Fluid professional boundaries: ethnographic observations of co-located chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs) can assess and manage musculoskeletal conditions with similar manual or physical therapy techniques. This overlap in scope of practice raises questions about the boundaries between the three professions. Clinical settings where they are co-located are one of several possible influences on professional boundaries and may provide insight into the nature of these boundaries and how they are managed by clinicians themselves.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the nature of professional boundaries between COPs within a co-located clinical environment and describe the ways in which professional boundaries may be reinforced, weakened, or navigated in this environment.

METHODS: Drawing from an interpretivist paradigm, we used ethnographic observations to observe interactions between 15 COPs across two clinics. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis principles.

RESULTS: We identified various physical and non-physical 'boundary objects' that influenced the nature of the professional boundaries between the COPs that participated in the study. These boundary objects overall seemed to increase the fluidity of the professional boundaries, at times simultaneously reinforcing and weakening them. The boundary objects were categorised into three themes: physical, including the clinic's floor plan, large and small objects; social, including identities and discourse; and organisational, including appointment durations and fees, remuneration policies and insurance benefits.

CONCLUSIONS: Physical, social, organisational related factors made the nature of professional boundaries between COPs in these settings fluid; meaning that they were largely not rigid or fixed but rather flexible, responsive and subject to change. These findings may challenge patients, clinicians and administrators to appreciate that traditional beliefs of distinct boundaries between COPs may not be so in co-located clinical environments. Both clinical practice and future research on professional boundaries between COPs may need to further consider some of these broader factors.