Support Chiropractic Research!

Frank M. Painter

About Frank M. Painter

I was introduced to Chiro.Org in early 1996, where my friend Joe Garolis helped me learn HTML, the "mark-up language" for websites. We have been fortunate that journals like JMPT have given us permission to reproduce some early important articles in Full-Text format. Maintaining the Org website has been, and remains, my favorite hobby.

SOAP Notes: A Chiropractic Perspective

By |May 25, 2013|Documentation|

SOAP Notes: A Chiropractic Perspective

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Dynamic Chiropractic ~ March 1, 2013,

By Ronald Short, DC, MCS-P


S.O.A.P: We all learned it in school and we all do our best to follow it in our daily charting of patient encounters. My good friend Dr. Mario Fucinari expresses it as a formula:

S+O=A yields P.

Your subjective findings plus your objective observations equal your assessment, which leads to your plan. Simple. Easy to understand.

The important thing to remember regarding the SOAP is that it was designed for the practice style of a medical doctor. To illustrate this, let’s assume a scenario. You are working in your garden, clearing under a rose bush, when you are startled by a small snake. You reflexively jerk your arm back and cut your forearm on one of those monstrous thorns that reside at the base of the rose bush. You now are the proud owner of a 4-inch gash on your forearm. You know you should go inside, and clean and bandage it, but you are nearly done and it is getting dark, so you blot it with a towel (that isn’t too dirty) and keep working.

Two days later, your forearm is swollen, red, painful, and hot to the touch. You go to your MD and tell them of your gardening misadventure. This is the subjective portion of the encounter. The doctor then examines your arm, noting the redness and swelling, and how you flinch when they instinctively touch the sorest point on your arm. They order a CBC and note an elevated white count. This is the objective portion of the encounter.

The doctor determines that you have an infection. This is their assessment. They write you a prescription for a course of amoxicillin and tell you to take four pills each day for the next 10 days, and to come back if the arm gets worse or if the pain, swelling, and redness are not gone by the time the pills are gone. This is their plan.

You take the prescription to your pharmacy and purchase 40 units of therapy, which you take home and self-administer. By the time the pills are gone the pain and swelling are nothing more than a bad memory. You are done and the whole episode lasted less than two weeks. This is how a medical doctor practices.

Chiropractors practice similarly, but with a few significant differences. When you jerked away from the snake, you felt a “pop” in your low back and the pain has been getting progressively worse and has started to radiate down your right leg. You go to your chiropractor and tell them of your gardening misadventure, and that the pain is getting worse and radiating down your right leg. This is the subjective portion of the encounter and is essentially the same as it was with the medical doctor.

There are more articles like this @:

The new SOAP Notes Page and our

Documentation Section

(more…)

SOAP Notes: Is It Time for a Cleaning?

By |May 17, 2013|Documentation|

SOAP Notes: Is It Time for a Cleaning?

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Dynamic Chiropractic – May 15, 2013

By James Edwards, DC


I have been planning for some time to write an article about how traditional SOAP notes do not fit chiropractic practice, and the unfairness of holding DCs to a model clearly created for and primarily applicable to medical physicians.

But Dr. Ronald Short beat me to the punch with his outstanding article:
“SOAP: A Chiropractic Perspective” [March 1, 2013 issue], in which he masterfully illustrated the problem. Hopefully, claim reviewers and documentation gurus will finally realize the difference between a chiropractic “assessment” visit and a chiropractic “treatment” visit.

As Dr. Short so ably pointed out, to require orthopedic and neurological testing on each chiropractic visit is the equivalent of requiring a medical doctor to perform blood tests after each antibiotic pill. I could not have said it better myself.

It is important to remember that doctors of chiropractic are unique because we wear two very different hats. First, we are physicians who examine and diagnose (assessment) the patient. Then, after doing so, we carry out our treatment plan by providing care (treatment) to the patient. Failing to realize the distinct difference between a chiropractic “assessment” visit and a chiropractic “treatment” visit places undue, unfair and unnecessary examination and documentation requirements on doctors of chiropractic, and it is time for it to stop.

This problem has been known for years, yet no one has been successful in sensitizing the chiropractic “powers that be” about this unfairness. The American Chiropractic Association’s Clinical Documentation Committee, during the process of authoring the third edition of the ACA Clinical Documentation Manual, attempted to directly address the issue by approving and submitting the following provision:

There are more articles like this @:

The new SOAP Notes Page and our

Documentation Section

It is important to understand that the chiropractic physician has two responsibilities to their patients.

(more…)

A Comprehensive Review of Chiropractic Research

By |May 14, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Spinal Manipulation|

A Comprehensive Review of Chiropractic Research

The Chiro.Org Blog


You will love this Comprehensive Review of Chiropractic Research, by Anthony L. Rosner, Ph.D., Director of Research and Education for the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) until its demise (1992-2007), and current Director of Research for the International College of Applied Kinesiology (USA).



I. Introduction

A. Perspectives:

In the space of just 115 years from its inception, chiropractic has emerged as the third largest healthcare profession in the United States offering diagnostic as well as therapeutic services to patients. It has reached this lofty height driven by research which has made particularly dramatic strides over the past 30 years, supported by a budget which represents merely an infinitesimal fraction of that applied to medical and pharmaceutical research.

Like all health professions, chiropractic regularly tests the effectiveness, safety, and costs of its approaching health care. Studies continue to show that chiropractors offer the public a viable alternative to invasive healthcare (drugs, surgery) especially in the treatment of musculoskeletal problems such as back, neck, and headache pain. But chiropractic treatments are likewise effective in the treatment of non-musculoskeletal health issues, including infantile colic, enuresis, asthma, dysmenorrheal, otitis media, hypertension, and heart rate variability. And few medical professions outside of chiropractic can offer such healthcare solutions with equal safety and cost records.

Having been historically been placed in the category of “alternative and complementary” medicine, chiropractic because of its rapid growth in its research has now been deemed to have reached the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. [1] As a hybrid, it appears to have successfully incorporated many of the research methodologies of orthodox medicine while striving to maintain its distinct healthcare paradigm. Indeed, when the practitioner’s primary means of patient care and published randomized clinical trials supporting that intervention are matched, chiropractic can be shown to enjoy a higher percentage of interventions thus supported when compared to such other medical disciplines as general practice, inpatient general surgery, dermatology, or hematology-oncology. [2] In other words, chiropractic can now claim to have attained at least as much of a scientific grounding as other medical interventions based upon its research.

So what is it that one means by chiropractic research? The research related to the practice of chiropractic, to be reviewed in this chapter, has been presented in multiple dimensions, including:

  1. Published clinical articles;
  2. Literature reviews;
  3. Surveys and public opinion research;
  4. Analyses of insurance claims [actuarial research]; and
  5. Guidelines

B. First major interdisciplinary cohort study:

(more…)

Get the Lead Out!

By |May 13, 2013|Iatrogenic Injury, Pediatrics, Pregnancy, Supplementation|

Get the Lead Out!

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   MedPage Today ~ May 13, 2013

By Nancy Walsh, Staff Writer, MedPage Today


When the FDA finally got around to testing 324 multivitamin-mineral products that target children and pregnant women, they found that only 4 of them were lead-free.   [1]

Now, new research published in the Pediatrics Journal suggests that even low levels of lead in a supplement can have adverse effects on your children.   [2]   Why not use a supplement made correctly, so you can protect your family?


Here’s the Bad news from MedPage Today:


Even Low Lead Exposure Hinders Kids’ Reading


Young children exposed to lead — even at low levels — are at risk for not meeting reading readiness benchmarks in kindergarten, a large study of urban children found.

On tests of reading readiness, children with blood lead levels between 5 and 9 µg/dL scored 4.5 points (95% CI −2.9 to −6.2) lower than those with levels below 5 µg/dL, according to Pat McLaine, DPH, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore, and colleagues.

And those with lead levels of 10 µg/dL and higher had scores 10.1 points (95% CI −7 to −13.3) lower, the researchers reported online in Pediatrics.  [2] (more…)