Abstract

---

Objective

The purpose of this case report is to describe the chiropractic and dental comanagement of a patient with temporomandibular dysfunction, headaches, and myalgia.

Clinical features

A 38-year-old black female patient presented for chiropractic care with a chief concern of jaw pain, tinnitus, headaches, and neck and shoulder soreness of 8 months’ duration. The patient rated the pain a 6/10. The patient had a maximum mouth opening of 42 mm, graphed evidence of disk displacement, loss of translation on opening of the right temporomandibular joint viewed on the lateral radiograph, and numerous areas of point tenderness on the Kinnie-Funt Chief Complaint Visual Index. She had decreased lateral cervical flexion.

Intervention and outcome

Dental treatment consisted of an anterior repositioning splint. Chiropractic care consisted of Activator treatment to the pelvis and the thoracic and cervical spine. Manual manipulation of the temporomandibular joint was performed along with a soft tissue technique intraorally on the lateral pterygoid. Postisometric relaxation in the head and neck region was also done. The patient was treated 6 times over 3 weeks. At the end of treatment, the patient had a pain rating of 0/10, maximum mouth opening of 49 mm, no tender points on the follow-up Kinnie-Funt, and increased cervical range of motion.

Conclusion

The patient demonstrated increased mouth opening, decreased pain rating, improved Kinnie-Funt visual index, and an increased cervical lateral flexion range of motion after 3 weeks of a combination of chiropractic and dental care.

Abstract

---

Introduction

Approximately 12% of older patients in the general population have atherosclerotic disease of the aorta and lower extremity arteries, i.e., peripheral artery disease (PAD). Intermittent claudication is the most common symptom. When a patient with low back pain complains of lower extremity pain that is worsened with mild exercise (e.g. walking), the etiology is often not clear.

Case Presentation

A 56 year-old male presented with low back pain, left hip and buttock discomfort, numbness in thigh and calf, and left knee weakness while walking.

Intervention and Outcome

Chiropractic care was provided and the low back pain improved. The patient developed leg weakness. Radiographic evaluation showed calcification of abdominal aorta and common iliac arteries. The patient was referred for medical evaluation and diagnostic ultrasound findings of arterial occlusion lead to surgical referral. The surgeon reported a “significant amount” of blockage of the left external iliac artery. Leg weakness resolved following placement of surgical stents.

Discussion

Claudication may go undiagnosed because many people consider the pain a consequence of aging, and may therefore just reduce their activity level to avoid the pain. Early diagnosis of PAD/intermittent claudication is important since PAD is a major risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events.

Conclusion

Patient management in the chiropractic clinical setting required appropriate medical referral in this case. Surgical implantation of stents in the left external iliac artery resolved the complaint of leg weakness. It is imperative for health care professionals to have awareness of the high occurrence of PAD in the general population.

Source: www.tihcij.com

Abstract

---

Objectives

The comparative effect of chiropractic vs medical care on health, as used in everyday practice settings by older adults, is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to examine how chiropractic compares to medical treatment in episodes of care for uncomplicated back conditions. Episodes of care patterns between treatment groups are described, and effects on health outcomes among an older group of Medicare beneficiaries over a 2-year period are estimated.

Methods

Survey data from the nationally representative Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics among the Oldest Old were linked to participants' Medicare Part B claims under a restricted Data Use Agreement with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Logistic regression was used to model the effect of chiropractic use in an episode of care relative to medical treatment on declines in function and well-being among a clinically homogenous older adult population. Two analytic approaches were used, the first assumed no selection bias and the second using propensity score analyses to adjust for selection effects in the outcome models.

Results

Episodes of care between treatment groups varied in duration and provider visit pattern. Among the unadjusted models, there was no significant difference between chiropractic and medical episodes of care. The propensity score results indicate a significant protective effect of chiropractic against declines in activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.49; AOR, 0.62; and AOR, 0.59, respectively). There was no difference between treatment types on declines in lower body function or depressive symptoms.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest that chiropractic use in episodes of care for uncomplicated back conditions has protective effects against declines in ADLs, instrumental ADLs, and self-rated health for older Medicare beneficiaries over a 2-year period

Abstract

---

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of dual tasking on postural and cognitive performance between participants with and without nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Methods

In this 3-factor mixed-design study, dynamic postural stability was assessed in 15 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain and 15 age-, sex-, and size-matched asymptomatic participants. Bilateral stance on a Biodex Balance System was investigated at 3 levels of postural task difficulty (different platform stabilities levels with eyes open and closed) and 2 levels of cognitive task difficulty (with or without auditory Stroop test). We measured anterior-posterior, medial-lateral, and overall indices for postural performance. Average reaction time and error ratio of a modified auditory Stroop test were calculated as measures of the cognitive task performance.

Results

Mixed-design 3-way analyses of variance revealed significant interactions. Post hoc 2-way analyses of variance showed significant group by cognitive task difficulty for anterior-posterior (P < .001), medial-lateral (P = .003), and overall stability indices (P < .001) on a stiffness level of 5 with eyes closed. At this level, there were significant differences between single- and dual-task conditions for anterior-posterior (P < .001), medial-lateral (P = .02), and overall stability indices (P < .001) only in the chronic low back pain group. Also, at the most difficult postural conditions, participants with chronic low back pain increased their error ratio (P = .002), whereas matched asymptomatic individuals increased their reaction time (P < .01) of the auditory Stroop test.

Conclusion

Postural task performance is attenuated by cognitive loading at a moderate level of postural task difficulty. Therefore, to observe the effect of attentional demands of postural control, task difficulty should be considered.

Abstract

---

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of handgrip strength measurement using a hydraulic hand dynamometer in patients with cervical radiculopathy (CR).

Methods

A convenience sample of 19 participants (14 men and 5 women; mean ± SD age, 50.5 ± 12 years) with CR was measured using a Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer by the same rater on 2 different testing sessions with an interval of 7 days between sessions. Data collection procedures followed standardized grip strength testing guidelines established by the American Society of Hand Therapists. During the repeated measures, patients were advised to rest their upper limb in the standardized arm position and encouraged to exert 3 maximum gripping efforts. The mean value of the 3 efforts (measured in kilogram force [Kgf]) was used for data analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient, SEM, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to estimate test-retest reliability and measurement precision.

Results

Grip strength measurement in CR demonstrated an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.976, suggesting excellent test-retest reliability. The small SEM in both testing sessions (SEM1, 2.41 Kgf; SEM2, 2.51 Kgf) as well as the narrow width of the 95% limits of agreements (95% limits of agreement, −4.9 to 4.4 Kgf) in the Bland-Altman plot reflected precise measurements of grip strength in both occasions.

Conclusions

Excellent test-retest reliability for grip strength measurement was measured in patients with CR, demonstrating that a hydraulic hand dynamometer could be used as an outcome measure for these patients.

Abstract

---

Objective

The purpose of this case series is to report the effects of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for patients with lumbopelvic (lumbar spine, sacroiliac and/or pelvic, hip) pain in an outpatient ambulatory/hospital-based setting.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of cases treated at an outpatient ambulatory surgical center in New York and a general hospital in New York was performed. Patients with pre- and postintervention Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores and lumbopelvic and hip complaints were included (N = 18). No intervention other than MUA was administered between the initial and follow-up ODI scoring. Scores on the ODI were assessed within 1 week prior to MUA and again within 2 weeks postprocedure.

Results

Patients underwent 2 to 4 chiropractic MUA procedures over the course of 7 to 8 days as per National Academy of Manipulation Under Anesthesia physicians' protocols. Preprocedure ODI scores ranged from 38 to 76, with an average score of 53.4. Postprocedure scores ranged from 0 to 66, with an average score of 32.8. For each patient, ODI scores were lower after MUA, with an average decrease of 20.6. Sixteen of 18 patients experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in ODI score. No adverse reactions were reported.

Conclusions

For 16 of the 18 patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain reported in this study, MUA showed clinically meaningful reduction in low back pain disability.

Abstract

---

Objective

The purpose of this case is to describe a patient who had a stroke preceding a chiropractic appointment and was unaware that the cerebrovascular event had occurred.

Clinical features

An 85-year-old established patient presented for chiropractic treatment of pain in the left side of the neck, hip, and low back associated with known advanced degenerative spinal disease and lumbar stenosis. On the day of presentation, the patient reported morning nausea, double vision, and right-sided vision loss; she related that she had collided into a car while driving to the appointment. Review of her medical history divulged residual neurological deficits related to a previous subdural hematoma, resulting in craniotomy. Examination revealed a right inferior quadrantanopia in the right eye and right nasal hemianopia in the left eye. Nystagmus was present in the left eye with saccadic intrusion on pursuit right to left.

Intervention and outcome

The patient was transported immediately to an emergency room,where diagnosis of an Acute infarct in the left cerebrum at the junction of the left occipital, parietal and temporal lobes in the watershed area was confirmed.

Conclusion

Patients with signs and symptoms of stroke in progress may occasionally present for chiropractic care. It is imperative to complete a thorough history and examination prior to care.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

Health consumers have moved away from a reliance on medical practitioner advice to more independent decision processes and so their information search processes have subsequently widened. This study examined how persons with back pain searched for alternative treatment types and service providers. That is, what information do they seek and how; what sources do they use and why; and by what means do they search for it?

Methods

12 persons with back pain were interviewed. The method used was convergent interviewing. This involved a series of semi-structured questions to obtain open-ended answers. The interviewer analysed the responses and refined the questions after each interview, to converge on the dominant factors influencing decisions about treatment patterns.

Results

Persons with back pain mainly search their memories and use word of mouth (their doctor and friends) for information about potential treatments and service providers. Their search is generally limited due to personal, provider-related and information-supply reasons. However, they did want in-depth information about the alternative treatments and providers in an attempt to establish apriori their efficacy in treating their specific back problems. They searched different sources depending on the type of information they required.

Conclusions

The findings differ from previous studies about the types of information health consumers require when searching for information about alternative or mainstream healthcare services. The results have identified for the first time that limited information availability was only one of three categories of reasons identified about why persons with back pain do not search for more information particularly from external non-personal sources.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

It is not uncommon for chiropractors to be associated with sports teams for injury prevention, treatment, or performance enhancement. There is increasing acceptance of the importance of sports psychology in the overall management of athletes. Recent findings indicate mental hardiness can be determined reliably using specific self-assessment questionnaires. This study set out to investigate the hardiness scores of professional footballers and examine the correlation between two questionnaires. It also included a mental hardiness rating of players by two coaches, and examined differences in hardiness and mental toughness between national and international players.

Methods

Two self-assessment questionnaires (modified Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire [SMTQ-M] and Psychological Performance Inventory [PPI-A] ) were completed by 20 male professional footballers. Two coaches, independently rated each player. A percentage score from each questionnaire was awarded each player and an average score was calculated ({SMTQ-M % + PPI-A %} / 2). The PPI-A and SMTQ-M scores obtained for each player were analysed for correlation with Pearson's correlation coefficient. Cohen's kappa inter-reliability coefficient was used to determine agreement between coaches, and between the players' hardiness scores and coaches' ratings. The independent t-test was used to examine differences between national and international players.

Results

The players' scores obtained from PPI-A and SMTQ-M correlated well (r = 0.709, p < 0.001). The coaches ratings showed significant, weak to moderate agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.33). No significant agreement was found between player self-assessments and coaches' ratings.

The average ({SMTQ-M % + PPI-A %} / 2) mean score was 77 % (SD = 7.98) with international players scoring 7.4 % (p = 0.04) higher than non-international players.

Conclusions

The questionnaires (SMTQ-M and PPI-A) correlated well in their outcome scores. These findings suggest that coaches moderately agree when assessing the level of mental hardiness of football players. There was no agreement between player self-assessment and ratings by coaches. Footballers who play or had played for national teams achieved slightly higher mental hardiness scores.

Either questionnaire can offer the clinician a cost-effective, valuable measure of an individual's psychological attributes, which could be relevant within the wider context of bio-psycho-social model of care.

Do you want to check your progress towards meeting the 2013 PQRS reporting requirements? Now you can.

If you are an individual eligible professional who reported at least one PQRS quality measure in 2013 via claims-based reporting, you can now view the entire calendar year (first through fourth quarter) of data using the 2013 PQRS Interim Feedback Dashboard.

If you reported individual measures or measures group(s), the dashboard will display your summary data by Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) or individual detail by your National Provider Identifier (NPI).

The Dashboard data allows you to monitor the status of your claims-based measures and measures group reporting to see where you are in meeting the PQRS reporting requirements.

The Dashboard is available through the Physician and Other Health Care Professionals Quality Reporting Portal, with Individual Authorized Access to the CMS Computer System (IACS) sign-in.

Dashboard Resources

The following CMS resources are available to help you access and interpret your 2013 PQRS interim feedback data:

• The User Guide: 2013 Interim Feedback Dashboard provides detailed information about accessing and interpreting the data provided in the feedback report. 
• IACS Quick Reference Guides provide step-by-step instructions on how to request an IACS account in order to access the Portal, if you do not already have one.

Note: The Dashboard does not provide the final data analysis for full-year reporting, or indicate 2013 PQRS incentive eligibility or subjectivity to the 2015 PQRS payment adjustment or the Value-based Payment Modifier to be implemented in 2015. The Dashboard will only provide claims-based data for 2013 interim feedback. Data from other CMS programs will not be included for purposes of the 2013 Dashboard data feedback. Data submitted for 2013 PQRS reporting via methods other than claims will be available for review in the fall of 2014 through the final PQRS feedback report or the QRUR for 2013 PQRS GPROs.

For More Information about PQRS

For more information about participating in PQRS, visit the PQRS website. For additional support or questions, contact the QualityNet Help Desk.

---

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has sent this update. To contact Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) go to our contact us page.

Arlington, Va.—Following the resignation of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) today announced it will continue its efforts, without hesitation, to ensure doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and their patients are treated fairly and equitably with regard to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and other key issues such as fully integrating DCs in new and emerging health care models.

“I applaud Secretary Sebelius for tackling a very difficult task and for the access her office has provided ACA,” said ACA President Anthony Hamm, DC. “We cannot waiver in our work; however, and we look forward to working with the new HHS chief as soon as that person is confirmed.”

President Obama is expected to nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who currently serves as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for the top HHS post. While unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the OMB position, Burwell will undoubtedly face a tougher confirmation process on Capitol Hill this time, as political fallout from PPACA implementation continues.

“Making sure the all-important provider non-discrimination provision, Section 2706, of the Affordable Care Act is adhered to by insurers, and that chiropractic physicians are allowed to provide all covered services in Medicare that they are allowed to do under their state scope, are vital to the profession and our patients,” Dr. Hamm continued. “This work will be ongoing with current HHS staff and we expect no let-up during the change of leadership.”

The American Chiropractic Association (ACA), based in Arlington, VA, is the largest professional association in the United States advocating for more than 130,000 doctors of chiropractic (DCs), chiropractic assistants (CAs) and chiropractic students. ACA promotes the highest standards of ethics and patient care, contributing to the health and well-being of millions of chiropractic patients. Visit us at www.acatoday.org.

Are you a provider participating in Stage 2 of meaningful use for the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs? If so, use the new CMS Stage 2 Meaningful Use Attestation Calculator to determine if you will successfully meet Stage 2 requirements. Like the Stage 1 calculator, eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) can enter and review their data for each measure. The tool then calculates whether or not you will successfully demonstrate Stage 2 of meaningful use. A results page explains why you may or may not receive an incentive payment by displaying a pass/fail summary for each measure.

Get Started

Take four easy steps to get started:
   • Select your provider type: eligible professional or eligible hospital/CAH
   • Answer questions on your meaningful use core objectives
   • Answer questions on your meaningful use menu objectives
   • Receive your results

Be sure to answer each measure you intend to meet by either filling in the numerator and denominator values or marking down an exclusion (for those that apply).

Please note: The attestation calculator is not actual attestation and does not guarantee that you will meet the program’s qualifications. It is only a guide of whether or not you would meet the program’s Stage 2 meaningful use requirements.

Resources Providers who have completed at least two years of Stage 1 of meaningful use will demonstrate Stage 2 in 2014. Additional Stage 2 resources:
   • Stage 2 Guide
   • Stage 2 Meaningful Use Specification Sheet Table of Contents for Eligible Professionals
   • Stage 2 Meaningful Use Specification Sheet Table of Contents for Eligible Hospitals and CAHs
   • Stage 2 Data Sharing Tipsheet for Eligible Professionals

Want more information? Visit the Registration and Attestation and Stage 2 pages for useful resources to help you successfully demonstrate meaningful use.

To keep you updated with information on the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs, CMS has recently added three new FAQs and five updated FAQs to the CMS FAQ system. We encourage you to stay informed by taking a few minutes to review the new information below.

New FAQs:

• For Eligible Professionals (EP) in the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program using the group proxy method of calculating patient volume, how should the EPs calculate patient volume using the “12 months preceding the EP’s attestation” approach, as not all of the EPs in the group practice may use the same 90-day period. Read the answer.
• Can a hospital count a patient toward the measures of the “Patient Electronic Access” objective in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs if the patient accessed his/her information before they were discharged? Read the answer.
• When demonstrating Stage 2 meaningful use in the EHR Incentive programs, would an EP be required to report on the “Electronic Notes” objective even if he or she did not see patients during their reporting period? Read the answer.

Updated FAQs:

• Do States need to verify the "installation" or "a signed contract" for adopt, implement, or upgrade (AIU) in the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program? Read the answer.
• For Stage 1 and 2 meaningful use objectives of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs that require submission of data to public health agencies, if multiple EPs are using the same certified EHR technology across several physical locations, can a single test or onboarding effort serve to meet the measures of these objectives? Read the answer.
• For the Stage 2 meaningful use objective of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs that requires the successful electronic exchange of a summary of care document with either a different EHR technology or the CMS designated test EHR, if multiple EPs are using the same certified EHR technology across several physical locations, can a single test meet the measure? Read the answer.
• In calculating the meaningful use objectives requiring patient action, if a patient sends a message or accesses his/her health information made available by their EP, can the other EPs in the practice get credit for the patient’s action in meeting the objectives? Read the answer.
• When reporting on the Summary of Care objective in the EHR Incentive Program, which transitions would count toward the numerator of the measures? Read the answer.

Want more information about the EHR Incentive Programs? Make sure to visit the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs website for the latest news and updates.

On April 9, as part of the Obama administration’s work to make our health care system more transparent, affordable, and accountable, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the release of new, privacy-protected data on services and procedures provided to Medicare beneficiaries by physicians and other health care professionals. The new data also show payment and submitted charges, or bills, for those services and procedures by provider.

The new data set has information for over 880,000 distinct health care providers who collectively received $77 billion in Medicare payments in 2012, under the Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service program. With this data, it will be possible to conduct a wide range of analyses that compare 6,000 different types of services and procedures provided, as well as payments received by individual health care providers.

The information also allows comparisons by physician, specialty, location, the types of medical service and procedures delivered, Medicare payment, and submitted charges. Physicians and other health care professionals determine what they will charge for services and procedures provided to patients and these “charges” are the amount the physician or health care professional generally bills for the service or procedure.

Last May, CMS released hospital charge data allowing consumers to compare what hospitals charge for common inpatient and outpatient services across the country.

Full text of this excerpted CMS press release (issued April 9).

Abstract (provisional)

---

Objective

The purpose of this case report is to describe a patient that presented with a Mason type II radial neck fracture approximately three weeks following a traumatic injury.

Clinical features

A 59-year old female presented to a chiropractic practice with complaints of left lateral elbow pain distal to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and pain provocation with pronation, supination and weight bearing. The complaint originated three weeks prior following a fall on her left elbow while hiking.

Intervention and outcome

Plain film radiographs of the left elbow and forearm revealed a transverse fracture of the radial neck with 2mm displacement--classified as a Mason Type II fracture. The patient was referred for medical follow-up with an orthopedist.

Conclusion

This report discusses triage of an elbow fracture presenting to a chiropractic clinic. This case study demonstrates the thorough clinical examination, imaging and decision making that assisted in appropriate patient diagnosis and management.

Abstract (provisional)

---

Background

Low back pain in pregnancy is common and research evidence on the response to chiropractic treatment is limited. The purposes of this study are 1) to report outcomes in pregnant patients receiving chiropractic treatment; 2) to compare outcomes from subgroups; 3) to assess predictors of outcome.

Methods

Pregnant patients with low back or pelvic pain, no contraindications to manipulative therapy and no manual therapy in the prior 3 months were recruited.

Baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry questionnaire data were collected. Duration of complaint, number of previous LBP episodes, LBP during a previous pregnancy, and category of pain location were recorded.

The patient's global impression of change (PGIC) (primary outcome), NRS, and Oswestry data (secondary outcomes) were collected at 1 week, 1 and 3 months after the first treatment. At 6 months and 1 year the PGIC and NRS scores were collected. PGIC responses of 'better or 'much better' were categorized as 'improved'.

The proportion of patients 'improved' at each time point was calculated. Chi-squared test compared subgroups with 'improvement'. Baseline and follow-up NRS and Oswestry scores were compared using the paired t-test. The unpaired t-test compared NRS and Oswestry scores in patients with and without a history of LBP and with and without LBP during a previous pregnancy. Anova compared baseline and follow-up NRS and Oswestry scores by pain location category and category of number of previous LBP episodes. Logistic regression analysis also was also performed.

Results

52% of 115 recruited patients 'improved' at 1 week, 70% at 1 month, 85% at 3 months, 90% at 6 months and 88% at 1 year. There were significant reductions in NRS and Oswestry scores (p < 0.0005). Category of previous LBP episodes number at one year (p = 0.02) was related to [single low-9 quotation mark]improvement' when analyzed alone, but was not strongly predictive in logistic regression. Patients with more prior LBP episodes had higher 1 year NRS scores (p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Most pregnant patients undergoing chiropractic treatment reported clinically relevant improvement at all time points. No single variable was strongly predictive of[single low-9 quotation mark] improvement' in the logistic regression model