DC and MD/DO

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

vanbamm

VanbammDC
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
2
I am a first year chiropractic student, and from what I have been exposed to, there has been a lot of different opinions about DC from MD, and DO in the past...I think this is a new generation of people with new creative ideas, and as a DC student, I wanted to know the opinions of current MD/ DO students out there on this...I feel like there is room for integration between the fields in clinical settings, which has been coming along slowly, even in some hospital settings...feel free to leave your thoughts and comments
 
I am a first year chiropractic student, and from what I have been exposed to, there has been a lot of different opinions about DC from MD, and DO in the past...I think this is a new generation of people with new creative ideas, and as a DC student, I wanted to know the opinions of current MD/ DO students out there on this...I feel like there is room for integration between the fields in clinical settings, which has been coming along slowly, even in some hospital settings...feel free to leave your thoughts and comments

First adapt evidence based medicine, then we'll talk.
 
i see no room for integration. Just heard a case on wed where a chiro didnt palpate a guys abdomen after he complained of back pain, completely missing the huge mass in is abdomen. guy is gonna die.
 
Some new/old school chiropractors forget that you have to think about pathology first then keep in mind the psychosocial issues. Know when to tell someone to see their physician. Often, people who go to chiropractors have tried traditional medicine and it hasn't worked well for them.
 
Well I admittedly am not familiar with the varying curricula in DC schools so at this point my tendency would be to not refer to a DC pretty much ever. When there is an opportunity for a patient to need manipulation of some kind, I would refer to PT or OT.

There is way too much non-evidence based stuff going on in a DC's office generally for it to feel like a good idea to me. Granted there are some DCs who strictly limit themselves to areas where they could be useful, but far too many get into their subluxation nonsense and ruin it for everyone.
 
vanbamm,

Trying to open any reasonable dialogue here on this subject is useless. I know you were hoping for otherwise, but it just ain't gonna happen in here. Please see the "Quacks" thread from Allopathic for an idea of where such a discussion will go.
 
My sister-in-law's chiropractor, who she began seeing initially on the advice of her family doctor following a brutal car wreck, now has her on a strict diet for her endometriosis. It's a dairy-free diet (follow the logic here if you can) because endometriosis is the result of a disseminated abdominal yeast infection and, as we all know, dairy feeds yeast. She's also taking vitamin/mineral supplements as well, and I bet you can guess who sells her the vitamins.

Yeah no I won't be integrating chiro into my practice.
 
vanbamm,

Trying to open any reasonable dialogue here on this subject is useless. I know you were hoping for otherwise, but it just ain't gonna happen in here. Please see the "Quacks" thread from Allopathic for an idea of where such a discussion will go.

facet, are DC's trained to search for all the possible pathologies that could cause back pain? When an obvious Dx like the abdominal mass above is missed, is there a mechanism for disciplinary action against the DC? Can the DC be sued for malpractice? Would it not be safer to have all patients presenting to the DC with back pain screened by their MD prior to initiating chiropractic treatment?
 
Not sure that the opinion of med students is all that valuable. After all... what do we know at this point? And worst yet are the pre-meds, who are so busy acting like they know everything that they missed the fact that they don't know squat yet. I guess we all go through it and it's part of the process. My impression is that once people hit residency, their perspectives broaden somewhat and their opinions start to be more worthwhile.

In the DO world, manipulation is obviously on the radar, but many people eschew it. The people who don't will either do it themselves or probably refer to a DO physiatrist or neuromuscular specialist.

In the MD world, it seems like the family medicine physicians are the ones most interested in or open to integration. I know some chiropractors who have successfully gotten integrated into orthopedics practices too. But they're solid, scientific types. And they don't do anything far out.

There are a lot of chiropractors in integrated settings doing workers comp and industrial medicine in some states. California for example. But it's not the most exciting job, although the $ can be good if you don't mind the paperwork.

I think anybody who's been to a great DC knows how amazing the methods can be. And anyone who's been to a crappy one knows how bad it can be. The problem is people tend to generalize, but in my experience there is a wide range of talent in the chiropractic world.
 
facet, are DC's trained to search for all the possible pathologies that could cause back pain? When an obvious Dx like the abdominal mass above is missed, is there a mechanism for disciplinary action against the DC? Can the DC be sued for malpractice? Would it not be safer to have all patients presenting to the DC with back pain screened by their MD prior to initiating chiropractic treatment?

Would this be a good time to list all the pathologies that I have found that were missed by an attending MD? Of course cases like this happen. And, yes, chiros are taught about pathologies that can lead to back pain. As for the malpractice question, I would think that there would be some degree of liability there, yes.
 
Would this be a good time to list all the pathologies that I have found that were missed by an attending MD? Of course cases like this happen. And, yes, chiros are taught about pathologies that can lead to back pain. As for the malpractice question, I would think that there would be some degree of liability there, yes.

My point wasn't chiros make mistakes and MD's don't. I am aware that MD's make serious mistakes all the time. I am questioning whether a chiropractor is the best first contact for a person with back pain. Back pain can be a symptom of hundreds if not thousands of conditions, many of them life threatening and many of them contraindications for spinal manipulation. Are chiropractors trained to work-up and diagnose for these conditions? Do they even have access to advanced lab tests and diagnostic imaging? I repeat, wouldn't it make sense to require patients to be screened by a physician prior to receiving chiropractic treatment?
 
My point wasn't chiros make mistakes and MD's don't. I am aware that MD's make serious mistakes all the time. I am questioning whether a chiropractor is the best first contact for a person with back pain. Back pain can be a symptom of hundreds if not thousands of conditions, many of them life threatening and many of them contraindications for spinal manipulation. Are chiropractors trained to work-up and diagnose for these conditions?

Yes.

Do they even have access to advanced lab tests and diagnostic imaging?

As soon as chiropractors gain access to such advances as electricity and running water in our offices, we will surely then look into those fancy diagnostic imaging thingys. First things first.
 
Would it not be safer to have all patients presenting to the DC with back pain screened by their MD prior to initiating chiropractic treatment?

I repeat, wouldn't it make sense to require patients to be screened by a physician prior to receiving chiropractic treatment?

Would it not be safer to have medical screening before initiating chiropractic care for back pain and other ailments? I'm not arguing whether chiropractic is effective or not. Can't we agree that patients should have proper medical screening to make sure something more serious than m/s or idiopathic back pain isn't going on?
 
First adapt evidence based medicine, then we'll talk.

👍

Beyond that very important point, however, I am also generally uncomfortable with DC's playing the role of PCP w/o passing medical licensing boards, w/o having at least 3 yrs of medical residency training, and w/o being held to the same standard of pt care that physicians are held to. This is simply scary and dangerous, in my humble opinion. I'm not saying that DC doesn't have it's place, which it does, but it is not at the forefront of medical care.
 
Would it not be safer to have medical screening before initiating chiropractic care for back pain and other ailments? I'm not arguing whether chiropractic is effective or not. Can't we agree that patients should have proper medical screening to make sure something more serious than m/s or idiopathic back pain isn't going on?

If the case requires a medical opinion, then a referral will be made. I do it all the time. And don't kid yourself. I do not assume anything just because a patient is referred to me by their MD. You speak as though that is some kind of guarantee of fool-proof screening.
 
👍

Beyond that very important point, however, I am also generally uncomfortable with DC's playing the role of PCP w/o passing medical licensing boards, w/o having at least 3 yrs of medical residency training, and w/o being held to the same standard of pt care that physicians are held to. This is simply scary and dangerous, in my humble opinion. I'm not saying that DC doesn't have it's place, which it does, but it is not at the forefront of medical care.

Exactly.

If the case requires a medical opinion, then a referral will be made. I do it all the time. And don't kid yourself. I do not assume anything just because a patient is referred to me by their MD. You speak as though that is some kind of guarantee of fool-proof screening.

Again, you misconstrue my point. I would hope that you or any chiropractor would refer to a physician if you discover a pathology needing medical evaluation. But do chiropractors have the proper training and resources to diagnose underlying pathology in all or even most cases? Should they really be the first and perhaps only opinion when a patient presents with undiagnosed pain?
 
Last edited:
Again, you misconstrue my point. I would hope that you or any chiropractor would refer to a physician if you discover a pathology needing medical evaluation. But do chiropractors have the proper training and resources to diagnose underlying pathology in all or even most cases? Should they really be the first and perhaps only opinion when a patient presents with undiagnosed pain?

I think what you are saying is that you are unsure of chiropractic education and training. (Somehow, I get the idea that you believe chiropractic practice consists of telling a patient to lay down on a table while the DC proceeds to recklessly bang away at their spine, but I could be mistaken.) Here is an example curriculum from a chiropractic school:
http://www.nycc.edu/webdocs/registrar/DC_Curriculum.pdf

I don't expect you to suddenly become a fan of chiropractic, but you can at least be assured that your concerns have long ago been addressed. After all, like medical doctors, chiropractors don't enjoy being sued for malpractice either.
 
👍

Beyond that very important point, however, I am also generally uncomfortable with DC's playing the role of PCP w/o passing medical licensing boards, w/o having at least 3 yrs of medical residency training, and w/o being held to the same standard of pt care that physicians are held to. This is simply scary and dangerous, in my humble opinion. I'm not saying that DC doesn't have it's place, which it does, but it is not at the forefront of medical care.

Regarding research/evidence into spinal manipulation, this has been discussed elsewhere, and it is accurate to say that spinal manipulation is very well researched, safe, and effective. If you are unaware of this research, that's on you. And, as also discussed elsewhere, there are plenty of everyday medical practices that are not evidence based, as you know.

As far as "playing the role of PCP", you seem to be confused. DCs don't take medical licensing boards and do medical residencies because DCs are not MDs, nor are they pretending to be. I don't get your point. And why aren't DCs held to the same standard of patient care as MDs? If they weren't, I think a lot of malpractice lawyers would have something to say about it in courts across the country.

And, on behalf of DCs everywhere, thank you for your giving us the permission to practice.:laugh:
 
Regarding research/evidence into spinal manipulation, this has been discussed elsewhere, and it is accurate to say that spinal manipulation is very well researched, safe, and effective. If you are unaware of this research, that's on you. And, as also discussed elsewhere, there are plenty of everyday medical practices that are not evidence based, as you know.

You are twisting words around for your benefit. I agreed with the poster who implied that we don't have much to talk about until you begin to practice evidence-based medicine. Whether evidence exists or not to corroborate your practices isn't the most central point here. The bottom line is that you aren't using the evidence-based medical model, which is the standard of patient care in most of the world.

As far as "playing the role of PCP", you seem to be confused. DCs don't take medical licensing boards and do medical residencies because DCs are not MDs, nor are they pretending to be. I don't get your point. And why aren't DCs held to the same standard of patient care as MDs? If they weren't, I think a lot of malpractice lawyers would have something to say about it in courts across the country.

No, I'm not confused at all. I'm fully aware of all that. What I'm saying is that it's scary to see DC's fronting as, or pushing to become, PCP's. Many responsible DC's don't do that, but there are those who do and it's dangerous. I'd rather not even blur the line. The plain and simple truth is that you aren't physicians. Stay w/in your scope and I don't have a problem with co-existence and even referring out to you for pain that isn't being managed well medically. However, if you start to encroach into my territory, I'm going to want you to be just as qualified to manage patients as I'm going to be. I'm going to want to you to adhere to the same standards of patient care that physicians are being held to...and don't say that you are, because you aren't right now. You know very well that you don't use the medical model and are limited in your scope of practice, so you can't follow the same standard, nor are you held to it.

And, on behalf of DCs everywhere, thank you for your giving us the permission to practice.:laugh:

Just so we are clear, I never had a problem with DC's practicing w/in their scope.
 
Last edited:
You know, there's a lot of 'hoity toity' terms tossed around in this thread. Like Evidence Based Medicine, Licensing, Boards, ect. But ignore all that bureacracy and rules for the moment, and just focus on the core of the issue.

If a persons spine bones are 'misaligned' or out of place, there is a reason they are that way. Various pathologies are involved, but let's keep this simple. I go to the chiropractor, and he pushes on the bones to put them back into place. Again, we could argue that this isn't possible, but let's stick with common sense for the moment.

EXACTLY HOW DOES THIS FIX ANYTHING? HAS ANYONE EVER FIXED A CAR OR ANY MACHINE IN THEIR LIFE? IT NEVER WORKS TO JUST POP SOMETHING BACK INTO PLACE! IF THE PART POPPED OUT OF PLACE, IT'S GOING TO DO SO AGAIN!

Ok, yelling over. It's like the elephant in the room : everyone wants to say chiropractors are no good for other hard to quantify reasons.

Granted, surgery isn't always that effective either...but if you screw one bone into another, or glue them, or cut them out and replace them, there is at least a credible, common sense reason to think that you just might be fixing the problem.

Exercise can work as well, because strengthened muscles can keep all the components in place better. Again, there's a reason to think exercise would sometimes fix the problem. Simple physics : if the muscles generate more force, then they can put more tension on certain parts and make it all work.

But does a chiropractor do either of these things in order to repair someone's back?
 
You know, there's a lot of 'hoity toity' terms tossed around in this thread. Like Evidence Based Medicine, Licensing, Boards, ect. But ignore all that bureacracy and rules for the moment, and just focus on the core of the issue.

If a persons spine bones are 'misaligned' or out of place, there is a reason they are that way. Various pathologies are involved, but let's keep this simple. I go to the chiropractor, and he pushes on the bones to put them back into place. Again, we could argue that this isn't possible, but let's stick with common sense for the moment.

EXACTLY HOW DOES THIS FIX ANYTHING? HAS ANYONE EVER FIXED A CAR OR ANY MACHINE IN THEIR LIFE? IT NEVER WORKS TO JUST POP SOMETHING BACK INTO PLACE! IF THE PART POPPED OUT OF PLACE, IT'S GOING TO DO SO AGAIN!

Ok, yelling over. It's like the elephant in the room : everyone wants to say chiropractors are no good for other hard to quantify reasons.

Granted, surgery isn't always that effective either...but if you screw one bone into another, or glue them, or cut them out and replace them, there is at least a credible, common sense reason to think that you just might be fixing the problem.

Exercise can work as well, because strengthened muscles can keep all the components in place better. Again, there's a reason to think exercise would sometimes fix the problem. Simple physics : if the muscles generate more force, then they can put more tension on certain parts and make it all work.

But does a chiropractor do either of these things in order to repair someone's back?

Well, I never thought I'd be defending chiropracty, but here I am. I agree with some of what you are saying, but you need to consider the interactions between muscle, nerves, and bone. These interrelated elements can interact and feed off of each other, sometimes chronically, during a structural dysfunction, caused by trauma or by defect. Bones don't exist in isolation; when structure is out of place, as you say, it will impact your muscle and nerves, and these, in term, will impact your structure. It's a bit of a positive feedback loop, sometimes involving reflexes. Also, let's not forget local inflammation and it's associated effects. This sequence often results in the obvious muscular, structural, and even neurological signs that we note upon physical examination (restrictions and loss in the range of motion of a joint, diminished muscle strength and reflexes, displacement of bony structures, tissue texture changes, asymmetries, etc.), but also the less quantifiable and specific symptom of pain. There is often the question of which came first and often we don't know. However, if you make a structural or muscular adjustment, you can stop the vicious cycle and hopefully provide some relief for the patient's pain and encourage healing. I'd say that such manual interventions are more like adjuvants than primary therapies.

While it's true that there are pathologies that can't be fixed by manual intervention, a tangible example of where manual therapy can perhaps help "fix" a dysfunction is when you have a severe somatic dysfunction, let's say, of your spine at T5-9, for example. There can be spinal nerve compression at that level that leads to not just local pain (back pain), but a viscerosomatic reflex response, and possible pain and dysfunction at other associated sites, too. You relieve the compression/dysfunction through some muscle energy and HVLA and you could potentially help solve your patient's pain and other potential problems, in conjunction with other modalities, of course. Now, of course, we need to look at what exactly was the root of the patient's spinal dysfunction. Maybe it was a short leg, dysfunctional posture, innominate dysfunction, trauma, or the like. Maybe it has to do with tight muscles or repetitive stress injuries. You take it all into account and consider patient education as well, all in conjunction with conventional and manipulative therapies.

Perhaps even more tangible are gross joint dislocations and neuropathies that are the result of bone displacement and/or muscle/fascial tightness, or the like. You can create very dramatic results with the right type of manual intervention in these cases.

Anyway, I need to get back to studying, but what I'm trying to say is that you should try to look at the whole picture and before throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
Last edited:
You're right, I didn't think of feedback loops. If the pinched nerve is causing spasms that make the nerve get pinched harder, that's a feedback loop. And yeah, just pushing the bone to a new spot, even temporarily, could relieve the problems long enough for the body to heal.

But yeah, it's a really uncertain way to go about doing things, and just cutting the back open and fixing the damage properly is really probably the way to go. Certainly is what I would do if it was my car...

(but the cutting is much riskier than pushing on the bones, and more expensive, so I guess chiropractors do have their role)
 
Well, I never thought I'd be defending chiropracty, but here I am. I agree with some of what you are saying, but you need to consider the interactions between muscle, nerves, and bone. These interrelated elements can interact and feed off of each other, sometimes chronically, during a structural dysfunction, caused by trauma or by defect. Bones don't exist in isolation; when structure is out of place, as you say, it will impact your muscle and nerves, and these, in term, will impact your structure. It's a bit of a positive feedback loop, sometimes involving reflexes. Also, let's not forget local inflammation and it's associated effects. This sequence often results in the obvious muscular, structural, and even neurological signs that we note upon physical examination (restrictions and loss in the range of motion of a joint, diminished muscle strength and reflexes, displacement of bony structures, tissue texture changes, asymmetries, etc.), but also the less quantifiable and specific symptom of pain. There is often the question of which came first and often we don't know. However, if you make a structural or muscular adjustment, you can stop the vicious cycle and hopefully provide some relief for the patient's pain and encourage healing. I'd say that such manual interventions are more like adjuvants than primary therapies.

While it's true that there are pathologies that can't be fixed by manual intervention, a tangible example of where manual therapy can perhaps help "fix" a dysfunction is when you have a severe somatic dysfunction, let's say, of your spine at T5-9, for example. There can be spinal nerve compression at that level that leads to not just local pain (back pain), but a viscerosomatic reflex response, and possible pain and dysfunction at other associated sites, too. You relieve the compression/dysfunction through some muscle energy and HVLA and you could potentially help solve your patient's pain and other potential problems, in conjunction with other modalities, of course. Now, of course, we need to look at what exactly was the root of the patient's spinal dysfunction. Maybe it was a short leg, dysfunctional posture, innominate dysfunction, trauma, or the like. Maybe it has to do with tight muscles or repetitive stress injuries. You take it all into account and consider patient education as well, all in conjunction with conventional and manipulative therapies.

Perhaps even more tangible are gross joint dislocations and neuropathies that are the result of bone displacement and/or muscle/fascial tightness, or the like. You can create very dramatic results with the right type of manual intervention in these cases.

Anyway, I need to get back to studying, but what I'm trying to say is that you should try to look at the whole picture and before throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Maybe you're not so bad afterall.😉
 
You're right, I didn't think of feedback loops. If the pinched nerve is causing spasms that make the nerve get pinched harder, that's a feedback loop. And yeah, just pushing the bone to a new spot, even temporarily, could relieve the problems long enough for the body to heal.

But yeah, it's a really uncertain way to go about doing things, and just cutting the back open and fixing the damage properly is really probably the way to go. Certainly is what I would do if it was my car...

(but the cutting is much riskier than pushing on the bones, and more expensive, so I guess chiropractors do have their role)

Habeed, your concept of how chiropractors help people is VERY rudimentary. If you are going to criticize chiropractic, at least sound like you know what you're talking about. Go study more, gain a better understanding of how the human body works, and then I think you'll get it.
 
I think what you are saying is that you are unsure of chiropractic education and training. (Somehow, I get the idea that you believe chiropractic practice consists of telling a patient to lay down on a table while the DC proceeds to recklessly bang away at their spine, but I could be mistaken.) Here is an example curriculum from a chiropractic school:
http://www.nycc.edu/webdocs/registrar/DC_Curriculum.pdf

I don't expect you to suddenly become a fan of chiropractic, but you can at least be assured that your concerns have long ago been addressed. After all, like medical doctors, chiropractors don't enjoy being sued for malpractice either.

And why do I get the feeling that you underestimate medical education? I'm looking at your curriculum which contains one course on "visceral pathology", and then I am thinking about the hundreds of hours of class an MD has which would fall under this umbrella, let alone the 3+ years of 80+hr/wk residency training, a huge portion of which will involve treating "visceral pathology". When you say something like, "If the case requires a medical opinion, then a referral will be made", it means that there are times when you deem your own initial judgment the only evaluation necessary. I'm not even trying to disparage chiropractic, I just don't think it is appropriate to your scope of training to be the first and only point of contact for someone with back pain. A missed diagnosis could mean delay of care, even death, to a patient.

Are you giving that older gentleman with back pain a digital rectal exam and a PSA test? Are you doing thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic exams on your patients? Are you evaluating for MI? Are you even qualified or allowed to do these things?
 
And why do I get the feeling that you underestimate medical education? I'm looking at your curriculum which contains one course on "visceral pathology", and then I am thinking about the hundreds of hours of class an MD has which would fall under this umbrella, let alone the 3+ years of 80+hr/wk residency training, a huge portion of which will involve treating "visceral pathology". When you say something like, "If the case requires a medical opinion, then a referral will be made", it means that there are times when you deem your own initial judgment the only evaluation necessary. I'm not even trying to disparage chiropractic, I just don't think it is appropriate to your scope of training to be the first and only point of contact for someone with back pain. A missed diagnosis could mean delay of care, even death, to a patient.

Are you giving that older gentleman with back pain a digital rectal exam and a PSA test? Are you doing thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic exams on your patients? Are you evaluating for MI? Are you even qualified or allowed to do these things?

As you know, one of the key purposes of taking a good history on a patient is to gain clues as to what is going on in their case. When a patient's history suggests a non-musculoskeletal source, then the physical exam that I do helps confirm my suspicions. When aspects of the history and physical take me in a non-MSK direction, and obviously if there are any 'red flag' signs, then the patient is referred for appropriate testing/consultation. I understand your desire to be thorough and I can appreciate that. But will you send every LBP patient that comes in your office for the entire battery of tests to rule out everything under the sun?? In an ideal world, that would be great. But in reality that cannot happen, primarily for financial reasons, not to mention unnecessary exposure of the patient to radiation and/or other risks of various procedures. No chiropractor believes he/she has all the skills and knowledge of a family physician, neurologist, orthopedist, etc all rolled into one. But we are trained to differentiate what is in our domain and what is not. I can't always say exactly what is wrong with the non-MSK patient without additional testing (and neither can MDs in many cases, by the way), but that's what the testing is for. I've gotta run, but I think you understand my position.

PS I don't underestimate medical education at all. I am in fact seeking it.
 
Last edited:
When a patient's history suggests a non-musculoskeletal source, then the physical exam that I do helps confirm my suspicions. When aspects of the history and physical take me in a non-MSK direction, and obviously if there are any 'red flag' signs, then the patient is referred for appropriate testing/consultation.

Right, I appreciate that and I'm sure DC's are pretty good at evaluating MSK complaints. My knowledge is certainly limited with regard to DC's and I acknowledge that, but I certainly have a great deal of appreciation for manual therapy. However, the question I have and what I'm concerned about is, and I'm sure I'm not in the minority here, are most DC's adequately trained and competent at being primary providers?

Primary care physicians are trained to evaluate a patient broadly and to cast a pretty wide net in developing their differential, making sure to r/o (or r/i) the worst possible things that could present in a similar fashion, if there is a reasonable chance that such a thing could happen; this takes years of training and you have to be exposed to a lot w/in that training. You have to have a strong general foundation in pathophysiology across all organ systems and have been exposed to these pathologies in your training. Does that mean that we are going to send patients to do every lab test in the book? No, of course not. The majority of cases are not that complex and your differential is fairly mundane. However, it takes quite a bit of experience and knowledge, in my opinion, to be able to know the difference between those typical mundane cases from the true Zebra's. For example, most of the time someone coming in to your office presenting with altered LOC, HA, fatigue, diaphoresis, tremors, HTN, heart palpatations, and low serum glucose, tx oral glucose, i.e., Whipple's Triad, it's going to be a case of severe or major hypoglycemia in a diabetic who took too much insulin or sulfonylurea, or a case of excess alcohol consumption, sepsis, or a chronic condition, such as CRF. However, there will be those rarer times when the patient actually has an insulinoma, a psyc condition, other endocrine dysfunctions, or post-prandial reactive secondary to particular surgeries. You need to know when to rule those out or in, run the right tests, and make the necessary consults.

Another example, perhaps more apropos, would be the patients that come in complaining of radiating low back pain secondary to a malignant abdominal mass. You have to be able to get the subtle signs and sometimes you just have to trust your clinical intuition that something isn't right, and develop the right differential which covers your suspicions. That takes years of intensive training. I'm not saying that DC's are incapable of doing that, it's just that I think primary physicians have seen more and learned more. Sometimes if you don't think of it, you'll miss it. Whether we acknowledge this or not, we are all limited by our knowledge set; we tend to see what we know.

My whole point is that I'm not sure I'd trust a DC to make those kinds of calls without getting analogous training that primary care physicians receive, or at least appropriate oversight by a qualified clinician. I'm fine with referrals out to DC's, etc., but I don't see DC's being the primary evaluator for a patient. I certainly wouldn't condone it and wouldn't recommend that route for any patient.
 
Last edited:
FORGET DC BECOME A FULLY EDUCATED PHYSICIAN (a DO) if you still wish to do manipulative or holistic medicine you will have no limitations. Remember D.D. Palmer was a student of A.T. STill, not VICE VERSA
 
I think the scariest thing is the arrogance about your capabilities. An MI does not always present as crushing chest pain radiating to the left arm. It can present as pain almost anywhere in the upper body, as indigestion, or even without any notable symptom at all. It is a diagnosis experienced clinicians miss all the time. Yet you are confident that you will know when to refer to medicine.

Even if you nail the diagnosis and send the patient to the ER, you are still injuring your patient. Being seen by a DC as initial evaluation has delayed the initiation of treatment of that patient. Every minute that ticks away is a loss of myocardium. That extra 30 minutes will kill someone.

Let's say the patient has a lymphoma/leukemia causing pain. Often these pathologies will have no significant history and do not even show up on a radiograph, but a simple CBC would tell you that something is severely wrong. That backache may be the first presentation of disease. Yet you know when you should refer, and when you should treat. This is especially alarming if we believe, as chiropractors claim, that chiropractic care is an effective treatment for pain. With chiropractic care, the patient's one symptom could actually be improved while the malignancy expands unchecked.
 
Right, I appreciate that and I'm sure DC's are pretty good at evaluating MSK complaints. My knowledge is certainly limited with regard to DC's and I acknowledge that, but I certainly have a great deal of appreciation for manual therapy. However, the question I have and what I'm concerned about is, and I'm sure I'm not in the minority here, are most DC's adequately trained and competent at being primary providers?

Primary care physicians are trained to evaluate a patient broadly and to cast a pretty wide net in developing their differential, making sure to r/o (or r/i) the worst possible things that could present in a similar fashion, if there is a reasonable chance that such a thing could happen; this takes years of training and you have to be exposed to a lot w/in that training. You have to have a strong general foundation in pathophysiology across all organ systems and have been exposed to these pathologies in your training. Does that mean that we are going to send patients to do every lab test in the book? No, of course not. The majority of cases are not that complex and your differential is fairly mundane. However, it takes quite a bit of experience and knowledge, in my opinion, to be able to know the difference between those typical mundane cases from the true Zebra's. For example, most of the time someone coming in to your office presenting with altered LOC, HA, fatigue, diaphoresis, tremors, HTN, heart palpatations, and low serum glucose, tx oral glucose, i.e., Whipple's Triad, it's going to be a case of severe or major hypoglycemia in a diabetic who took too much insulin or sulfonylurea, or a case of excess alcohol consumption, sepsis, or a chronic condition, such as CRF. However, there will be those rarer times when the patient actually has an insulinoma, a psyc condition, other endocrine dysfunctions, or post-prandial reactive secondary to particular surgeries. You need to know when to rule those out or in, run the right tests, and make the necessary consults.

Another example, perhaps more apropos, would be the patients that come in complaining of radiating low back pain secondary to a malignant abdominal mass. You have to be able to get the subtle signs and sometimes you just have to trust your clinical intuition that something isn't right, and develop the right differential which covers your suspicions. That takes years of intensive training. I'm not saying that DC's are incapable of doing that, it's just that I think primary physicians have seen more and learned more. Sometimes if you don't think of it, you'll miss it. Whether we acknowledge this or not, we are all limited by our knowledge set; we tend to see what we know.

My whole point is that I'm not sure I'd trust a DC to make those kinds of calls without getting analogous training that primary care physicians receive, or at least appropriate oversight by a qualified clinician. I'm fine with referrals out to DC's, etc., but I don't see DC's being the primary evaluator for a patient. I certainly wouldn't condone it and wouldn't recommend that route for any patient.

If chiropractors around the country are missing lots of diagnoses, where are all these cases? I think if that were true, we would have been sued out of existence long ago by malpractice attorneys. As I mentioned before, my chiro training allows me to differentiate 'typical MSK' from 'atypical' presentations. I don't need to actually perform the biopsy to determine the nature of that mass, I just need to know that mass may exist. Having been in practice for a number of years now, I've had lots of cases where a patient is being managed by one or more MDs, and I've got to say that there is rarely magic on the MD side. An abnormality is suspected, additional testing is sought, and the final diagnosis is made.

I routinely order imaging for cases where indicated. There isn't an 'MD lumbar MRI' and a 'DC lumbar MRI'. There's just a lumbar MRI that would be ordered by anyone seeing that patient. And if it's a test that I don't feel comfortable ordering, out they go to the right MD.

Cases do occasionally come in where a patient has been worked-up extensively on the MD side, nothing definitive turns up, and they show up at my office for treatment of a less-than-textbook MSK condition. For those cases, I tell them that their case is not typical but there is apparently no immediate danger so we'll try a brief course of chiro care. If it helps, great. If not, they get punted back to their MD.
 
FORGET DC BECOME A FULLY EDUCATED PHYSICIAN (a DO) if you still wish to do manipulative or holistic medicine you will have no limitations. Remember D.D. Palmer was a student of A.T. STill, not VICE VERSA

By "Been There", can I infer that you are a DC who went back for DO school?
 
I think the scariest thing is the arrogance about your capabilities. An MI does not always present as crushing chest pain radiating to the left arm. It can present as pain almost anywhere in the upper body, as indigestion, or even without any notable symptom at all. It is a diagnosis experienced clinicians miss all the time. Yet you are confident that you will know when to refer to medicine.

If I cannot reproduce the patient's pain by performing a MSK exam, they do not become my patient (at least not at that time). If their symptom pattern does not follow a typical mechanically-triggered pattern, they are out of my office. And I have had (thankfully only) a couple of patients who did come to me with MI-type symptoms; guess what my decision was?

Even if you nail the diagnosis and send the patient to the ER, you are still injuring your patient. Being seen by a DC as initial evaluation has delayed the initiation of treatment of that patient. Every minute that ticks away is a loss of myocardium. That extra 30 minutes will kill someone.

So I am to blame that this guy walked into my office first? He may have just as well been sitting and waiting in his PCP's office for an hour or more while his myocardium was being lost...you just said he may have had no "notable symptom at all". What, the PCP's receptionist would have diagnosed the guy and called the ambulance?? I think you are way off base here.

Let's say the patient has a lymphoma/leukemia causing pain. Often these pathologies will have no significant history and do not even show up on a radiograph, but a simple CBC would tell you that something is severely wrong. That backache may be the first presentation of disease. Yet you know when you should refer, and when you should treat.

Having back pain is not an automatic indication for chiropractic treatment. Perhaps this is where you are getting hung up. As I mentioned above, a case like this will likely have atypical aspects to it which will raise suspicion. And if it doesn't have atypical aspects and instead presents as a typical MSK case, it will very likely initially go undiagnosed by an MD also.

This is especially alarming if we believe, as chiropractors claim, that chiropractic care is an effective treatment for pain. With chiropractic care, the patient's one symptom could actually be improved while the malignancy expands unchecked.

Yes, the literature is clear that chiropractic care is effective for musculoskeletal pain. Musculoskeletal being the key word here. I don't think there are many studies or claims out there for controlling cancer pain. What makes you think that I could reduce a patient's pain if his pain is generated by a malignancy somewhere? You continue to assume that non-MSK sources of pain will automatically be missed by DCs. As I've stated earlier, if this were the case, don't you think malpractice attorneys would have eaten all us DCs for lunch already?

I can understand that as a student you are still under the belief that MDs catch everything the first time around, don't miss a thing, and that you will never miss anything. You'll just have to take my word for it that, after you've been around the block a time or two, you'll come to realize that your student fantasies are just that.
 
Yes, the literature is clear that chiropractic care is effective for musculoskeletal pain. Musculoskeletal being the key word here. I don't think there are many studies or claims out there for controlling cancer pain. What makes you think that I could reduce a patient's pain if his pain is generated by a malignancy somewhere? You continue to assume that non-MSK sources of pain will automatically be missed by DCs. As I've stated earlier, if this were the case, don't you think malpractice attorneys would have eaten all us DCs for lunch already?

I can understand that as a student you are still under the belief that MDs catch everything the first time around, don't miss a thing, and that you will never miss anything. You'll just have to take my word for it that, after you've been around the block a time or two, you'll come to realize that your student fantasies are just that.

The old facetguy strawman strategy. I don't assume all non-MSK sources will be missed by a chiropractor, or that all MSK sources will be caught by a chiropractor, for that matter. Nor do I believe that MD's will catch everything, are perfect, or anything like that. I never said anything to suggest that.

I proposed that it is inappropriate for a DC to be the first consult for unexplained pain. I based this on the facts that DC's are not trained in this kind of broad diagonosis, they lack the resources and skill set to pull it off, and that pain is a presenting symptom of lots of dangerous pathology for which timely diagnosis and treatment is highly beneficial to the patient's health. I admit it's an opinion, one which you don't share for obvious reasons.

I may be a lowly medical student talking to a chiropractic attending, but I've spent a lot of time in the medical world, and I've seen the good and the bad. I hold no illusions about medicine's faults and shortcomings. You on the other hand, cannot admit that chiropractic may have some shortcomings of its own, and seem outraged that we would even consider that a chiropractor is an inappropriate first contact for a patient.
 
The old facetguy strawman strategy. I don't assume all non-MSK sources will be missed by a chiropractor, or that all MSK sources will be caught by a chiropractor, for that matter. Nor do I believe that MD's will catch everything, are perfect, or anything like that. I never said anything to suggest that.

I proposed that it is inappropriate for a DC to be the first consult for unexplained pain. I based this on the facts that DC's are not trained in this kind of broad diagonosis, they lack the resources and skill set to pull it off, and that pain is a presenting symptom of lots of dangerous pathology for which timely diagnosis and treatment is highly beneficial to the patient's health. I admit it's an opinion, one which you don't share for obvious reasons.

I may be a lowly medical student talking to a chiropractic attending, but I've spent a lot of time in the medical world, and I've seen the good and the bad. I hold no illusions about medicine's faults and shortcomings. You on the other hand, cannot admit that chiropractic may have some shortcomings of its own, and seem outraged that we would even consider that a chiropractor is an inappropriate first contact for a patient.

First, I meant no disrespect by pointing out you are a student. I'm sorry you took it that way.

I think I've been clear in my position, that DCs are trained to pick up on cases that don't belong in our offices and to deal with them appropriately. You disagree. What else can I say?

And I'm hardly outraged. As a chiro who has been around awhile, I've developed a pretty thick skin. I'm just glad we've at least moved beyond the "chiropractors are quacks" thing. If you wish to screen your patients before sending them to me, I've got no problem with that. Screen away.
 
I think what you are saying is that you are unsure of chiropractic education and training. (Somehow, I get the idea that you believe chiropractic practice consists of telling a patient to lay down on a table while the DC proceeds to recklessly bang away at their spine, but I could be mistaken.) Here is an example curriculum from a chiropractic school:
http://www.nycc.edu/webdocs/registrar/DC_Curriculum.pdf

I don't expect you to suddenly become a fan of chiropractic, but you can at least be assured that your concerns have long ago been addressed. After all, like medical doctors, chiropractors don't enjoy being sued for malpractice either.

I will say that I am impressed that DC curriculum automatically includes formal instruction on the the business side of things (see last two trimesters). In med school, we're expected to acquire that information, which EVERY physician will utilize to some degree (obviously varies widely depending on whether they go into private practice), on our own. Every physician doesn't necessarily need an MBA, but it would be nice to be given at least some sort of rudimentary introduction to the business of medicine.
 
Haven't read the other posts extensively, and I'm only a pre-med, but for what it's worth, I used to play football and eventually was injured with a herniated disc somewhere in my neck. At first I went to the chiropractor because I thought it was just sore, but the pain came back, so I went to an MD and he gave me the low down on what was wrong with me.


In any case though, just this year my health insurance now covers chiropractic treatments.
 
Haven't read the other posts extensively, and I'm only a pre-med, but for what it's worth, I used to play football and eventually was injured with a herniated disc somewhere in my neck. At first I went to the chiropractor because I thought it was just sore, but the pain came back, so I went to an MD and he gave me the low down on what was wrong with me.


In any case though, just this year my health insurance now covers chiropractic treatments.

I hope your neck is feeling better these days. As for insurances covering chiro, virtually all plans have chiro coverage. Although, with shrinking reimbursements and rising copays/deductibles, this isn't necessarily a good thing for doctor or patient!
 
I am a first year chiropractic student, and from what I have been exposed to, there has been a lot of different opinions about DC from MD, and DO in the past...I think this is a new generation of people with new creative ideas, and as a DC student, I wanted to know the opinions of current MD/ DO students out there on this...I feel like there is room for integration between the fields in clinical settings, which has been coming along slowly, even in some hospital settings...feel free to leave your thoughts and comments
I am a 3rd year chiropractic and master's sports rehab student, i also study Musculosketetal Ultrasound (for extremities only) in radiology dept., my personal opinion about this possible integration is that chiropractic needs to become more scientific based through research not only as nonallopathic but with medical use. For instance, manipulation (not any technique, but highest form of evidence-based), decompression, rehabilitaion methods with use of specific medications for a specified diagnosis. If this could happen and the chiropractic profession would quit allowing some of these doctors to treat patients for (subluxations only) and try to provide evidence for their technique with double blinded studies so all physicians know the truth about chiropractic. We know its benefits, but we don't really know what is happening in the direct joints being manipulated and rehabilitated or the ones above and below, nor what is happened exactly with the surrounding soft tissue. There are way too many chirodocs out there using crazy techniques and giving nutrition prescriptions without the knowledge and evidence. This in my personal opinion and it is hurting healthcare. There are faults to every form of treating a diagnosis, but as for our profession we need to be more respected by providing evidence and for medical physicians to be more aware of the side affects of overmedicating or using a trial and error approach to treating a specific problem. this affects chiropractors, medical doctors, physical therapists, rehab specialists, and most especially the patients care and treatment no matter their choice of physician. Healthcare needs to change and we all need to work together, but without the evidence and research with and without medical use, we can't begin integration! I'm open to anyone's opinions on this matter
 
I am a first year chiropractic student, and from what I have been exposed to, there has been a lot of different opinions about DC from MD, and DO in the past...I think this is a new generation of people with new creative ideas, and as a DC student, I wanted to know the opinions of current MD/ DO students out there on this...I feel like there is room for integration between the fields in clinical settings, which has been coming along slowly, even in some hospital settings...feel free to leave your thoughts and comments

The opinions that you seek here are pretty useless to you in the long run. Medical students (allopathic or osteopathic) have little experience in actual practice management and assume little responsibility for the treatment of patients (this is the role of the attending physician). Very few attending physicians will have use for chiropractic manipulations in their clinical practices especially primary care because of lack of evidence that your techniques are of benefit to them.

Your best source of referrals/collaboration might be from physicians who practice chronic pain/neurology/PM&R which are sub specialties. You might get better "integration" from these sub specialists in the clinical setting because of the types of patients that they treat.

As an attending surgeon, I can't find much "common" area that I would utilize the services of a chiropractor. For me to incorporate anything new into my practice, it has to pass the evidence-based medicine treatment tests and also conform to acceptable treatments for said condition.

As a professor in two medical schools on both the basic science and clinical sides, I can't see where there is going to be much overlap. It will be incumbent upon you (as the practitioner of your professor) to provide the evidence to those that you wish to collaborate with in the future. Perhaps you might want to move in that direction.
 
The opinions that you seek here are pretty useless to you in the long run. Medical students (allopathic or osteopathic) have little experience in actual practice management and assume little responsibility for the treatment of patients (this is the role of the attending physician). Very few attending physicians will have use for chiropractic manipulations in their clinical practices especially primary care because of lack of evidence that your techniques are of benefit to them.

I disagree a bit here on the primary care issue. It's been my experience that primary care docs are not unwilling to refer their neck and back pain cases to chiros, at least to chiros in the community who practice in a responsible manner and don't make all kinds of bizarre claims. Chiropractic may not be first on their list, but if meds, PT and time all fail then I don't think there is necessarily resistance. This is particularly true for DOs, whose training at least introduced them to manual therapies.

Your best source of referrals/collaboration might be from physicians who practice chronic pain/neurology/PM&R which are sub specialties. You might get better "integration" from these sub specialists in the clinical setting because of the types of patients that they treat.

This is very true (except the neurologist part, in my experience). I have 3 pain practices that refer to me.

As an attending surgeon, I can't find much "common" area that I would utilize the services of a chiropractor. For me to incorporate anything new into my practice, it has to pass the evidence-based medicine treatment tests and also conform to acceptable treatments for said condition.

I've seen a couple of RCTs in NEJM that showed that arthroscopic surgery for knee OA is worthless. Has this practice been impacted at all by this evidence? And what is your feeling regarding the popular practice of off-label drug prescription in terms of its seeming conflict with evidence based practice?

As a professor in two medical schools on both the basic science and clinical sides, I can't see where there is going to be much overlap. It will be incumbent upon you (as the practitioner of your professor) to provide the evidence to those that you wish to collaborate with in the future. Perhaps you might want to move in that direction.

Good advice. I think this is how chiropractors end up collaborating with their medical colleagues, more of a one-on-one relationship as opposed to some larger profession-wide movement.
 
I've seen a couple of RCTs in NEJM that showed that arthroscopic surgery for knee OA is worthless. Has this practice been impacted at all by this evidence? And what is your feeling regarding the popular practice of off-label drug prescription in terms of its seeming conflict with evidence based practice?

Just because you can find examples where physicians neglect evidence based principles doesn't mean chiropractic shouldn't prove the efficacy and safety of its own practices. Surgeons practicing the standard of care will not perform arthroscopy for OA, and if they do they will be subject to refusal of payment by insurance and open to lawsuits when something goes wrong.

Off-label prescription, while at times shady, is often necessary, as there is little money for formal drug trials on older generic drugs for which new uses are discovered. It's not as if doctors just try whatever drug they want willy-nilly. There is usually independent evidence of efficacy and safety short of a full blown drug trial. This practice is permitted by US law.
 
Last edited:
Just because you can find examples where physicians neglect evidence based principles doesn't mean chiropractic shouldn't prove the efficacy and safety of its own practices. Surgeons practicing the standard of care will not perform arthroscopy for OA, and if they do they will be subject to refusal of payment by insurance and open to lawsuits when something goes wrong.

Off-label prescription, while at times shady, is often necessary, as there is little money for formal drug trials on older generic drugs for which new uses are discovered. It's not as if doctors just try whatever drug they want willy-nilly. There is usually independent evidence of efficacy and safety short of a full blown drug trial. This practice is permitted by US law.

Dude, don't be so defensive. I'm not trying to shift the focus. I was genuinely curious because I tend to hear a lot about evidence-based medicine, which I think is a good thing, but there are sometimes these glaring exceptions that no one seems to address or question, at least from my admittedly limited vantage point. Perhaps they are discussed in some circles, I don't know. But in my practice alone, I've had two patients in the last few weeks who have undergone arthroscopy for knee OA, and I didn't hear much about the supporting evidence.

And you do bring up a good point as to lack of funding for trials involving old drugs. Imagine if you didn't have Big Pharma (or the NIH) kicking in huge dollars for research. That's the constant uphill battle the chiropractic profession faces when it comes to doing research.

(Serious question, not a poke in the eye) Is off-label prescribing restricted to older generics?
 
No it isn't limited. Physicians are permitted to prescribe any approved drug for off-label uses, as long as it is appropriate in their professional judgment. Of course they will, as always, be subject to lawsuit and/or professional action if they do something injurious.
 
a case on wed where a chiro didnt palpate a guys abdomen after he complained of back pain, completely missing the huge mass in is abdomen. guy is gonna die.

wow thats a bad chiro, he should have thought and screened for that possibility.
 
wow thats a bad chiro, he should have thought and screened for that possibility.
I agree that was completely ignorant for that chiropractor to not check the associated abdominal area related the the back region of pain, especially if this was reffered pain from that organ. He should know that, but some docs ignore that and think it is in the spine always and that is no clinical way of thinking.
 
wow thats a bad chiro, he should have thought and screened for that possibility.

Bear in mind that this is an n=1 and not an indictment of an entire profession. If we were to begin citing individual screw-ups, we'd find them in all disciplines of healthcare.
 
I am an internist (MD).

I think the chiropractic profession would make more headway in getting MD and DO's to want to work with you if there weren't chiropractors around who do really wacky things. I mean, some are selling their patients vitamins of dubious or no benefit, and some are telling patients they have "disseminated yeast infections" when there is no evidence of that. Also, they need more research/trials to show that chiropractic techniques are effective...I think it's probably hard to do, though, since I'll bet a lot of it depends on the skill of the person doing the techniques. Many MD/DO's also are familiar with the risks of stroke after chiropractic manipulation in people who have carotid artery dz, so chiropractic gets a bad name for that reason. I actually believe that chiropractic could be useful for some back and hip pain, etc. ...it seems logical that it could but it's a shame there isn't more extensive research about these techniques.

Finally, although there are unscrupulous MD/DO's, it seems to me from my personal experience that there are more shady chiros who seem to be willing to do anything for money. It's a shame b/c I think it leads to all of them getting tarred with the same brush. I personally had a roommate who was getting over influenza, was feeling a bit run down and went to see a chiro...he basically told her she needed to come back to his office every week for the next 8 weeks, or she was basically going to die or something. It was RIDICULOUS. He left a message on our answering machine that was basically kind of scary, making it sound like she had some deadly health problem that only HE could fix. Luckily, I was in 1st year of med school at the time, and put a stop to that nonsense ASAP. With a little R and R, she was fine in a week. Another thing that I think is bad is that some of the DC's seem to go around telling their patients that we (MD's) are somehow in a conspiracy with the drug companies and that we just don't want patients to get better because we are all evil and money grubbing and just want to poison patients with a bunch of pills, and that is totally not true.

As far as knee arthroscopy for OA, there's not much evidence that it helps...unless the patient has mechanical symptoms such as the knee locking up on them, etc. In those cases there is evidence of benefit, probably b/c the orthopod might be able to find the problematic area(s) and clean them up. I think a lot fewer patients with OA are getting knee arthroscopy now that the NEJM published that study...I certainly don't recommend it to any of my patients with garden variety OA knee pain.
 
I agree with dragonfly. I have no problem with Chiros that stay within their boundaries. But I see advertisements for chiros who say that spinal manipulatation can cure allergies and asthma. Others that say that immunization is a scam and that manipulation can boost the immune system making immunization unnecessary? My question for the chiros on the board. Why aren't you policing yourself? If I did what many chiros are doing, I'd lose my medical license. Your chiro brethren are committing blatant fraud, why don't you fix it.

It's not just the charlatans that bother me. For many, if not most chiropractors, it's business first, medicine second. How many patient's get X-rays? What percentage need maintenance therapy? What about the requirement of many chiropractic schools for their students to bring in a certain number of patients to pass.

This is not to say that the medical community doesn't have problems, we certainly do.

Ed
 
Top