Australian osteopathic practitioners' perceptions of the clinical relevance of anatomy / Percepciones de los practicantes de osteopatía australianos de la relevancia clínica de la anatomía

SUMMARY: Anatomy is a foundational discipline in the training of health care professionals. However, there is a paucity of literature on the relative importance of anatomy, especially in relation to the other biomedical sciences and clinical domains, in preparing osteopathic practitioners for clinical practice. This study aimed to examine Australian osteopathic practitioners' perceptions of the relative importance of anatomy in their professional training and clinical practice, especially in relation to other biomedical sciences and clinical domains within osteopathic curricula. The study also examined the perceived importance of the sub-disciplines of anatomy to professional practice. A questionnaire-based survey was carried out among Australian osteopathic practitioners at several national meetings in 2014 and 2015. Using a five-point Likert scale, all respondents were asked to rate the relevance of the following thirteen disciplines and subdisciplines to clinical practice: biomechanics, biochemistry, embryology, histology, gross anatomy, microbiology, neuroanatomy, neurology, pathology, pharmacology, physical examination, physiology and radiology. Out of 175 practitioners surveyed, 169 responded (i.e., 96.6 % response rate). Two of the sub-disciplines of anatomy were among the highest rated, with 98.2 % perceiving gross anatomy as "very important" while neuroanatomy being rated as "very important" by 84.6 % and "quite important" by 14.2 %. Similar high rating was also given to biomechanics and physical examination while the other two sub-disciplines, embryology and histology received lower ratings. No significant difference in ratings were identified with regard to participants' year and place of graduation. However, there was an association between gender and rating on Pathology and Pharmacology respectively, as well as age effects on the ratings of several sub-disciplines. These findings are generally consistent with the results from similar surveys carried out on the clinical importance of anatomy in other medical and allied health professionals in different countries. Overall, osteopathic practitioners have a positive perception of the relevance of anatomy, particularly gross and neuroanatomy, to clinical practice, and this should be taken into account when developing osteopathic curricula.

RESUMEN: La anatomía es una disciplina fundamental en la formación de profesionales de la salud. Sin embargo, hay poca literatura sobre la importancia relativa de la anatomía, especialmente en relación con las otras ciencias biomédicas y los dominios clínicos, en la preparación de profesionales de la osteopatía para la práctica clínica. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo examinar las percepciones de los médicos osteopáticos australianos sobre la importancia relativa de la anatomía en su formación profesional y práctica clínica, especialmente en relación con otras ciencias biomédicas y dominios clínicos dentro de los currículos osteopáticos. El estudio también examinó la importancia percibida de las subdisciplinas de la anatomía para la práctica profesional. Se realizó una encuesta basada en un cuestionario entre los profesionales osteopáticos australianos en varias reuniones nacionales en 2014 y 2015. Utilizando una escala Likert de cinco puntos, se pidió a todos los encuestados que calificaran la relevancia de las siguientes trece disciplinas y subdisciplinas para la práctica clínica: Biomecánica, bioquímica, embriología, histología, anatomía macroscópica, microbiología, neuroanatomía, neurología, patología, farmacología, exploración física, fisiología y radiología. De los 175 practicantes encuestados, 169 respondieron (es decir, una tasa de respuesta del 96,6 %). Dos de las subdisciplinas de la anatomía estaban entre las mejor calificadas, con un 98,2 % que percibían la anatomía general como "muy importante", mientras que la neuroanatomía se calificaba como "muy importante" en un 84,6 % y "muy importante" en un 14,2 %. También se dio una calificación alta similar a la biomecánica y el examen físico, mientras que las otras dos subdisciplinas, embriología e histología recibieron calificaciones más bajas. No se identificaron diferencias significativas en las calificaciones con respecto al año de los participantes y el lugar de graduación. Sin embargo, hubo una asociación entre el sexo y la calificación en Patología y Farmacología respectivamente, así como los efectos de la edad en las calificaciones de varias subdisciplinas. Estos hallazgos son generalmente consistentes con los resultados de encuestas similares realizadas sobre la importancia clínica de la anatomía, en otros profesionales de la salud médicos y afines en diferentes países. En general, los profesionales de la osteopatía tienen una percepción positiva de la relevancia de la anatomía, en particular la neuroanatomía general y la neuroanatomía, para la práctica clínica, lo que se debe tener en cuenta al desarrollar los currículos osteopáticos.

Impact of the workforce distribution on the viability of the osteopathic profession in Australia: results from a national survey of registered osteopaths.

Background: Workforce distribution has an important influence on the quality of healthcare delivered in a region, primarily because it impacts access to health services in the community and overall health equity in the population. Distribution of osteopaths in Australia does not appear to follow the Australian population with the majority of osteopaths located in Victoria. The implications of this imbalance on the osteopathic workforce have not yet been explored. Methods: A secondary analysis of data from a survey of 1531 members of Osteopathy Australia in 2013. The analysis focused on the practice and occupational characteristics associated with practice locality. Results: The survey was completed by a representative sample of 432 osteopaths. Respondents practicing outside Victoria were more likely to report higher income across all income brackets, and were less likely to report a preference for more patients. Conclusions: The Australian osteopathic profession should examine the issue of imbalanced workforce distribution as a priority. The results of this study are worth considering for all stakeholders as part of a coordinated approach to ensure the ongoing health of the Australian osteopathic workforce.

Understanding clinical reasoning in osteopathy: a qualitative research approach.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning has been described as a process that draws heavily on the knowledge, skills and attributes that are particular to each health profession. However, the clinical reasoning processes of practitioners of different disciplines demonstrate many similarities, including hypothesis generation and reflective practice. The aim of this study was to understand clinical reasoning in osteopathy from the perspective of osteopathic clinical educators and the extent to which it was similar or different from clinical reasoning in other health professions. METHODS: This study was informed by constructivist grounded theory. Participants were clinical educators in osteopathic teaching institutions in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Focus groups and written critical reflections provided a rich data set. Data were analysed using constant comparison to develop inductive categories. RESULTS: According to participants, clinical reasoning in osteopathy is different from clinical reasoning in other health professions. Osteopaths use a two-phase approach: an initial biomedical screen for serious pathology, followed by use of osteopathic reasoning models that are based on the relationship between structure and function in the human body. Clinical reasoning in osteopathy was also described as occurring in a number of contexts (e.g. patient, practitioner and community) and drawing on a range of metaskills (e.g. hypothesis generation and reflexivity) that have been described in other health professions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnostic reasoning models that are based on the relationship between structure and function in the human body differentiated clinical reasoning in osteopathy. These models were not used to name a medical condition but rather to guide the selection of treatment approaches. If confirmed by further research that clinical reasoning in osteopathy is distinct from clinical reasoning in other health professions, then osteopaths may have a unique perspective to bring to multidisciplinary decision-making and potentially enhance the quality of patient care. Where commonalities exist in the clinical reasoning processes of osteopathy and other health professions, shared learning opportunities may be available, including the exchange of scaffolded clinical reasoning exercises and assessment practices among health disciplines.