Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine Practice Patterns of Third-Year and Fourth-Year Osteopathic Medical Students: An Educational Research Project

Why do physicians practice osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT)? A survey study

CONTEXT

Few osteopathic physicians (Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine [DOs]) utilize osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in their clinical practice, although all DOs are trained to do so. The reasons why many do not utilize OMT are not entirely clear. Anecdotally, these authors have observed that if a physician utilizes OMT, it is because they witnessed the efficacy for themselves in real-life clinical diagnoses found on patients or volunteers. This study seeks to explore this phenomenon.

OBJECTIVES

This study seeks to explore the relationship between witnessing the efficacy of OMT and the future use of OMT in clinical practice.

METHODS

Surveys were sent to DOs who work with Des Moines University's College of Osteopathic Medicine (COM) clinical students as well as osteopathic medical students enrolled at the Des Moines University's COM. Survey data were analyzed by separating physicians into cohorts based on their use of OMT and students into cohorts based on their interest in utilizing OMT in future practice.

RESULTS

DOs who practice OMT reported at least one, and often multiple, instances of witnessing the efficacy of OMT on real-life patients or volunteers while in their first 2 years of medical school. Those who do not utilize OMT reported few opportunities to witness the efficacy of OMT on a real-life patient. For physicians, 96.1 % of those who utilize OMT in their practice had the opportunity to see it work positively during the first 2 years of medical school, whereas only 7.4 % who do not utilize OMT had the opportunity. These findings are mirrored in the experience of current osteopathic medical students who are interested and uninterested in utilizing OMT in their future practice.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the importance of exposing our medical students to some type of 'real-life' experience early in their careers; the data show that these experiences can be very beneficial in expanding the interest in utilizing osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) in future practice. COMs can consider the implementation of programs that provide this experience to students, including extracurricular activities dedicated to the use of OMT.

Common outpatient diagnoses and associated treatments logged by osteopathic medical students within a geriatric population

CONTEXT

Clinical clerkships provide osteopathic medical students the opportunity to participate in the diagnosis and treatment of commonly encountered medical conditions. Appropriate management of these conditions may include pharmacotherapy and/or nonpharmacologic interventions, such as osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT). Opportunities may exist to expand the utilization of OMT in the management of common conditions, particularly for geriatric patients, who are at increased risk for adverse outcomes from pharmacologic treatments.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the most common diagnoses and corresponding treatments logged by osteopathic medical students within an ambulatory geriatric population.

METHODS

Patient encounters logged electronically by osteopathic medical students were retrospectively reviewed to determine the most commonly reported diagnostic codes and their treatments. Logged interventions were filtered to include patients over the age of 65 years who were seen on family medicine rotations within an ambulatory setting. The top 10 diagnoses were sorted and assessed to determine the associated treatments, including medications, procedures, and OMT.

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and June 2020, a total of 11,185 primary diagnoses were logged pertaining to the defined patient population. The most frequently documented diagnoses were essential hypertension (n=1,420; 12.7 %), encounter for well examination (n=1,144; 10.2 %), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=837; 7.5 %), hyperlipidemia (n=346; 3.1 %), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n=278; 2.5 %), osteoarthritis (OA; n=221; 2.0 %), low back pain (LBP; n=202; 1.8 %), pain in joint (n=187; 1.7 %), hypothyroidism (n=164; 1.5 %), and urinary tract infections (n=160; 1.4 %). Three of the top 10 logged diagnoses were musculoskeletal in nature (OA, LBP, and pain in joint). Pharmacotherapy was reported as the predominant treatment for musculoskeletal conditions, with OMT being logged as a treatment for 10.9 % (n=50) of those cases. The most commonly logged medication class in the management of patients with those musculoskeletal conditions was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; n=128; 27.9 %), while opioids were the second most frequently documented class of medications (n=65; 14.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Musculoskeletal complaints were commonly logged by osteopathic medical students within the studied population. Opioids were documented as a treatment for musculoskeletal conditions more frequently than OMT. As such, opportunities exist to expand the utilization of OMT during clinical clerkships and to decrease the frequency of prescribed medications for pain management.

Characteristics and treatment of geriatric patients in an osteopathic neuromusculoskeletal medicine clinic

CONTEXT

Osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) is an adjunctive treatment approach available to geriatric patients, but few studies provide details about presenting conditions, treatments, and response to osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in that patient population.

OBJECTIVES

To provide descriptive data on the presentation and management of geriatric patients receiving OMT at an outpatient osteopathic neuromusculoskeletal medicine (ONMM) clinic.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from electronic health records (EHR) at a single outpatient clinic for clinical encounters with patients over 60 years of age who were treated with OMT between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. Records were reviewed for demographic information, insurance type, presenting concerns, assessments, regions treated, OMT techniques used, and treatment response.

RESULTS

There were 9,155 total clinical encounters with 1,238 unique patients found during the study period. More women than men were represented for overall encounters (6,910 [75.4%] vs. 2,254 [24.6%]) and unique patients (850 [68.7%] vs. 388 [31.3%]; both p<0.001). The mean (standard deviation, SD) number of encounters per patient per year was 4.5 (4.0) and increased with increasing age by decade (p<0.001). Medicare was the most common primary insurance (7,246 [79.2%]), with private insurance the most common secondary insurance (8,440 [92.2%]). The total number of presenting concerns was 12,020, and back concerns were most common (6,406 [53.3%]). The total number of assessments was 18,290; most were neuromusculoskeletal (17,271 [94.5%]) and in the thoracolumbar region (7,109 [38.9%]). The mean (SD) number of somatic dysfunction assessments per encounter was 5 (1.7); the thoracic region was the most documented and treated (7,263 [15.8%]). With up to 19 technique types per encounter, the total number of OMT techniques documented across all encounters was 43,862, and muscle energy (7,203 [16.4%]) was the most documented. The use of high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) declined as age increased (p<0.001). The overall treatment response was documented in 7,316 (79.9%) encounters, and most indicated improvement (7,290 [99.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that geriatric patients receiving OMT at our clinic were predominately presenting for neuromusculoskeletal concerns associated with back, neck, and extremity conditions, consistent with national epidemiological data for this population. The most common OMT techniques were also consistent with those used nationally by osteopathic medical students and practicing physicians. Future longitudinal studies are needed to determine the length of time improvement persists and the overall health impact experienced by geriatric patients receiving OMT.