Withdrawal rates as a consequence of disclosure of risk associated with manipulation of the cervical spine.

BACKGROUND: The risk associated with cervical manipulation is controversial. Research in this area is widely variable but as yet the risk is not easily quantifiable. This presents a problem when informing the patient of risks when seeking consent and information may be withheld due to the fear of patient withdrawal from care. As yet, there is a lack of research into the frequency of risk disclosure and consequent withdrawal from manipulative treatment as a result. This study seeks to investigate the reality of this and to obtain insight into the attitudes of chiropractors towards informed consent and disclosure. METHODS: Questionnaires were posted to 200 UK chiropractors randomly selected from the register of the General Chiropractic Council. RESULTS: A response rate of 46% (n = 92) was achieved. Thirty-three per cent (n = 30) respondents were female and the mean number of years in practice was 10. Eighty-eight per cent considered explanation of the risks associated with any recommended treatment important when obtaining informed consent. However, only 45% indicated they always discuss this with patients in need of cervical manipulation. When asked whether they believed discussing the possibility of a serious adverse reaction to cervical manipulation could increase patient anxiety to the extent there was a strong possibility the patient would refuse treatment, 46% said they believed this could happen. Nonetheless, 80% said they believed they had a moral/ethical obligation to disclose risk associated with cervical manipulation despite these concerns. The estimated number of withdrawals throughout respondents' time in practice was estimated at 1 patient withdrawal for every 2 years in practice. CONCLUSION: The withdrawal rate from cervical manipulation as a direct consequence of the disclosure of associated serious risks appears unfounded. However, notwithstanding legal obligations, reluctance to disclose risk due to fear of increasing patient anxiety still remains, despite acknowledgement of moral and ethical responsibility.

Consent: its practices and implications in United kingdom and United States chiropractic practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the implementation of consent procedures in a sample of chiropractors in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) and how well they satisfy the core ethical principles of autonomy, veracity, justice, nonmaleficence, and beneficence. METHODS: A precoded questionnaire was sent to 500 geographically stratified, randomly selected chiropractors in the UK and 500 similarly selected chiropractors within 10 states (50 from each) across the US. Questionnaires were dispatched 100 per month over a 5-month period. Nonresponders were followed up twice. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data were charted and examined for emergent themes. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 35% (346 of 1000), equating to 23% (n = 117) of the US and 46% (n = 231) of the UK cohort. Results suggest chiropractors view consent as an event rather than a process and revealed important omissions in key areas. Reasons specified for the nondisclosure of risk have important negative implications on the principles of autonomy, veracity, and justice, whereas paternalistic tendencies are indicative of tension between beneficence and paternalism. CONCLUSION: Results from this survey suggest a patient's autonomy and right to self-determination may be compromised when seeking chiropractic care. Difficulties and omissions in the implementation of valid consent processes appear common, particularly in relation to risk. Practitioners felt that a serious adverse event occurred so infrequently that this, coupled with a lack of convincing evidence regarding the risk associated with certain treatment, rendered the routine discussion of major risk unnecessary.

Psychosocial factors and their predictive value in chiropractic patients with low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Being able to estimate the likelihood of poor recovery from episodes of back pain is important for care. Studies of psychosocial factors in inception cohorts in general practice and occupational populations have begun to make inroads to these problems. However, no studies have yet investigated this in chiropractic patients. METHODS: A prospective inception cohort study of patients presenting to a UK chiropractic practice for new episodes of non-specific low back pain (LBP) was conducted. Baseline questionnaires asked about age, gender, occupation, work status, duration of current episode, chronicity, aggravating features and bothersomeness using Deyo's 'Core Set'. Psychological factors (fear-avoidance beliefs, inevitability, anxiety/distress and coping, and co-morbidity were also assessed at baseline. Satisfaction with care, number of attendances and pain impact were determined at 6 weeks. Predictors of poor outcome were sought by the calculation of relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Most patients presented within 4 weeks of onset. Of 158 eligible and willing patients, 130 completed both baseline and 6-week follow-up questionnaires. Greatest improvements at 6 weeks were in interference with normal work (ES 1.12) and LBP bothersomeness (ES 1.37). Although most patients began with moderate-high back pain bothersomeness scores, few had high psychometric ones. Co-morbidity was a risk for high-moderate interference with normal work at 6 weeks (RR 2.37; 95% C.I. 1.15-4.74). An episode duration of >4 weeks was associated with moderate to high bothersomeness at 6 weeks (RR 2.07; 95% C.I. 1.19-3.38) and negative outlook (inevitability) with moderate to high interference with normal work (RR 2.56; 95% C.I. 1.08-5.08). CONCLUSION: Patients attending a private UK chiropractic clinic for new episodes of non-specific LBP exhibited few psychosocial predictors of poor outcome, unlike other patient populations that have been studied. Despite considerable bothersomeness at baseline, scores were low at follow-up. In this independent health sector back pain population, general health and duration of episode before consulting appeared more important to outcome than psychosocial factors.

Consent or submission? The practice of consent within UK chiropractic.

BACKGROUND: A patient's right to accept or reject proposed treatment is both an ethical and legal tenet. Valid consent is a multifaceted, controversial and often complicated process, yet practitioners are obligated to try to obtain consent from their patients. Its omission is a common basis for malpractice suits and increasing utilization of complementary and alternative services in conventional medical settings is intensifying the focus on medical liability issues. This has important implications for individual professions and their members. OBJECTIVE: To investigate approaches to consent among a small (n = 150) sample of practicing UK chiropractors. RESULTS: Of 150 randomly selected chiropractic practitioners in the United Kingdom, 55% responded. Of these, 25% report not informing patients of physical examination procedures prior to commencement. By contrast, only 6% do not fully explain proposed treatment, although over one-third do not advise patients of alternative available treatments. Nearly two-thirds of the practitioners report that there are no specific procedures for which they always obtain written consent and 18% that there are no instances in which they document when verbal consent has been obtained. Ninety-three percent said they always discuss minor risk with their patients but only 23% report always discussing serious risk. When treatment carries a possible risk of a major side-effect only 14% of the sample obtain formal written consent. Documentation of patient understanding is omitted by 75% of practitioners in this sample. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that valid consent procedures are either poorly understood or selectively implemented by UK chiropractors.

Third Prize: Chiropractic and the national health care system: a basis for partnership in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Changes in United Kingdom (UK) health care policy and legislation have the potential to radically change care for patients with musculoskeletal conditions by widening access to manipulation services under its National Health Service (NHS). OBJECTIVE: To investigate chiropractors past and current provision of musculoskeletal services for NHS patients and optimal future arrangements. METHODS: One thousand forty-two UK chiropractors on professional registers were sent a 2-part questionnaire. The profession was divided into 2 groups and each group answered part of the questionnaire from either a practitioner or patient perspective. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent responded. Of these, 29% had previously provided services for NHS patients, and 18% were currently providing them, reporting moderate to high levels of satisfaction. Ninety-five percent were interested in future arrangements but on a part-time basis and in a way that most closely resembled private practice. CONCLUSION: The majority of UK chiropractors favor future partnership with the NHS. National health care reform and the statutory self-regulation of chiropractors have brought this closer to a more widespread reality. However, to prosper in this setting, the profession may benefit from a greater understanding of the competing priorities and constraints faced by NHS purchasers, who, for their part, should be prepared to implement policy based on evidence.