OMM private practice as a psychiatrist?

[whopper]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Everything is all about communication. If you feel like the patient's chronic anxiety is giving them more neck tension than normal, and that you could do a structural exam/myofascial to the neck/cranial OMM to fix that, I don't see why a consenting adult cannot talk out such an agreement with a physician, regardless of the specialty.

Unless there's an evidence base, then it's not "all about communication." It's pretty much then a laying-on-hands with a professional making it out as if it's legitimate treatment. It's as valid as chiropractors claiming energy-fields from their hands can treat HIV and yes some have done that.

Now is there an evidence base? Not that I know of. Feel free to show me any. I mean this very seriously. We should be open to real evidenced based data. There was day and age where doctors laughed at accupuncture without any actual study of it but data shows it can work in some applications.

If there's no evidence-base then not only would I say not to try OMM, I would also strongly question those advocating it as to why they would do so without an evidence base (did you learn the point of all those science classes?), and then even go as far as to say are they idiots for advocating for something without an evidence base and in a practice similar to other forms of alleged treatment that have been proven to be snake oil. And I'd also ask, that Jedi Temple you thought you joined? No it's not real, and you should literally get yourself checked out by a colleague or peer for to go over your practice cause what else are you advocating that Qui Gon Jinn told you was alright?

Sorry for the sarcasm but there are idiots who do the above. The sarcasm wasn't directed to Amberrambler but more out of frustration with seeing so many so-called professionals advocating BS.

Again, feel free to show me any evidence. You might just change my mind.

Another thing, touch could have some beneficial psychological aspects as is seen in massage. This is not, however, OMM. The massages should be left to massage therapists and not psychiatrists due to the boundary violations. If someone wanted to argue the massage angle, ok I get it, but then call it that and not OMM.

I've written prescriptions for massages, but no, I do not show up to my patients while they lay naked on a massage table, while I play soft music, and tell them what is the sound of one hand clapping while I massage them, and for obvious reasons.

 

[TexasPhysician]

I don’t see a problem with practicing OMM at 1 center and psychiatry at another.

 

[Mass Effect]

I just want to put it out there I'm digging the synthesis, I'm a DO and in psychiatry. I've gone so far as working cranial and assert the utility of stimulating glymphatics and lymphatic system for effective drug delivery and stimulating immune system.

Naysayors can google research coming out of texas looking at use of omt for cancer and gi diseases. They have studies on omt adjunct to abx to treat pneumonia and shorten course of symptoms and shorter length of stay.

All of this to say is the mash up is out there. I'll PM you a name of someone I reached out to when I was wrapping med school who is triple boarded and private practice.

I discredit anything involving cranial.

Unless there's an evidence base, then it's not "all about communication." It's pretty much then a laying-on-hands with a professional making it out as if it's legitimate treatment. It's as valid as chiropractors claiming energy-fields from their hands can treat HIV and yes some have done that.

Now is there an evidence base? Not that I know of. Feel free to show me any. I mean this very seriously. We should be open to real evidenced based data. There was day and age where doctors laughed at accupuncture without any actual study of it but data shows it can work in some applications.

If there's no evidence-base then not only would I say not to try OMM, I would also strongly question those advocating it as to why they would do so without an evidence base (did you learn the point of all those science classes?), and then even go as far as to say are they idiots for advocating for something without an evidence base and in a practice similar to other forms of alleged treatment that have been proven to be snake oil. And I'd also ask, that Jedi Temple you thought you joined? No it's not real, and you should literally get yourself checked out by a colleague or peer for to go over your practice cause what else are you advocating that Qui Gon Jinn told you was alright?

Sorry for the sarcasm but there are idiots who do the above. The sarcasm wasn't directed to Amberrambler but more out of frustration with seeing so many so-called professionals advocating BS.

Again, feel free to show me any evidence. You might just change my mind.

Another thing, touch could have some beneficial psychological aspects as is seen in massage. This is not, however, OMM. The massages should be left to massage therapists and not psychiatrists due to the boundary violations. If someone wanted to argue the massage angle, ok I get it, but then call it that and not OMM.

I've written prescriptions for massages, but no, I do not show up to my patients while they lay naked on a massage table, while I play soft music, and tell them what is the sound of one hand clapping while I massage them, and for obvious reasons.

What exactly is the difference between some massage techniques and OMM? I think you don't truly understand what OMM is and/or you're focused on one or two techniques you know about and thinks that's all their is to OMM. It's as short-sighted and uninformed as those who claim psychiatry is a sham. There is data about myofascial release, among other treatments, for various physical ailments, most of which exacerbate or trigger psychiatric conditions. The OP is not treating psychosis with OMM. He/she is talking about a side practice with new patients (not the ones being treated psychiatrically by this provider) and I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[clausewitz2]

Doesn't sound appropriate to me in the least at all.

Are we supposed to touch patients for the physical exam? Yes but psychiatrists are usually not in a situation where they are supposed to do the PE. In inpatient I would occasionally do it, but outpatient is different.

You can't do the AIMS without touching the patient. If you are not doing the AIMS, I really hope you're not prescribing neuroleptics for any significant length of time.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm sure there are bits and pieces of OMM that have some effect, but when it still clings to so many things that have been thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience, it's hard to take it seriously as a whole.

 

[whopper]

You can't do the AIMS without touching the patient. If you are not doing the AIMS, I really hope you're not prescribing neuroleptics for any significant length of time.

AIMS has a strong evidence base, it's standard of care, it's to treat a disease where physical examination is crucial.

That's different between a type of therapy where the evidence-base is not established possibly at all from my understanding. Like I said feel free to show me an evidence base with psychiatry and OMM.

I am aware (and I have friends and family that are DOs that I respect) that OMM does have data backing it up, but none of them have ever stated so for psychiatry.

Also, I completely admit my last post got highly sarcastic. I see a lot of quacks out there, I think I was venting but inappropriately cause if there is evidence to back up OMM we should be open to it.

And if there's no data for OMM with psychiatry that doesn't necessarily mean it's out the window. It does then beg that data needs to be accumulated, but until it is, it's use is highly questionable at best, and I would not advocate it's use, merely advocate that there then be a call for studies on it in psychiatry.

A physician practicing something without an evidence base isn't much better (possibly worse) than a witch doctor, unless everything else has been tried, and then it's a grasping for straws. Researchers, clinicians treating serious treatment resistant cases can do this in an ethical manner because everything else has been tried. Utilizing it out of curiosity without an evidence standard ,or because "I believe in it" type explanations without the above situations is bad practice.

 

[Mass Effect]

AIMS has a strong evidence base, it's standard of care, it's to treat a disease where physical examination is crucial.

That's different between a type of therapy where the evidence-base is not established possibly at all from my understanding. Like I said feel free to show me an evidence base with psychiatry and OMM.

I am aware (and I have friends and family that are DOs that I respect) that OMM does have data backing it up, but none of them have ever stated so for psychiatry.

Also, I completely admit my last post got highly sarcastic. I see a lot of quacks out there, I think I was venting but inappropriately cause if there is evidence to back up OMM we should be open to it.

And if there's no data for OMM with psychiatry that doesn't necessarily mean it's out the window. It does then beg that data needs to be accumulated, but until it is, it's use is highly questionable at best, and I would not advocate it's use, merely advocate that there then be a call for studies on it in psychiatry.

A physician practicing something without an evidence base isn't much better (possibly worse) than a witch doctor, unless everything else has been tried, and then it's a grasping for straws. Researchers, clinicians treating serious treatment resistant cases can do this in an ethical manner because everything else has been tried. Utilizing it out of curiosity without an evidence standard ,or because "I believe in it" type explanations without the above situations is bad practice.

OMM and psychiatry is irrelevant to the discussion. The OP was not saying they were going to treat psychiatric patients with OMM. These are independent patients in a private OMM practice.

 

[whopper]

Thanks! Also I apologize for the sarcasm (really) and that distinction you brought up above I read only a few posts and not all of them missing that crucial distinction.

 

[nexus73]

AIMS has a strong evidence base, it's standard of care, it's to treat a disease where physical examination is crucial.

That's different between a type of therapy where the evidence-base is not established possibly at all from my understanding. Like I said feel free to show me an evidence base with psychiatry and OMM.

I am aware (and I have friends and family that are DOs that I respect) that OMM does have data backing it up, but none of them have ever stated so for psychiatry.

Also, I completely admit my last post got highly sarcastic. I see a lot of quacks out there, I think I was venting but inappropriately cause if there is evidence to back up OMM we should be open to it.

And if there's no data for OMM with psychiatry that doesn't necessarily mean it's out the window. It does then beg that data needs to be accumulated, but until it is, it's use is highly questionable at best, and I would not advocate it's use, merely advocate that there then be a call for studies on it in psychiatry.

A physician practicing something without an evidence base isn't much better (possibly worse) than a witch doctor, unless everything else has been tried, and then it's a grasping for straws. Researchers, clinicians treating serious treatment resistant cases can do this in an ethical manner because everything else has been tried. Utilizing it out of curiosity without an evidence standard ,or because "I believe in it" type explanations without the above situations is bad practice.

OMM has a fairly good evidence base, I believe, for musculoskeletal problems (back pain, restricted range of motion type problems), and maybe things like improving rib mobility for patients with pneumonia or COPD. It starts getting more into Jedi Temple voodoo when DOs in Los Angeles are charging $600/hr to treat your ankle pain by holding (AKA "manipulating") your cranial sutures. Or treating your stomach problem by adjusting your spine. The cranial OMM stuff is way out there. Much of the osteopathic treatment that has some evidence base is similar to what physical therapists and massage therapists are doing. Though I'd argue DOs, as physicians, have a better understanding of the underlying anatomy. In my experience massage therapists are pretty indiscriminate when it comes to where and what they're massaging, and DOs get training to be more precise, but I've got no peer reviewed evidence to back that up.

 

[Mad Jack]

Unless there's an evidence base, then it's not "all about communication." It's pretty much then a laying-on-hands with a professional making it out as if it's legitimate treatment. It's as valid as chiropractors claiming energy-fields from their hands can treat HIV and yes some have done that.

Now is there an evidence base? Not that I know of. Feel free to show me any. I mean this very seriously. We should be open to real evidenced based data. There was day and age where doctors laughed at accupuncture without any actual study of it but data shows it can work in some applications.

If there's no evidence-base then not only would I say not to try OMM, I would also strongly question those advocating it as to why they would do so without an evidence base (did you learn the point of all those science classes?), and then even go as far as to say are they idiots for advocating for something without an evidence base and in a practice similar to other forms of alleged treatment that have been proven to be snake oil. And I'd also ask, that Jedi Temple you thought you joined? No it's not real, and you should literally get yourself checked out by a colleague or peer for to go over your practice cause what else are you advocating that Qui Gon Jinn told you was alright?

Sorry for the sarcasm but there are idiots who do the above. The sarcasm wasn't directed to Amberrambler but more out of frustration with seeing so many so-called professionals advocating BS.

Again, feel free to show me any evidence. You might just change my mind.

Another thing, touch could have some beneficial psychological aspects as is seen in massage. This is not, however, OMM. The massages should be left to massage therapists and not psychiatrists due to the boundary violations. If someone wanted to argue the massage angle, ok I get it, but then call it that and not OMM.

I've written prescriptions for massages, but no, I do not show up to my patients while they lay naked on a massage table, while I play soft music, and tell them what is the sound of one hand clapping while I massage them, and for obvious reasons.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

Cochrane review shows it is no better or worse than existing therapies, and they're basically the gold standard of systematic reviews.

 

[Mad Jack]

AIMS has a strong evidence base, it's standard of care, it's to treat a disease where physical examination is crucial.

That's different between a type of therapy where the evidence-base is not established possibly at all from my understanding. Like I said feel free to show me an evidence base with psychiatry and OMM.

I am aware (and I have friends and family that are DOs that I respect) that OMM does have data backing it up, but none of them have ever stated so for psychiatry.

Also, I completely admit my last post got highly sarcastic. I see a lot of quacks out there, I think I was venting but inappropriately cause if there is evidence to back up OMM we should be open to it.

And if there's no data for OMM with psychiatry that doesn't necessarily mean it's out the window. It does then beg that data needs to be accumulated, but until it is, it's use is highly questionable at best, and I would not advocate it's use, merely advocate that there then be a call for studies on it in psychiatry.

A physician practicing something without an evidence base isn't much better (possibly worse) than a witch doctor, unless everything else has been tried, and then it's a grasping for straws. Researchers, clinicians treating serious treatment resistant cases can do this in an ethical manner because everything else has been tried. Utilizing it out of curiosity without an evidence standard ,or because "I believe in it" type explanations without the above situations is bad practice.

OMM for psych is nonsense, I believe OP was talking about OMM as a second practice with non- psychiatric patients

Edit: Ah, I see this was already pointed out!

 

[hamstergang]

AIMS has a strong evidence base, it's standard of care, it's to treat a disease where physical examination is crucial.

That's different between a type of therapy

This discussion of the AIMS has nothing to do with evidence. It's in direct response to your comment that it's inappropriate for a psychiatrist to physically touch their patients.