BACKGROUND: A memorandum of understanding was reached between the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) in 2014 outlining the course for a single accreditation system for graduate medical education. This process was completed in 2020 and has included the transition of AOA-accredited neuromusculoskeletal and Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM) programs into programs now termed \"Osteopathic Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine\" (ONMM) under the single accreditation system. Progress through ONMM residency is evaluated on the basis of 15 ACGME milestones that encompass six core competencies. However, there are no curricular guidelines to help guide the achievement of these milestones.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to develop a proposed structure and content for an ONMM residency curriculum that is based on (1) the alignment of residency curriculum with ACGME milestones in one ACGME-accredited ONMM residency program, and (2) the perceived needs of residents and faculty for an ONMM residency curriculum.
METHODS: A mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach with embedded design was utilized. Qualitative analysis of didactics curriculum content for the past 2 years was coded according to themes identified in the residency curriculum content, which were further coded according to ACGME milestones. Curriculum topics identified in qualitative analysis were utilized to create a questionnaire that was administered to residents and faculty (n=24) in the ONMM residency program to examine the perceived importance of each curriculum topic based on a five-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions were embedded in the questionnaire that asked how faculty and residents define ONMM and what they believe should be the purpose of an ONMM residency curriculum.
RESULTS: Five themes were identified in qualitative analysis of curriculum: (1) OMM laboratory topics; (2) faculty-led activities and lecture topics; (3) resident-led activities and lecture topics; (4) research; and (5) training courses and volunteer activities. The most important perceived curriculum topics for faculty and residents were osteopathic structural examination, orthopedic exam, direct and indirect methods, osteopathic cranial manipulative medicine, pediatric OMT, common upper and lower extremity injuries, and low back pain. Each of these topics aligned well with ACGME milestones. Residents reported that integrative medicine topics such as acupuncture were a significantly more important OMM laboratory topic (mean=3.58, SD=0.996) compared to faculty (mean=2.33, SD=0.985), t (22)=-3.091, p=0.005. Study participants most commonly described ONMM in terms of the specialized knowledge required for the discipline (n=19, 79.2%) and the Tenets of Osteopathy (n=17, 70.8%), and they felt that the purpose of an ONMM residency curriculum should be to gain knowledge (n=20, 83.3%) and become a competent physician (n=19, 79.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings were applied to the development of proposed ONMM residency curriculum guidelines and submitted to the American Academy of Osteopathy (AAO) for consideration. They are presented here as a resource for ONMM residencies to develop a program curriculum in alignment with individual program needs.

UNASSIGNED: Osteopathic distinctiveness is a result of professional education, identity formation, training, credentialing, and qualifications. With the advancement of a single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system and the continued growth of the osteopathic medical profession, osteopathic distinctiveness and professional identity are seen as lacking clarity and pose a challenge.
UNASSIGNED: To achieve consensus on a succinct definition of osteopathic distinctiveness and to identify steps to more clearly define and advance that distinctiveness, particularly in professional self-regulation, a representative group of osteopathic medical students, residents, physicians, and members of the licensing, GME, and undergraduate medical education (UME) communities convened the 2019 United States Osteopathic Medical Regulatory Summit in February 2019. Key features of osteopathic distinctiveness were discussed. Growth in the profession; changes in health care delivery, technology, and demographics within the profession and patient communities; and associated challenges and opportunities for osteopathic medical practice and patients were considered.
UNASSIGNED: Osteopathic medicine is a distinctive practice that brings unique, added value to patients, the public, and the health care community at large. A universal definition and common understanding of that distinctiveness is lacking. Efforts to unify messaging that defines osteopathic distinctiveness, to align the distinctive elements of osteopathic medical education and professional self-regulation across a continuum, and to advance research on care and educational program outcomes are critical to the future of the osteopathic medical profession.
UNASSIGNED: (1) Convene a task force of groups represented at the Summit to develop a succinct and consistent message defining osteopathic distinctiveness. (2) Demonstrate uniqueness of the profession through research demonstrating efficacy of care and patient outcomes, adding to the public good. (3) Harmonize GME and UME by beginning to align entrustable professional activities with UME milestones. (4) Convene representatives from osteopathic specialty colleges and certification boards to define curricular elements across GME, certification, and osteopathic continuous certification. (5) Build on the Project in Osteopathic Medical Education and Empathy study.

UNASSIGNED: In the context of the upcoming single accreditation system for graduate medical education resulting from an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), American Osteopathic Association and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, we saw the opportunity for charting a new course for emergency medicine (EM) scholarly activity (SA). Our goal was to engage relevant stakeholders to produce a consensus document.
UNASSIGNED: Consensus building focused on the goals, definition, and endpoints of SA. Representatives from stakeholder organizations were asked to help develop a survey regarding the SA requirement. The survey was then distributed to those with vested interests. We used the preliminary data to find areas of concordance and discordance and presented them at a consensus-building session. Outcomes were then re-ranked.
UNASSIGNED: By consensus, the primary role(s) of SA should be the following: 1) instruct residents in the process of scientific inquiry; 2) expose them to the mechanics of research; 3) teach them lifelong skills, including search strategies and critical appraisal; and 4) teach them how to formulate a question, search for the answer, and evaluate its strength. To meet these goals, the activity should have the general elements of hypothesis generation, data collection and analytical thinking, and interpretation of results. We also determined consensus on the endpoints, and acceptable documentation of the outcome.
UNASSIGNED: This consensus document may serve as a best-practices guideline for EM residency programs by delineating the goals, definitions, and endpoints for EM residents\' SA. However, each residency program must evaluate its available scholarly activity resources and individually implement requirements by balancing the ACGME Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requirements with their own circumstances.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement conventional management of musculoskeletal disorders, including those that cause low back pain (LBP). Osteopathic manipulative treatment is defined in the Glossary of Osteopathic Terminology as \"The therapeutic application of manually guided forces by an osteopathic physician (U.S. Usage) to improve physiologic function and/or support homeostasis that has been altered by somatic dysfunction. OMT employs a variety of techniques\" (eAppendix). Somatic dysfunction is defined as \"Impaired or altered function of related components of the somatic (body framework) system: skeletal, arthrodial and myofascial structures, and their related vascular, lymphatic, and neural elements. Somatic dysfunction is treatable using osteopathic manipulative treatment.\" These guidelines update the AOA guidelines for osteopathic physicians to utilize OMT for patients with nonspecific acute or chronic LBP published in 2010 on the National Guideline Clearinghouse.1 METHODS: This update process commenced with literature searches that included electronic databases, personal contact with key researchers of OMT and low back pain, and Internet search engines. Early in the process, the Task Force on the Low Back Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines discovered the 2014 systematic literature review conducted by Franke et al2; this study serves as the basis for this updated guideline and further builds upon the literature used to support the previous guidelines. Findings from other eligible studies published after the search parameters of the Franke et al systematic review were also incorporated.
RESULTS: The authors of the systematic review identified 307 studies. Thirty-one were evaluated and 16 were excluded. Of the 15 studies included in the review, 6 were retrieved from Germany, 5 from the United States, 2 from the United Kingdom, and 2 from Italy. Two additional studies published after the Franke et al review were also included. Osteopathic manipulative treatment significantly reduces pain and improves functional status in patients, including pregnant and postpartum women, with nonspecific acute and chronic LBP. Franke et al found that in acute and chronic nonspecific LBP, moderate-quality evidence suggested that OMT had a significant effect on pain relief (mean difference [MD], -12.91; 95% CI, -20.00 to -5.82) and functional status (standard mean difference [SMD], -0.36; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.14). More specifically, in chronic nonspecific LBP, the evidence suggested a significant difference in favor of OMT regarding pain (MD, -14.93; 95% CI, -25.18 to -4.68) and functional status (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07). When examining nonspecific LBP in pregnancy, low-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favor of OMT for pain (MD, -23.01; 95% CI, -44.13 to -1.88) and functional status (SMD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.23). Conversely for nonspecific LBP postpartum, Franke et al found that moderate-quality evidence suggested a significant difference in favor of OMT for pain (MD, -41.85; 95% CI, -49.43 to -34.27) and functional status (SMD, -1.78; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.35).2 CONCLUSION: The conclusions of Franke et al further strengthen the findings that OMT reduces LBP. In a 2005 systematic review conducted by Licciardone et al3 and the basis of the LBP guidelines published in 2010, it was determined that OMT reduces pain more than expected from placebo effects alone, and these results had the potential to last beyond the first year of treatment. Franke et al specifically stated that clinically relevant effects of OMT were found for reducing pain and improving functional status in patients with acute and chronic nonspecific LBP and for LBP in pregnant and postpartum women 3 months after treatment. Larger randomized controlled trials with robust comparison groups are needed to further validate the effects of OMT on LBP. In addition, more research is needed to understand the mechanics of OMT and its short- and long-term effects, as well as the cost-effectiveness of such treatment.

暂无摘要。

There is an increasing emphasis to take an evidence-based approach to healthcare. To obtain evidence relevant to the osteopathic profession a clear research direction is required based on the views of stakeholders in the osteopathic profession. A modified Delphi consensus approach was conducted to explore the views of osteopaths and patients regarding research priorities for osteopathy. Osteopaths and patients were invited to complete an online questionnaire survey (n = 145). Round 1 requested up to 10 research priority areas and the rationale for their selection. All of the themes from Round 1 were fed back verbatim, and in Round 2 participants were asked to rank the importance of the research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Finally, in Round 3 participants were asked to rank the importance of a refined list of research topics which had reached consensus. Descriptive analysis and use of Kendall\'s coefficient of concordance enabled interpretation of consensus. The response rate for Round 1 was 87.9% and identified 610 research priority areas. Round 2 identified 69 research themes as important, and Round 3 identified 20 research priority topic areas covering four themes: effectiveness of osteopathic treatment (7 areas prioritised), role of osteopathy: the management of four conditions were prioritised, risks with osteopathic treatment (two areas prioritised) and outcomes of osteopathic treatment (two areas prioritised). The findings will be taken forward to develop the research strategy for osteopathy.

Research can achieve many objectives, primarily by establishing a supportable, verifiable basis for clinical decisions. An evidence-based practice can streamline patient care, improving safety through consistency of care and making health care more affordable for patients. By cultivating research skills, osteopathic physicians and trainees can begin to forge a reciprocal relationship with medical literature and current findings, approaching research as active contributors as well as consumers. Many challenges, however, potentially hinder osteopathic physicians, residents, or medical students who wish to develop research skills. In the present article, the authors summarize research concepts and terminology that will enable novice researchers to interact effectively with more experienced researchers, statisticians, and methodologists.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, including those that cause low back pain. Osteopathic manipulative treatment is defined in the Glossary of Osteopathic Terminology as: \"The therapeutic application of manually guided forces by an osteopathic physician (US Usage) to improve physiologic function and/or support homeostasis that has been altered by somatic dysfunction. OMT employs a variety of techniques.\" Somatic dysfunction is defined as: \"Impaired or altered function of related components of the somatic (body framework) system: skeletal, arthrodial and myofascial structures, and their related vascular, lymphatic, and neural elements. Somatic dysfunction is treatable using osteopathic manipulative treatment.\" Previous published guidelines have been based on literature reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain. They have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT for somatic dysfunction associated with low back pain by osteopathic physicians and osteopathic practitioners trained in osteopathic palpatory diagnosis and manipulative treatment.
METHODS: Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, MANTIS, OSTMED (OSTMED.DR), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen d statistic, and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and subgroup meta-analyses.
RESULTS: Osteopathic manipulative treatment significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 to -0.13; P=.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, inter mediate-, and long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic manipulative treatment significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is clinically important, greater than expected from placebo effects alone, and may persist through the first year of treatment. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits extend beyond the first year of treatment, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Establishing reliable palpatory tests continues to be a critical, yet elusive, step in osteopathic medical research and evidence-based clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the interobserver reliability of common osteopathic palpatory tests used to evaluate the lumbar spine.
METHODS: Subjects (N=119) were recruited from the faculty, staff, and students of Kirksville (MO) College of Osteopathic Medicine (KCOM) of A.T. Still University of Health Sciences. Three osteopathic medical examiners residency trained in neuromusculoskeletal medicine initially evaluated lumbar segments on subjects from one subgroup (n=42) in a blinded assessment. The examiners performed palpatory tests of tenderness and tissue texture changes, as well as--in three planes--vertebral positional asymmetry and motion asymmetry. Kappa statistics (kappa) were used to evaluate interobserver reliability. Following a period of consensus training, subjects from another subgroup (n=77) were evaluated in a blinded assessment for those palpatory tests that seemed most likely to produce reliable findings. The interobserver reliability was then re-evaluated.
RESULTS: During the initial evaluation of interobserver reliability, kappa ranged from -0.02 to 0.34, within the poor-to-fair reliability range. Following consensus training, reliability improved, rising into the moderate range for tissue texture changes (kappa=0.45) and into the substantial range for tenderness assessments (kappa=0.68). Reliability for positional asymmetry in the transverse plane (kappa=0.34) and rotational motion asymmetry (kappa=0.20) were improved but remained in the fair range.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that consensus training improved the interobserver reliability of common osteopathic palpatory tests of the lumbar spine. In two of the four tests that were studied--tissue texture and tenderness--acceptable kappa values for clinical tests were achieved after consensus training.