Chiropractic SOAP Note Template

Chiropractic documentation fails audits for one consistent reason: the note is missing the specific elements payers require to justify spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), not because the care was inappropriate, but because the right details were never written down. The visit was legitimate. The note did not prove it.

This template gives you the structure to write defensible chiropractic SOAP notes efficiently, whether you are documenting an initial examination, a daily treatment visit, or a formal re-examination. Each section includes the required elements, template prompts, and fictional examples you can adapt directly to your practice.

---

What Makes Chiropractic SOAP Notes Different

Most SOAP notes document what the patient says, what you observed, your clinical judgment, and your plan. Chiropractic notes do all of that, plus a set of elements that are specific to this discipline and non-negotiable for insurance reimbursement:

• Subluxation documentation using the PART criteria (Pain/tenderness, Asymmetry/misalignment, Range of motion abnormality, Tissue/tone changes). At least one PART criterion must be documented for each spinal segment treated.
• Spinal segment specificity: Medicare and most commercial payers require you to name the specific vertebral levels adjusted. "Lumbar spine" is insufficient. "L3-L4, L4-L5" is what survives a records request.
• Quantified ROM findings: Degrees, not qualitative descriptions. "Limited flexion" fails. "Lumbar flexion 40° (normal 60°)" holds up.
• Named orthopedic tests with explicit results (positive, negative, equivocal at what provocation point).
• Adjustment technique documented by name at each level treated.
• Post-treatment response: How the patient responded immediately after adjustment, every single visit.

Without these elements, an auditor can classify the entire episode of care as lacking medical necessity and issue a recoupment demand covering visits you documented years ago.

---

Template: Initial Visit (New Patient Evaluation)

Use this template for new patient intakes and initial evaluations. The initial note carries the most documentation weight: it establishes the diagnosis, the subluxation levels, the functional baseline, and the clinical rationale for the treatment plan.

Subjective (S)

Chief Complaint

[Patient name], a [age]-year-old [occupation], presents as a new patient with [primary complaint: location, onset, mechanism if known].

Onset: [date or approximate timeline] Mechanism: [describe if acute injury, insidious onset, gradual worsening, etc.] Radiation/referral pattern: [yes/no; if yes, describe path and dermatome if applicable] Pain rating: [X/10 on NRS or VAS at rest] / [X/10 with activity] Pain behavior: [constant / intermittent; aggravating activities; relieving positions or activities] Prior treatment for this complaint: [yes/no; type and response] Functional limitations: [specific activities limited: lifting above/below waist, sitting tolerance, driving, sleep position, work tasks]

Medical History

PMH: [relevant diagnoses] Surgical history: [relevant surgeries] Current medications: [list or "none reported"] Contraindications or precautions noted: [osteoporosis, anticoagulation, prior spinal surgery, red flags screened and absent/present]

Fictional Example:

Carlos R. is a 44-year-old warehouse supervisor presenting as a new patient with right-sided low back pain and buttock pain radiating to the right posterior thigh, onset approximately 3 weeks ago following repetitive lifting at work. No acute injury event identified. NRS 6/10 with bending and lifting, 3/10 at rest. Pain worsens with forward bending, prolonged sitting over 20 minutes, and lifting above waist height. Partial relief with lying supine with knees bent. He has not received prior treatment for this episode. Functional limitations: unable to lift more than 10 pounds, difficulty with stair descent, unable to perform his normal shift without stopping for breaks. No bowel or bladder changes. No saddle anesthesia. No unexplained weight loss. PMH: mild hypertension (controlled). No prior lumbar surgery. Current medications: lisinopril 10mg daily. No known contraindications to SMT.

---

Objective (O)

Posture and Gait Observation

Posture: [describe antalgic lean if present, forward head posture, pelvic tilt, shoulder height asymmetry] Gait: [WNL / antalgic / Trendelenburg / other; describe if abnormal]

Range of Motion (Lumbar)

Document in degrees. Compare to normal values. Record whether findings are consistent with the patient's subjective pain report.

Example: Lumbar flexion 38° (normal 60°), extension 20° (normal 25°), right lateral flexion 16° (normal 25°), left lateral flexion 23°, rotation WNL bilaterally. Pain provoked with flexion and right lateral flexion at end range.

Orthopedic and Neurological Testing

List each test performed with the result and clinical interpretation.

• Straight Leg Raise (SLR): Right positive at 42°, reproducing right posterior thigh pain; left negative.
• Kemp's Test: Positive right, negative left. Right facet loading reproduces right low back pain.
• Valsalva Maneuver: Negative bilaterally. No disc herniation signs elicited.
• FABER Test: Right negative. Hip pathology not implicated.
• DTRs: Patellar 2+ bilateral, Achilles 2+ bilateral.
• Myotomal strength testing: L4: tibialis anterior 5/5 bilateral; L5: EHL 5/5 bilateral; S1: gastrocnemius/soleus 5/5 bilateral.
• Dermatomal sensation: Intact L3-S1 bilateral via light touch.

Palpatory Findings and PART Criteria

Document each spinal level being treated and the PART criterion or criteria establishing subluxation.

Template prompt: For each treated level, document at minimum one PART criterion. Do not use identical language at every level. If tenderness is the only finding, document the specific location, nature of tenderness (pressure, sharp, referral pattern), and intensity.

Vital Signs (when applicable)

BP: [X/X mmHg] [left/right arm] Pulse: [X bpm]

---

Assessment (A)

Diagnosis

Primary: [ICD-10 code with full description, not abbreviated] Secondary: [additional codes as applicable]

Example:

• M99.03 — Subluxation complex, lumbar region
• M54.41 — Lumbago with right sciatica
• M51.16 — Intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region

Medical Necessity Statement

[Patient name] presents with [diagnosis] characterized by [specific functional limitations]. Subluxation is established at [list levels] based on [PART criteria documented above]. Patient's functional status is significantly limited in [occupational/ADL tasks]. Spinal manipulative therapy is medically necessary to [reduce subluxation-related functional impairment, restore segmental mobility, reduce pain, and improve functional capacity].

Response Potential / Prognosis

Prognosis: [good / fair / guarded]. Based on [factors supporting prognosis: acute onset, absence of radiculopathy, age, absence of prior chronic episodes, etc.]. Anticipated treatment course: [X visits over Y weeks], with re-examination at [visit number or specific timeframe]. Goals: [measurable outcomes tied to functional limitations documented in Subjective].

Fictional Example:

Carlos R. presents with lumbar subluxation complex at L4-L5 and L5-S1 supported by right paraspinal tenderness, restricted lumbar flexion and lateral flexion, and hypertonic paraspinal musculature consistent with M99.03. Right-sided sciatica pattern to the posterior thigh without neurological deficits (NRS 6/10, SLR positive right at 42°) consistent with M54.41. Functional limitations include inability to lift above waist height and inability to complete a full work shift without pain breaks.

Prognosis is good. Acute onset, no prior chronic episodes, no surgical history, neurologically intact. SMT is medically necessary to reduce subluxation-related functional impairment. Anticipated plan: 3x/week for 3 weeks, then re-evaluate. Goal: NRS 2/10 or less, full lumbar ROM, return to unrestricted work activities within 6 weeks.

---

Plan (P)

Treatment Performed (Initial Visit)

• Spinal manipulative therapy (CPT 98940 / 98941 / 98942): [number of spinal regions]
  • Levels treated: [list each level]
  • Technique: [Diversified / Thompson drop / Activator / Cox flexion-distraction / Gonstead / other]
  • Patient response: [immediate pain change, relief, no change, soreness, etc.]
• Adjunctive therapies (if performed):
  • [Electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, manual therapy, soft tissue manipulation, etc. — include CPT code, area, parameters, duration, patient response]

Example:

• SMT (CPT 98941, 3-4 regions): Diversified technique, L4-L5 right lateral-to-medial, L5-S1 bilateral, T12-L1 anterior-to-posterior. Patient reported immediate 1-point NRS reduction (6 to 5/10) and reduced right lateral flexion restriction post-treatment.
• Electrical muscle stimulation (CPT 97014): Right paraspinal L3-S1, 10 minutes, 80 Hz, patient reported muscle relaxation and reduced guarding.
• Soft tissue manipulation (CPT 97012 / 97140): Right paraspinal and gluteal trigger point release, 5 minutes. Tender point L4-L5 right reduced from 7/10 to 4/10 following treatment.

Treatment Frequency and Plan

Recommended: [X visits/week for Y weeks] Re-examination scheduled at: [visit X or specific date] Patient instructed on: [activity modifications, home exercises, ice/heat application, posture awareness] Patient education provided: [diagnosis explained, expectations for recovery timeline, red flags to report]

---

Template: Daily Treatment Visit Note

Daily notes are shorter than initial evaluations, but they must still document functional status change, PART criteria, the technique used, and the patient's response. This is the note that gets audited most often.

Subjective (S)

Patient presents for visit [#]. Reports [better / worse / unchanged] since last visit. NRS: [X/10 today] vs. [X/10 at last visit] Functional status update: [specific changes in activities: "returned to work," "was able to sit through a full meeting," "unable to sleep on side still," etc.] New complaints: [none / describe]

Fictional Example:

Carlos R. presents for visit 5 of 9 planned. Reports NRS 3/10 today, improved from 5/10 at visit 4. States he completed a full 8-hour shift yesterday for the first time since onset. Still unable to lift above shoulder height without pain. No new complaints.

---

Objective (O)

ROM (Updated Findings)

Lumbar flexion [X°] (was [X°] at last evaluation). [Other motions as clinically indicated] Improvement / unchanged / declined from last visit: [note the comparison explicitly]

Palpatory Findings (PART Criteria)

L4-L5: [P/A/R/T criteria present today — note any change from initial exam] L5-S1: [P/A/R/T criteria present today]

Important: Do not copy-paste identical palpatory findings from visit to visit. Document what you actually find today. Identical palpatory notes across 12 visits is one of the most common audit triggers in chiropractic.

Fictional Example:

Lumbar flexion 52° (was 38° at initial exam). Right lateral flexion 22° (was 16°). SLR not repeated today (completed at initial exam, negative bilaterally). Palpation: Right paraspinal tenderness L4-L5, now 3/10 (reduced from 6/10 at initial). Restricted right lateral flexion challenge L4-L5 remains. Muscle hypertonicity right paraspinal L3-S1 reduced.

---

Assessment (A)

Patient is [responding as expected / ahead of expected trajectory / progressing slowly / not responding] to treatment. Current functional status: [brief update] Subluxation complex at [level(s)] confirmed by [PART criterion or criteria documented above]. Medical necessity: [Active care continues to be medically necessary because (specific reason tied to functional limitation and objective findings)] ICD-10: [same as initial unless updated]

Fictional Example:

Carlos R. is responding ahead of expected trajectory. NRS reduced from 6/10 at initial to 3/10 after 5 visits. Lumbar flexion improved 14° from baseline. Subluxation complex at L4-L5 confirmed by persistent restricted right lateral flexion challenge and right paraspinal tenderness. Active care continues to be medically necessary: patient retains measurable ROM restriction and pain with functional lifting, and has not yet met discharge criteria (NRS 2/10 or less with unrestricted overhead lifting).

---

Plan (P)

Treatment performed today:

• SMT (CPT [98940/98941/98942]): Levels treated: [list]. Technique: [name]. Patient response: [immediate findings].
• [Adjunctive therapies as applicable — CPT code, area, parameters, response]

Continue plan: [X remaining visits, continue at current frequency, or modify frequency based on response] Home care reminders: [any updates to activity modifications, exercises, or patient education] Next visit: [date or interval]

Fictional Example:

• SMT (CPT 98941): Diversified L4-L5 right lateral-to-medial, L5-S1 bilateral. Post-adjustment: right lateral flexion 24° (improved 2° intra-session). Patient reported NRS 2/10 immediately post-treatment.
• Electrical muscle stimulation (CPT 97014): Right paraspinal L3-S1, 10 minutes. Continue plan: 4 visits remaining at 2x/week. Patient instructed to begin graded return to overhead lifting activities starting with light objects at or below eye level. Re-examination scheduled at visit 9.

---

Template: Re-Examination Note

Re-examinations are required at regular intervals to justify continued care, typically every 30 days or every 12 visits, depending on the payer. The re-examination note must document objective functional change, compare findings to the initial evaluation, and state whether continued care, modification, or discharge is indicated.

Subjective (S)

Re-examination visit [#]. [Patient name] has completed [X] visits since initial evaluation on [date]. Patient's report of overall progress: [in their own words or paraphrased] Current NRS: [X/10] at rest / [X/10] with activity — compared to [X/10] at initial evaluation Functional changes since initial evaluation: [specific activities recovered, still limited, or new concerns]

---

Objective (O)

Comparative ROM Findings

Document current findings alongside initial evaluation values.

Comparative Orthopedic Findings

SLR today: [result] vs. initial: [positive right at 42° or as documented] Kemp's test today: [result] vs. initial: [result]

Palpatory Findings

Document PART criteria at each treated level with explicit comparison to initial findings.

Standardized Outcome Measures

• Oswestry Disability Index (ODI): [X/50 or X%] today vs. [initial score]. [Interpretation: minimal disability 0-20%, moderate 21-40%, severe 41-60%]
• Numeric Rating Scale (NRS): [X/10 today] vs. [X/10 at initial]
• PROMIS Pain Interference: [if administered]

Fictional Example:

Re-examination at visit 9. Carlos R. has completed 8 treatment visits since initial evaluation on [date].

Patient states: "My back is about 70% better. I can work a full day now. Still stiff in the morning and can't lift heavy things overhead."

NRS: 2/10 with activity, 0/10 at rest (initial: 6/10 activity, 3/10 rest).

Comparative ROM:

Motion	Initial	Current	Change	Normal
Flexion	38°	55°	+17°	60°
Extension	20°	24°	+4°	25°
Right lateral flexion	16°	22°	+6°	25°
Left lateral flexion	23°	25°	+2°	25°

SLR today: negative bilaterally (initial: positive right at 42°). Kemp's test: negative bilaterally (initial: positive right). Palpation: mild right paraspinal tenderness L4-L5 (3/10, reduced from 6/10). Restricted right lateral flexion challenge L4-L5 persists but reduced in degree. Paraspinal hypertonicity resolved.

ODI: 18% (minimal disability) vs. 38% (moderate disability) at initial.

---

Assessment (A)

Patient has demonstrated [objective improvement / plateau / decline] since initial evaluation.

Functional status summary: [Compare to initial baseline] Subluxation status: [Current PART criteria at each level; any levels resolved] Response to care: [Quantify improvement: ROM change, NRS change, outcome measure change]

Continued care recommendation (choose one and support):

• Continue active care at current frequency: [justify with remaining objective deficits and functional limitations]
• Reduce frequency for progressive stabilization: [justify with measurable improvement and goals remaining]
• Transition to maintenance care (if applicable): [must document patient-specific medical necessity for maintenance; Medicare does not reimburse maintenance care without documented medical necessity)
• Discharge: [justify with functional goals met, objective criteria normalized, or plateau without further expected benefit]

Fictional Example:

Carlos R. has demonstrated significant objective improvement over 8 visits: NRS reduced from 6/10 to 2/10, lumbar flexion improved 17° from baseline, SLR converted to negative bilaterally, and ODI reduced from 38% to 18%. Subluxation complex at L4-L5 persists based on restricted right lateral flexion challenge and mild paraspinal tenderness.

Recommendation: Continue active care, reduced frequency to 1x/week for 2 additional weeks (2 visits), targeting full lumbar ROM and return to unrestricted overhead lifting. Discharge criteria: NRS 0-1/10, lumbar flexion 55°+, unrestricted work activities. If criteria not met at next re-examination, transition to therapeutic plan of care or discharge with home exercise program.

---

Plan (P)

Treatment performed today (same format as daily note) Updated treatment plan: [adjusted frequency, duration, and rationale for change] Updated goals: [revise based on re-examination findings] Patient education: [reinforce home exercise program, activity progression, posture]

---

Technique-Specific Documentation Notes

Different adjustment techniques require slight documentation variations.

Diversified (High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Thrust)

Diversified HVLA technique applied to [level], [vector of thrust, e.g., P-A, right lateral-to-medial]. Audible release noted / not noted. Post-treatment ROM [measured]. Patient response: [pain change, increased mobility, no change, soreness expected].

Thompson Drop Table

Thompson drop technique, [level], [drop section used: cervical / thoracic / pelvic]. Patient tolerated well. Post-treatment response: [describe].

Activator Methods

Activator instrument (setting [X]) applied to [level] at [contact point], [vector]. [Number of applications]. Post-treatment: [response].

Cox Flexion-Distraction

Cox flexion-distraction technique, [level(s)], [number of passes], focusing on [disc decompression / facet distraction]. Patient in prone position. No adverse response. Patient reported [describe].

Gonstead

Gonstead technique, [level], listing [e.g., PRS-inf], contact: [spinous/mammillary], line of drive: [vector]. Post-treatment: [response].

---

Medicare-Specific Documentation Reminders

Medicare has explicit requirements beyond standard chiropractic documentation. These apply to any patient covered under Medicare Part B.

Active vs. Maintenance Distinction

Medicare reimburses only active/curative care, defined as care in which the patient's condition is expected to improve, improve at a reasonable rate, or maintain function that would otherwise deteriorate without skilled care. If the patient has plateaued and is no longer expected to improve, continued care requires clear documentation of why skilled maintenance is medically necessary, or Medicare will not pay.

Document at every visit: "Patient continues to demonstrate measurable objective improvement from last visit" or, if plateau is reached, state the clinical reasoning for continued skilled care explicitly.

AT Modifier

When billing Medicare for active care, the AT modifier must appear on the claim. The note must support the AT modifier: active, curative care with documented objective improvement or expectation of improvement.

Signature and Credential Requirements

Every note must include the treating doctor's full signature, credentials, and date of service. A rubber stamp or initials alone is not sufficient for Medicare.

---

Chiropractic SOAP Note Documentation Checklist

Use this before signing any chiropractic note.

Subjective

• Chief complaint documented with specific location and radiation pattern
• NRS or VAS pain score recorded this visit
• Functional limitations described with specifics (not just "limited activities")
• Change since last visit noted (better, worse, unchanged, with what specifically changed)
• Red flags screened and documented (new patient and as clinically indicated)

Objective

• ROM documented in degrees for all relevant planes of motion
• Comparison to normal values stated
• Orthopedic tests listed by name with explicit results
• Neurological screening documented (DTRs, sensation, strength) at initial and re-exams
• Palpatory findings documented by spinal level with PART criterion named
• No copy-pasted identical palpatory findings across visits

Assessment

• ICD-10 diagnosis codes with full specificity
• Subluxation level(s) named with supporting PART criterion
• Medical necessity statement present and specific
• Response to treatment quantified (not just "improving")
• Prognosis and expected trajectory stated

Plan

• CPT code(s) correct for number of spinal regions treated
• Adjustment technique named at each level treated
• Post-treatment patient response documented
• Adjunctive therapies documented with parameters and patient response
• Treatment frequency and plan stated
• Home care instructions or modifications documented

Medicare / Compliance

• AT modifier on claim matches documentation of active care
• Maintenance care documentation satisfies medical necessity standard if applicable
• Doctor's full signature, credentials, and date on every note
• Re-examination completed and documented at required intervals
• Outcome measures administered and recorded at initial exam and re-examinations

---

Streamlining Your Chiropractic Notes

Chiropractic practices with high daily patient volume face a real documentation math problem: 20 to 30 patients per day, each requiring legally defensible notes with PART criteria, updated ROM, technique specifics, and response documentation. If your current workflow involves rebuilding each note from scratch or editing a copied note from the previous visit (a known audit risk), a template system built around your specific adjustment protocols and patient populations can carry the structural burden while leaving space for today's actual findings. NotuDocs supports clinician-designed templates you fill in post-visit from your own notes, so the structure is always consistent and the content is always yours.

---

Related Articles

• How to Document Chiropractic Patient Visits and SOAP Notes
• Medical SOAP Note Template
• Physical Therapy SOAP Note Template
• Occupational Therapy SOAP Note Template