Mahalapye District Hospital (MDH) aiming to develop a low-cost model of evidence-based spine care for underserved communities. Providing sustainable, integrated, evidence-based care will require buy-in from local healthcare providers (HCPs) and the communities served. The purpose of this project was to understand how MDH HCPs perceive WSC. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive methodology to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews with MDH HCPs who had some familiarity about WSC services. Interviews were conducted in English, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We used an iterative coding process for thematic content analysis and interpretations were regularly reviewed by all co-authors. Results: In March 2017, interviews with 20 HCPs, from diverse disciplines with a range in years' experience at MDH, revealed three overlapping themes: knowledge about WSC and spinal related disorders, perceived role of WSC, and challenges for WSC integration. Participants who attended WSC conferences or self-referred for care were more informed and, generally, held positive perceptions. Participants lacked knowledge about managing spinal-related disorders, asserted hospital protocols did not meet patient needs, and perceived WSC is 'filling a gap' to manage these conditions. There were mixed perceptions about care received as WSC patients; some ultimately obtained relief, while others reported the treatment painful and unfamiliar, discharging themselves from care. Challenges to integrate WSC into the healthcare system were: lack of knowledge about scope of practice and unclear referral pathways; reversing the isolated care WSC provides by increasing collaboration between WSC and hospital staff; and, high turnover of WSC clinicians that undermines program sustainability. Conclusions: MDH healthcare providers had adequate general knowledge about World Spine Care and spinal-related disorders, but did not understand the WSC scope of practice nor referral pathways to and from providers. Participants advocated for greater collaboration between WSC and hospital staff to increase acceptance and integration to deliver spine care services and foster wider adoption of the WSC model, particularly if WSC expands services across Botswana. Future efforts that incorporate interviews with patients and government officials also can provide valuable perspectives to achieve sustainable, integrated, evidence-based spine care.

Interdisciplinary Practice Models for Older Adults With Back Pain: A Qualitative Evaluation.

Purpose: Older adults seek health care for low back pain from multiple providers who may not coordinate their treatments. This study evaluated the perceived feasibility of a patient-centered practice model for back pain, including facilitators for interprofessional collaboration between family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic. Design and Methods: This qualitative evaluation was a component of a randomized controlled trial of 3 interdisciplinary models for back pain management: usual medical care; concurrent medical and chiropractic care; and collaborative medical and chiropractic care with interprofessional education, clinical record exchange, and team-based case management. Data collection included clinician interviews, chart abstractions, and fieldnotes analyzed with qualitative content analysis. An organizational-level framework for dissemination of health care interventions identified norms/attitudes, organizational structures and processes, resources, networks-linkages, and change agents that supported model implementation. Results: Clinicians interviewed included 13 family medicine residents and 6 chiropractors. Clinicians were receptive to interprofessional education, noting the experience introduced them to new colleagues and the treatment approaches of the cooperating profession. Clinicians exchanged high volumes of clinical records, but found the logistics cumbersome. Team-based case management enhanced information flow, social support, and interaction between individual patients and the collaborating providers. Older patients were viewed positively as change agents for interprofessional collaboration between these provider groups. Implications: Family medicine residents and doctors of chiropractic viewed collaborative care as a useful practice model for older adults with back pain. Health care organizations adopting medical and chiropractic collaboration can tailor this general model to their specific setting to support implementation.

A survey of chiropractors practicing in Germany: practice characteristics, professional reading habits, and attitudes and perceptions toward research.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, a survey conducted by the European Chiropractor's Union among member countries reported that "there appears to be little interest in research among chiropractors in Germany." However, no research has tested this statement. The objective of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of practicing chiropractors in Germany regarding research, to look at their reading and research habits, and to gather demographic and practice data. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and distributed among participants at a seminar held by the German Chiropractors' Association in 2005. The questionnaire was mailed to any members of the association who did not attend the seminar. RESULTS: A total of 49 (72%) of 68 distributed questionnaires were returned. Forty-five (92%) respondents stated they would support research efforts in Germany and 15 (31%) declared interest in participating in practiced based research. An average of three hours per week were reportedly spent reading scientific literature by 44 (85%) respondents. However, few journals listed by respondents were peer-reviewed and indexed; most were newsletters of chiropractic organizations or free publications. Most participants agreed on the importance of research for the profession, but when asked about the most pressing issue for chiropractic in Germany, legislation and recognition of the profession were the dominant themes. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey show that there is a general interest in supporting and participating in research activities among chiropractors practicing in Germany. Next steps could consist of educating practitioners about the resources available to read and interpret the scientific literature and thus further the understanding of research.

Do chiropractic college faculty understand informed consent: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to survey full-time faculty at a single chiropractic college concerning their knowledge of Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies in their institution as they pertain to educational research. METHODS: All full-time faculty were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Four scenarios involving educational research were described and respondents were asked to select from three possible courses of action for each. In addition, respondents were queried about their knowledge of IRB policies, how they learned of these policies and about their years of service and departmental assignments. RESULTS: The response rate was 55%. In no scenario did the level of correct answers by all respondents score higher than 41% and in most, the scores were closer to just under 1 in 3. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they were unsure whether Palmer had any policies in place at all, while 4% felt that no such policies were in place. Just over one-quarter (27%) were correct in noting that students can decline consent, while more than half (54%) did not know whether there were any procedures governing student consent. CONCLUSION: Palmer faculty have only modest understanding about institutional policies regarding the IRB and human subject research, especially pertaining to educational research. The institution needs to develop methods to provide knowledge and training to faculty. The results from this pilot study will be instrumental in developing better protocols for a study designed to survey the entire chiropractic academic community.