The Line

I have heard that some chiropractic practice management gurus teach their clients to think of their practice policies as "drawing a line in the sand" which they must never allow a patient to cross.  For example, starting care at 3 visits a week.  For some docs, this is an absolute.  If a patient can't comply, they're out.  Another example is bringing the spouse along for the report of findings.  No spouse, no report of findings.  I've even heard that in some offices it was a rule that all kids must be checked for subluxation or the parents under care will be dropped from the practice.

The reasoning for the line is explained clearly.  Why have a rule if the rule can be broken?  Why set a policy if it is not enforced 100% of the time?  These practice policies that the gurus teach are ultimately for the good of the patient and their family.  It is to ensure that the best chiropractic care is provided at all times.

But I wonder.  Are these lines really for the benefit of the patient?  Is a zero tolerance for a transgression of practice policy really all about giving the best care to the individual?

Or is the notion of 100% compliance-- my way or the highway-- more about the doctor's ego.

Yes, it stings when you tell the patient to start care with 3 adjustments a week and they instead insist, "I can only come in once.  Isn't that good enough?"  Yes, it does frustrate the doctor when they invite the whole family to be checked for subluxation, and it never happens.

That sting, that frustration can lower the chiropractor's energy, esteem, and motivation to be the best he or she can be.  But if the rules are so strict that when enforced the non-complying person is ousted from the practice, was the rule really about the patient or was it to protect the ego of the doctor?

Rules are important and policies must be enforced, but to me, living life without mercy or compromise is unhealthy.  And running a practice that classifies a person as either a rule-follower or a rule-breaker, and then goes about to eliminate the rule-breakers without thought of accomodation, in my opinion, is wrong.

Would you like to explore this idea further and reflect more clearly where you stand in terms of the rules you create and the rules you follow?  Read The Cider House Rules by John Irving.  They made a movie based on the book, but I think you have to read the book it in order to fully grasp Irving's underlying themes.

There will always be rules.  But all rules should defer to the higher law:

Love.