Low Rates of Digital Rectal Exam in an Academic Health System Represent a Missed Opportunity.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Kelly R Bates, Norah N Zaza, Dominic J Vitello, Hannah Bentrem, Steven J Stryker, Rajesh N Keswani, Charles D Logan
{"title":"Low Rates of Digital Rectal Exam in an Academic Health System Represent a Missed Opportunity.","authors":"Kelly R Bates, Norah N Zaza, Dominic J Vitello, Hannah Bentrem, Steven J Stryker, Rajesh N Keswani, Charles D Logan","doi":"10.1002/jso.28160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Digital rectal exam (DRE) is an important screening tool for early cancer identification. DRE has become less routinely performed following removal from cancer screening guidelines. The effect of this decreased utilization has not been studied; this study sought to evaluate current DRE utilization and changes over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The electronic medical record database of a regional academic health system was assessed between 2015 and 2020 for encounters with patients aged 45-75. DRE rates and yearly trends were assessed using chi-squared and Cochran-Armitage tests, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 191 329 outpatient encounters, DRE was documented on 8.5% of visits. DRE utilization declined from 2015 to 2020 (9.6% vs. 8.9%). DRE was more often identified as a procedure in surgical specialties, including surgical oncology (55.6%) and general surgery (2.8%), compared to primary care specialties, including family medicine (1.7%) and internal medicine (1.6%). DREs were less frequently documented for non-Hispanic Black patients versus non-Black patients (7.2% vs. 8.4%) and for Hispanic patients versus Non-Hispanic White patients (7.6% vs. 8.5%). Men had a documented DRE procedure more frequently than women overall (10.4% vs. 4.6%) and in encounters with primary care specialties (2.3% vs. 0.5%) and surgical specialties (20.4% vs. 13.5%) (all p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this contemporary evaluation, DRE was less frequently coded during outpatient clinic visits overall and specifically in primary care compared with surgical specialties. Differences in DRE utilization across sociodemographic factors highlight disparities in cancer screening. Low DRE rates represent a missed opportunity for early identification of high prevalence cancers.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28160","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Digital rectal exam (DRE) is an important screening tool for early cancer identification. DRE has become less routinely performed following removal from cancer screening guidelines. The effect of this decreased utilization has not been studied; this study sought to evaluate current DRE utilization and changes over time.

Methods: The electronic medical record database of a regional academic health system was assessed between 2015 and 2020 for encounters with patients aged 45-75. DRE rates and yearly trends were assessed using chi-squared and Cochran-Armitage tests, respectively.

Results: Of 191 329 outpatient encounters, DRE was documented on 8.5% of visits. DRE utilization declined from 2015 to 2020 (9.6% vs. 8.9%). DRE was more often identified as a procedure in surgical specialties, including surgical oncology (55.6%) and general surgery (2.8%), compared to primary care specialties, including family medicine (1.7%) and internal medicine (1.6%). DREs were less frequently documented for non-Hispanic Black patients versus non-Black patients (7.2% vs. 8.4%) and for Hispanic patients versus Non-Hispanic White patients (7.6% vs. 8.5%). Men had a documented DRE procedure more frequently than women overall (10.4% vs. 4.6%) and in encounters with primary care specialties (2.3% vs. 0.5%) and surgical specialties (20.4% vs. 13.5%) (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this contemporary evaluation, DRE was less frequently coded during outpatient clinic visits overall and specifically in primary care compared with surgical specialties. Differences in DRE utilization across sociodemographic factors highlight disparities in cancer screening. Low DRE rates represent a missed opportunity for early identification of high prevalence cancers.

低率直肠指检在学术卫生系统代表一个错失的机会。
背景与目的:直肠指检(DRE)是早期癌症鉴别的重要筛查工具。在从癌症筛查指南中删除后,DRE已变得不那么常规。这种利用率下降的影响尚未得到研究;本研究旨在评估当前DRE的利用及其随时间的变化。方法:对某地区学术卫生系统2015年至2020年间收治的45-75岁患者的电子病历数据库进行评估。DRE率和年度趋势分别采用卡方检验和Cochran-Armitage检验进行评估。结果:在191 329例门诊就诊中,DRE记录率为8.5%。从2015年到2020年,DRE利用率下降了(9.6%比8.9%)。与家庭医学(1.7%)和内科(1.6%)等初级保健专业相比,DRE更常被确定为外科专业的一种程序,包括外科肿瘤学(55.6%)和普外科(2.8%)。非西班牙裔黑人患者比非黑人患者(7.2%比8.4%)和西班牙裔患者比非西班牙裔白人患者(7.6%比8.5%)的DREs记录较少。总体而言,男性比女性更频繁地进行记录在案的DRE手术(10.4%比4.6%),在与初级保健专科(2.3%比0.5%)和外科专科(20.4%比13.5%)的接触中(所有p结论:在这项当代评估中,总体而言,在门诊就诊期间,特别是在初级保健中,与外科专科相比,DRE被编码的频率更低。不同社会人口因素对DRE利用的差异凸显了癌症筛查的差异。低DRE率意味着错过了早期发现高患病率癌症的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
367
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信