Chiropractic & Osteopathy
Current impact factor: 0.00
Impact Factor Rankings
|Other titles||Chiropractic & osteopathy (Online), Chiropractic and osteopathy|
|Material type||Document, Periodical, Internet resource|
|Document type||Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper|
- Author can archive a pre-print version
- Author can archive a post-print version
- Publisher's version/PDF may be used
- Eligible UK authors may deposit in OpenDepot
- Creative Commons Attribution License
- Copy of License must accompany any deposit.
- All titles are open access journals
- 'BioMed Central' is an imprint of 'Springer Verlag (Germany)'
Publications in this journal
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The "Put Prevention into Practice" campaign of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) was launched with the dissemination of the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services that recommended standards of clinical care for various prevention activities, including preventive clinical strategies to reduce the risk of adverse drug events. We explored whether nonprescribing clinicians such as chiropractors may contribute to advancing drug safety initiatives by identifying potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients, and by bringing suspected adverse drug events to the attention of the prescribing clinicians. Mail survey of US chiropractors about their detection of potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients. Over half of responding chiropractors (62%) reported having identified a suspected adverse drug event occurring in one of their chiropractic patients. The severity of suspected drug-related events detected ranged from mild to severe. Chiropractors or other nonprescribing clinicians may be in a position to detect potential adverse drug events in the community. These detection and reporting mechanisms should be standardized and policies related to clinical case management of suspected adverse drug events occurring in their patients should be developed.Chiropractic & Osteopathy 11/2010; 18:30. DOI:10.1186/1746-1340-18-30
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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. Questionnaires were posted to 200 UK chiropractors randomly selected from the register of the General Chiropractic Council. 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. 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.Chiropractic & Osteopathy 10/2010; 18:27. DOI:10.1186/1746-1340-18-27
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and vertebral artery dissection and stroke (VADS) has evolved considerably over the years. In the beginning the relationship was seen as simple cause-effect, in which CMT was seen to cause VADS in certain susceptible individuals. This was perceived as extremely rare by chiropractic physicians, but as far more common by neurologists and others. Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit. This new understanding has shifted the focus for the chiropractic physician from one of attempting to "screen" for "risk of complication to manipulation" to one of recognizing the patient who may be having VADS so that early diagnosis and intervention can be pursued. In addition, this new understanding presents the chiropractic profession with an opportunity to change the conversation about CMT and VADS by taking a proactive, public health approach to this uncommon but potentially devastating disorder.Chiropractic & Osteopathy 08/2010; 18:22. DOI:10.1186/1746-1340-18-22
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.