Literature DB >> 31011969

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

Lydia E Pace1,2, Sanja Percac-Lima3,4, Kevin H Nguyen5, Charis N Crofton6, Katharine A Normandin6, Sara J Singer5,7, Meredith B Rosenthal5, Alyna T Chien3,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inadequate diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding in primary care are an important source of medical errors. Delays appear particularly common in evaluation of rectal bleeding. Comparing pursuit and completion of diagnostic testing for these two conditions within the same practice settings could help highlight barriers and inform interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To examine processes undertaken for diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding within the same practices and to compare them with regard to (a) the likelihood that diagnostic tests are ordered according to guidelines and (b) the timeliness of order placement and completion.
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using explicit chart abstraction methods. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred women aged 30-80 presenting with breast lumps and 300 men and women aged 40-80 years presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices, 2012-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Rates and timing of test ordering and completion and patterns of visits and communications. KEY
RESULTS: At initial presentation, physicians ordered recommended imaging or procedures at higher rates for patients with breast lumps compared to those with rectal bleeding (97% vs. 86% of patients recommended to receive imaging or endoscopy; p < 0.01). Most (90%) patients with breast lumps completed recommended diagnostic testing within 1 month, versus 31% of patients with rectal bleeding (p < 0.01). By 1 year, 7% of patients with breast lumps had not completed indicated imaging, versus 27% of those with rectal bleeding. Patients with breast lumps had fewer subsequent primary care visits related or unrelated to their symptom and had fewer related communications with specialists. LIMITATIONS: The study relied on documented care, and findings may be most generalizable to academically affiliated institutions.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic processes for rectal bleeding were less frequently guideline-concordant and timely than those for breast lumps. The largest discrepancies occurred in initial ordering of indicated tests and the timeliness of test completion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast lumps; care quality; diagnosis; primary care; rectal bleeding

Year:  2019        PMID: 31011969      PMCID: PMC6614558          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05003-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  24 in total

1.  Clinician personality and the evaluation of higher-risk patient symptoms.

Authors:  Adrienne S Allen; Endel John Orav; Thomas H Lee; Thomas D Sequist
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims.

Authors:  Tejal K Gandhi; Allen Kachalia; Eric J Thomas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Catherine Yoon; Troyen A Brennan; David M Studdert
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Margaret Astin; Tom Griffin; Richard D Neal; Peter Rose; William Hamilton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Caroline Cranos; Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

5.  Is earlier referral and investigation of bowel cancer patients presenting with rectal bleeding associated with better survival?

Authors:  M R Thompson; A Asiimwe; K Flashman; G Tsavellas
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.788

6.  Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint.

Authors:  J S Haas; E F Cook; A L Puopolo; H R Burstin; T A Brennan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Constance D Lehman; Yingye Zheng; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-08-07       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Barriers to screening colonoscopy for low-income Latino and white patients in an urban community health center.

Authors:  Alexander R Green; Angelleen Peters-Lewis; Sanja Percac-Lima; Joseph R Betancourt; James M Richter; Maria-Pamela R Janairo; Gloria B Gamba; Steven J Atlas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-19       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  Errors in cancer diagnosis: current understanding and future directions.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Saurabh Sethi; Martin Raber; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Patient- and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Terry L Wahls; Ika Peleg
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 2.497

View more
  1 in total

1.  Preventing Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care: An Electronic Notification Tool for Incomplete Radiology Tests.

Authors:  Saul N Weingart; Omar Yaghi; Liz Barnhart; Sucharita Kher; John Mazzullo; Kari Roberts; Eric Lominac; Nancy Gittelson; Philip Argyris; William Harvey
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.342

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.