Chiro vs Osteo

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

As I understand it Chiro's are spine specialists and experts at the neck manipulation and Osteo's see the body as a whole and some have learned the body manipulations and some have not or its not their focus of practice.

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Hi Kitten,

we have this pinned up on our notice board at work (I work at a Chiro's)as we are often asked this by prospective patients - I will copy it next time I am in and give you the definition!

It basically boils down to the fact that there is NOT alot of difference. Osteo appointments tend to be longer and gentler, Chiro sessions are shorter and can be firmer. Both treat the body as a whole, not just the neck and spine. At the end of the day it often comes down to personal preference.

Will post the exact wording on saturday!!

Karen x

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

OK, so here I am at work....!

]~What is the difference between Chiropractic and Osteopathy?

There is very little difference between these two professions;
Both train for the same length of time, and have similar qualifications and are members of Councils which regulate the professions. However:
A Chiropractor may be slightly firmer
An Osteopath may do more soft tissue work
A treatment session with an Osteopath may take slightly longer.

These are just rules of thumb, as each practitioner may work in slighlty different ways and may use different techniques ie some practitioners use TRIGGER POINT THERAPY, some use ACUPUNCTURE, some do CRANIAL WORK, etc and some may use all of them!

This is just for our guidance if a patient asks, and not a diffinitive explanation!!

Hope it helps,
Karen

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

My osteopath friend told me the only difference is about £60 per hour!:D:D

Aragorn

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Thanks Karen, very useful. I think personal preference plays a big part.

KW

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Here's something I found on the web...

Chiropractic and Osteopathy are very similar disciplines. In some countries, such as Australia, there is only one combined regulatory body and students can graduate from University with an Osteopathic and Chiropractic qualification having studied both forms of diagnosis and treatment. There is therefore a huge overlap of both these disciplines with about 80% of their workload being indistinguishable.

Diagnosis
Chiropractors tend to use more diagnostic procedures, such as X-rays and MRI scans, blood and urine tests.
Osteopaths also use all of these procedures but to a lesser extent.
Around 85% of Chiropractors have their own X-ray facilities compared with approximately 10% of Osteopaths.
Taking the case history and orthopaedic examination are very similar for both professions and both use movement palpation (feeling the spine as it moves) to assist in diagnosing where there are abnormalities of movement.

Treatment
Around 50% of patients consulting an Osteopath receive manipulation whereas about 90% of patients receive a similar treatment called an “adjustment” if they consult a Chiropractor.
When a patient is manipulated or adjusted, the joint is moved just beyond its normal range of movement in an attempt to restore normal function. This obviously has to be done without spraining the joint and this is one of the many skills that Chiropractors and Osteopaths spend several years learning, mostly on each other when training!
Mobilisation, which consists of stretching the joint rhythmically within its normal range of movement, is used more by Osteopaths than Chiropractors.

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Can anyone comment onphysiatrists and/or acupuncturists... in comparison to either or both chiro or osteo?.

Charish

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Hi Charish

"Can anyone comment onphysiatrists and/or acupuncturists... in comparison to either or both chiro or osteo?. "

I can only really comment on the first one, since that's the only one I can speak authoratively on.

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor. They have done 5 (or 6) years of medicine at a university. They then specialise, normally at a hospital, for another 3 years. They treat patients with mental illness e.g. depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorders, gender identification. That sort of thing. They can prescribe medication, and they counsel/support/advise as well.

So if we were asked to pick the odd-one-out of the four, then most of us, I think, would select the psychiatrist because they treat the mind only, whilst the others treat mind & body.

I hope that this helps!

Ava

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Aragorn

"My osteopath friend told me the only difference is about £60 per hour!"

For whom - the osteopath or the chiropractor? Looking at both chiropractor and osteopath websites they charge roughly the same (approx £40). Are there hidden costs? Does one of them charge another £60 for something else other than the consultation? If so, which one?

Ava

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Thanks Ava, for the info!....but its phySIAtrist ;).....I was inquiring about. I haven't been to one or acupunturist, or osteo....just chiro...which I am through with as far as I know. I just wanted to know people experiences with each. In any case time and money will will tell which one or whoever I end up with.

Charish

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

"but its phySIAtrist ;).....I was inquiring about"

Oh dear, I thought it was a misspelling of psychiatrist (which is a tricky one to spell!). I have to admit complete ignorance as to what a physiatrist is. [Ava skuttles away to her corner... and hope that no-one noticed that she completely goofed up]

Ava

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Those two words (and many other with similar spellings) are what I call visual tongue twisters!.....someone goofed butit wasn't you....think of it that way!...:). I appreciate the effort to answer my post all the same.

Charish

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Charish - maybe I have helped by bringing it to the top of the pile, so that someone who does know the difference will see, and answer, it. 😉

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

"Looking at both chiropractor and osteopath websites they charge roughly the same (approx £40). Are there hidden costs? Does one of them charge another £60 for something else other than the consultation"

Ava, the Chiro sessions are usually much shorter, about 15 minutes per treatment; the Osteopathic sessions are usually about 30 minutes. Hence, the extra revenue per hour for the Chiro!

Karen

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

When it comes down to it, the only difference between a Doctor of Chiropractic and a Doctor of Osteopath is DO's are able to prescribe medication and perform surgeries.

They both come from the same roots in a sense. Both believe in the human body as a whole. They break off in philosophy in two different directions in the idea of disease (nerve theory vs artery theory I believe).

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Please note that the post above relates to the practice of Osteopathy and Chiropractic in the USA, not UK.

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

It seems to me that there can be more difference between one kind of Chiropractor and another than between a Chiropractor and Osteopath.

Incidently a Physiatrist is an American MedicalSpecialty Better known as PM & R, (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation), that almost does not exist in the UK where it is known as Musculoskeletal Medicine, The British Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine website, ( [link= http://www.bimm.org.uk ]www.bimm.org.uk[/link] ), may give you more info.

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

I am a registered chiropractor, I considered osteopathy, the reason I went to Chiropractic College was that the hours and location suited me better than the osteopath colleges I knew about. I have had both treatments and consider them to be very similar. A different regulatory body and title. If I was in a clinic and treated by ten osteopaths and ten chiropractors I could not tell you which was which. Chiropractors are generally qualified to take and read x rays, most do not have x ray in clinic. It may be that in future the regulatory system encompasses all forms of manual medicine.

I rate osteopathy very highly; my son is a trainee osteopath. So from my point of view, respect and similarity, good and bad in all walks of life.

The most important person is the patient, they are not fools, and busy clinics are busy because they are good. No other reason.

Yours in health rod

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

In Canada:

A Chiro is not a qualifieddoctor and he / she manipulates the bones. He may have access to all medical facilities. He / she may have a lower price but he / she is not as qualified.

An Osteopath is a qualified doctor and / or MD and has complete knowledge of bones and nerves problems. He / she has access to all medical facilities. His / her price may be more but he / she is more qualified.

An Acupuncturist uses special needles to num the nerves to different areas inhis / herpatients as to Acupressurist nums the nerves with special pressure applied to diffents areas in her / his patients.

A physiatrist is a physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Physiatrists treat a wide range of problems from sore shoulders to spinal cord injuries. They see patients in all age groups and treat problems that touch upon all the major systems in the body. These specialists focus on restoring function to people. To become a physiatrist, individuals must successfully complete four years of graduate medical education and four additional years of postdoctoral residency training. Residency training includes one year spent developing fundamental clinical skills and three additional years of training in the full scope of the specialty.

Hope this helps

Joe

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Here in the States there is a rather big difference between DOs and DCs.
In addition to the manipulative and holisticarts practiced by bothDOs and DCs, DOs recieve training in gynochology, obstetrics, pharmachology, emergency medicine,pshychiatry etc.
DOs are recognized by the AMA (American Medical Association) as Physicians and are permitted to further their educations and practicein more specialized fields of medicine such as Orthopedics, Pediatrics, OBGYN, Cardiology, Emergengy medicine,etc.
DOs are permited by all 50 US States to license as physicians same as MDs.
Allbranches of the United states Millitary allow DOs to be commisioned as officers and practice medicine in the millitary as physicians and are held with the exact same regard as MDs.
Essentially the blurring here in the states is not between DOs and DCs but between DOs and MDs
DCs here in the states tend, as a general rule, to run along the lines of homeopathy and are not recognized by the AMA as physicians. Most of the 50 states have a distinct license for DCs.
DCs are alowed to be trained in the use of X-ray and many use X-ray in diagnosis. Some of the US states will allow DCs to participate in a limitednumber of surgical procedures but again, it varries from state to state and anasthesia must me administered by either an MD or a DO.

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

Hello painless Joe I decided to have a look through this particular thread and thought thatmost postings though not entirely accurate were pretty fair and balanced (that is untilI read yours). I dont know if you are an osteopath but to makeclaims about who is more qualified I percieve as being pretty arrogant. I would like to know what evidence you have to supportyour claims. Perhapsyou have conducted a comaparative study on the two groups or perhapsyour claims support only your own beliefs andperceptions.

AnOsteopath friend of mine believes that Osteopaths in North America and Canada have completely sold outto the Medical profession and in doing so have lost many of the skills and principlesthat osteopathy was founded on. Given the state of health in the western world and Allopathysfailure tosolveor significantly impact on so many of the scourges of the 20th/21st century I would contend that this sell outwas indeed a mistake. Oh yes just one point of clarificationChiroparctors Adjust/Manipulate joint complexes not bones perhaps this is the difference between Osteopaths and Chiroparctors you allude to!

RE: Chiro vs Osteo

I'd like to agree with Jarvis on Painless Joe's comments. I think that he's made a gross generalisation, more to the point of being completely untrue about Chiropractors. How dare he suggest that Chiropractor as opposed to Osteopaths, I quote "may/ or may not be qualified". I'd like to see how he came up with such a manner of assurance and spoken like fact. Maybe he should do, just maybe, a bit more research, looking at the colleges and universities around the world, their contact hours and the requirements that BOTH professions have to undergo in order to get qualifications. He may be surprised that chiropractors ARE highly trained, and that money is not always a means of comparing and therefore judging a profession.

This is not a put down of osteopathy in any way whatsoever, I'd just like that Chiropracticnot be disregarded the way Painless Joe has.

Another point is that I'm reading a lot about the pricing between the 2 professions, it is the perogative of the practitioner to charge
however much they want, that is it is VARIABLE. Not all chiropractor spend only 15 minutes or as some are suggesting less with their patients, and not all osteopaths spend the amount of was being suggested continuously with each patient. Please don't assume that ALL practioners are the same because that's the imporession some of the comments give.

The bottom line is that, choose whatever works for you. Chiropractic works for some, for others it doesn't and ditto with Osteo.

Hello Folks,

I'm a bit concerned this thread seems to be disintegrating due to misunderstandings of fundamental differences between Osteopaths and Chiropractors on both sides of the pond.

In North America Osteopaths and Chiropractors are quite different. Osteopaths are qualified Medical Doctors who can prescribe drugs and even extend their training to perform surgery without needing to switch profession. An American chiropractor can't prescribe drugs or perform surgery without taking qualifications external to the Chiropractic profession. So there are fundamental differences in the qualifications between the two professions.

Here in the UK there is very little differences between the professions. I am training to be an osteopath and I have three very good friends who are chiropractors and I have experienced their work first hand many times.

If you want to find some differences get the Chiros talking about Mctimoney. That is an energetic debate!!! There is much more difference between a Mctimoney Chiro and a normal Chiro than between an Osteo and a Chiro . And for that matter there is a big difference between a Structural Osteopath and a purely Cranio sacral osteopath.

In the UK many Osteopaths work Chiropracticly and vice versa, this can be defined in terms of: long lever versus short lever techniques, application of soft tissue treatment, length of appointment etc. You can however tell the difference when you see them at conferences: Chirpractors will be wearing suits and Osteo's will be less formally dressed….. Uh oh here we go!

I hope this helps clear up the debate

Adam

In the UK

The biggest difference is the spelling; the next biggest is pronunication.

I believe that in N. America, Osteopaths are very different to elswhere in the world, and are basically little different to medical doctors.

In Europe, Osteopathy has evolved along much the same lines as Chiropractic. Most of the differences now are hisotrical rather than current, the biggest being (I believe) that chiropractors are trained in taking, as well as reading radiography, and thus use this more.
Generally speaking, both professions encompass a broad range of views and techniques, and there's as much difference between chiropractor A and chiropractor B as there is between chiropractor A and osteopath A.
As for McTimoney, I personally view them as being chiropractors who tend to practice a certain technique, rather than a seperate profession, personally I use about 4-5 different treatment techniques regularly, with another 4-5 I have enough knowledge to try if appropriate for my patient.

Saying that Osteopaths do more soft tissue work (and hence, longer treatment visits) is a pretty gross generalisation, and as accurate as any other gross generalisation (a nuggett of truth, but can't really be applied predictably).

I apologise to anyone I may have offended in posting this, some people get quite heated, I've simply said it as I understand it.

I know a Chiropractors and Osteopaths, who work along side each other.The Chiros work on a 10 min appointment system and the osteo's work on a 20 min system. They both say that they can still do the same job in the short space of time and any longer is just a waste and is all for effect. (their words not mine) Some clients think they are being ripped off when they don't get very long for their £40 but they don't seem to care as they have plenty others to take their place. I must admit that their first appointment double the time so they can take a consultation. Does anyone agree with this? After all it is a business they say

agree with which bit?

I regularly do treatments in under 10 minutes, but they're the exception rather than the rule (I probably average about 15 min, so I allow 20 per appointment). sometimes though, you do need more. I'd feel that if I only allowed myself 10 minutes then I'd be pushing what I can do, and wouldn't feel I was really giving the patients my full attention, as we don't just repeat what we did last time, we take a recent history, examine and then treat.

I'd question anyone who claims that 20 minutes is long enough for a first consultation, you can barely take a half-way decent case history in that time.

I do agree that there's only so much you can do in a treatment, and that I therefore charge by the visit, not by the minute. Bare in mind that treatment has side-effects, if you can't justify your treatment, then you shouldn't give it; spending an extra 10 minutes may add an extra 5% to the effectiveness, but isn't worth an extra 50% of side effects, so shouldn't be done. Equally, giving someone ultrasound for 5 minutes after a treatment as a mater of course, just so that they don't get as much side-effects from the manipulation isn't good enough rationale, so it shouldn't be done.

If I lose a patient because they don't feel they've got their money's worth, then I do care, I just don't care enough to change my entire practice around them; if they can't accept my explanation and rationale, then it's their pproblem, not mine.

does all that answer your question? or did you mean something else?

I know a Chiropractors and Osteopaths, who work along side each other.The Chiros work on a 10 min appointment system and the osteo's work on a 20 min system. They both say that they can still do the same job in the short space of time and any longer is just a waste and is all for effect. (their words not mine) Some clients think they are being ripped off when they don't get very long for their £40 but they don't seem to care as they have plenty others to take their place. I must admit that their first appointment double the time so they can take a consultation. Does anyone agree with this? After all it is a business they say

I don't know any Osteopaths or Chiropractors who work like that. 20 mins for a consultation and not caring if they lose clients!!:confused: I think their must be some missunderstanding and if not I would distance myself those practicioners.

I did distance myself from them. There is no misunderstanding at all. The stories I could tell you! You would be really shocked. They were very unprofessional indeed and yes they did'nt care one jot if patients didn't come back a they had their fingers in other pie's and their only goal was making money!!!

sadly, there are some of those in every profession, and they serve to get a bad name for the rest of us. I'm going to bite my tongue on saying more though before I get into trouble