Matthew B Clements1, Karen M Schmidt2, Steven E Canfield3, Scott M Gilbert4, Shiv R Khandelwal5, Bridget F Koontz6, Costas D Lallas7, Stanley Liauw8, Paul L Nguyen9, Timothy N Showalter5, Edouard J Trabulsi7, Helen P Cathro10, Noah S Schenkman11, Tracey L Krupski11. 1. Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: mbc7cr@virginia.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Division of Urology, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Urology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Department of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 11. Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create a validated tool to measure digital rectal examination proficiency and aid with teaching of the examination. DESIGN: The Digital Rectal Examination Clinical Tool was created using a modified Delphi method with 5 urologists and 5 radiation oncologists. The instrument was then validated in a population of preclinical medical students examining male urological teaching associates, and clinical trainees (third- and fourth-year medical students and urology resident physicians) examining prospectively enrolled subjects. Trainees completed paired examinations with an attending urologist, and responses were scored with reference to the attending responses. SETTING: The instrument was validated at the University of Virginia in the urology clinic, endoscopic operating room, and main operating room settings. PARTICIPANTS: We tested the instrument on consenting subjects consisting of male urologic teaching associates (n = 12), clinic patients (n = 4), and operating room patients (n = 64). The participants were undergraduate (n = 302) and graduate (n = 9) medical trainees. RESULTS: In preclerkship trainees, improved scores in subjects without abnormal compared to those with abnormal findings demonstrated validity. In clinical trainees, scores on the Digital Rectal Examination Clinical Tool increased by 2% for each additional year of training, demonstrating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: We used an expert panel to create a novel instrument for measuring digital rectal examination proficiency and validated it with preclinical and clinical trainee cohorts at our institution.
OBJECTIVE: To create a validated tool to measure digital rectal examination proficiency and aid with teaching of the examination. DESIGN: The Digital Rectal Examination Clinical Tool was created using a modified Delphi method with 5 urologists and 5 radiation oncologists. The instrument was then validated in a population of preclinical medical students examining male urological teaching associates, and clinical trainees (third- and fourth-year medical students and urology resident physicians) examining prospectively enrolled subjects. Trainees completed paired examinations with an attending urologist, and responses were scored with reference to the attending responses. SETTING: The instrument was validated at the University of Virginia in the urology clinic, endoscopic operating room, and main operating room settings. PARTICIPANTS: We tested the instrument on consenting subjects consisting of male urologic teaching associates (n = 12), clinic patients (n = 4), and operating room patients (n = 64). The participants were undergraduate (n = 302) and graduate (n = 9) medical trainees. RESULTS: In preclerkship trainees, improved scores in subjects without abnormal compared to those with abnormal findings demonstrated validity. In clinical trainees, scores on the Digital Rectal Examination Clinical Tool increased by 2% for each additional year of training, demonstrating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: We used an expert panel to create a novel instrument for measuring digital rectal examination proficiency and validated it with preclinical and clinical trainee cohorts at our institution.