Literature DB >> 27436515

Working up rectal bleeding in adult primary care practices.

Saul N Weingart1,2, Elena M Stoffel3, Daniel C Chung4,5, Thomas D Sequist5,6, Ruth I Lederman7, Stephen R Pelletier8, Helen M Shields5,9.   

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Variation in the workup of rectal bleeding may result in guideline-discordant care and delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Accordingly, we undertook this study to characterize primary care clinicians' initial rectal bleeding evaluation.
METHODS: We studied 438 patients at 10 adult primary care practices affiliated with three Boston, Massachusetts, academic medical centres and a multispecialty group practice, performing medical record reviews of subjects with visit codes for rectal bleeding, haemorrhoids or bloody stool. Nurse reviewers abstracted patients' sociodemographic characteristics, rectal bleeding-related symptoms and components of the rectal bleeding workup. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models examined factors associated with guideline-discordant workups.
RESULTS: Clinicians documented a family history of colorectal cancer or polyps at the index visit in 27% of cases and failed to document an abdominal or rectal examination in 21% and 29%. Failure to order imaging or a diagnostic procedure occurred in 32% of cases and was the only component of the workup associated with guideline-discordant care, which occurred in 27% of cases. Compared with patients at hospital-based teaching sites, patients at urban clinics or community health centres had 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.3-6.3) times the odds of having had an incomplete workup. Network affiliation was also associated with guideline concordance.
CONCLUSION: Workup of rectal bleeding was inconsistent, incomplete and discordant with guidelines in one-quarter of cases. Research and improvements strategies are needed to understand and manage practice and provider variation.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  medical error; missed diagnosis; practice guidelines; practice variation; rectal bleeding

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27436515     DOI: 10.1111/jep.12596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  3 in total

1.  Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Comparing Diagnostic Evaluations for Rectal Bleeding and Breast Lumps in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Sanja Percac-Lima; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Tania Blackmore; Lynne Chepulis; Rawiri Keenan; Jacquie Kidd; Tim Stokes; David Weller; Jon Emery; Ross Lawrenson
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.497

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.