I was just like many other sports injury providers when I graduated from school — I thought I knew more than I did. I was prepared to apply many of the treatments and rehab techniques I learned in school and seminars in my new practice. I was so smart! Not really.

Looking back, I now practice very differently than I did when I started. The reason for writing my story is to share my experience developing into the sports injury doctor I am today. Let this be a reference to the healthcare graduating classes of 2017 and beyond.

In the beginning, I had a lot of influence from sports injury doctors who looked at structure first. If we were dealing with a quad strain, we would start with our standard orthopedic tests of the knee, screen the low back with orthopedic and neurological testing and then start to direct our eyes toward the hard and soft structures of the knee.

Was anything broken, torn or too tight? If anything was broken or torn, we would immobilize and give the person time to recover. If anything was too tight, we would perform joint mobilization or soft tissue work to the immediate area and retest. If the person's movement improved or they felt better, we would consider it "fixed."

After my first year of practice, patients began to come back with the same injury again and again, sometimes worse than before. I concluded I was missing something, but my passion to fill in the holes didn't really begin until I sustained my own hamstring injury.

I dug into the mechanics of how it happened, the risk factors, the immediate treatments and the rehabilitation that was to be performed even 12 months into the future. I read the most current peer-reviewed articles I could find on PubMed and questioned everything along the way.

As I rehabbed my own injury, with the help of my colleagues, I observed the way they treated and rehabbed. This helped me see the holes in my treatment plans, but I also saw the holes in theirs. We all seemed to have the same growing pain. We thought our way was the only way.

This experience opened my eyes. This is when I truly became a doctor rather than Mr. Nice Guy. I began to recommend what my athletes needed rather than allowing them to come back when they "needed it." I wasn't afraid to be direct with patients about what they needed to do to attain their goals.

Did the duration of my treatment plans get longer? Sometimes, but I was also more quick to refer out when I felt my skillset was not what the injury required.

Did I have more people resist the stern suggestions? Not really, I actually had more people comply with their treatment plan because they saw how confident and honest the suggestions were.

Did my success rate improve? Yes, greatly. My new mindset of "using the right tool for the job" helped me with cases I didn't feel confident about in the past.

Did I have to think more? Yes. Choosing the right treatment or rehab type for the injury requires some thought.

There is no one technique or system we can use for real-life cases. I came to find many injuries were not textbook in appearance. Choosing the right tool for the job requires testing, applying and retesting. Now, I always shoot for a functional correction first.

What is the functional approach, and why use it first?

The 2012 Consensus Statement for Muscle Tears shows the current classification for soft-tissue injuries. I suggest every healthcare provider download it and know it like of the back of your hand.

Basically, it boils down the idea that not every muscle injury creates damage to the structure of the muscle. An example you'll see is DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness). DOMS just happens, and most people wouldn't stress about having a palpable gap in the muscle, right?

Where I am suggesting a functional correction first is with Type 2 (see new class, not the old Type 2 tears). This is a subcategory of functional muscle injuries. We can often improve them without even stretching, massaging, adjusting or injecting the region of chief complaint.

I'll say that again. By choosing a functional correction first, I am choosing to see if the quad pain can be improved with a correction to the spine, pelvis, hip, ankle or core. If it can, then I would apply a "function based" type of tool from my tool box. If it can't, then I would continue to investigate the quad directly because it could be an structure-based muscle injury, such as Type 3 and 4 muscle tear.

Sorry for the technical tangent; let's bring it back home.

I feel fortunate to have learned so much from my colleagues through the hamstring injury. By no means do I think I am at the top of my doctoral game as I write this article, though, because the reality is I will have more experience and knowledge tomorrow. My goal is to always improve.

So if you are getting out of school or you're into your first year of practice, don't forget to shadow other doctors, therapists, trainers and coaches. It will give you more experience and more knowledge than you think.

You would be surprised by the amount of great healthcare providers who are willing to trade tips. Keep your mind open and be willing to intake more information. Your patients will reap the reward.

Peace out!