Observance of the practice of digital rectal examination. Survey of general practitioners in East-central Tunisia.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 26, 2017
Download
pdf
Vol. 95 No. 5 (2017): Issue May 2017

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mohamed Salah Jarrar
Faten Letaief
Houssem Fadhl
Ameni Beizig
Mohamed Mahjoub
Mohamed Habib Ben Hadj Khalifa
Amine Elghali
Fehmi Hamila
Rached Letaief

Abstract

Introduction. Digital rectal examination (DRE) is a simple gesture, used for diagnosis of several diseases. However, some general practitioners (GPs) are practicing it less and less often.
Aim. To estimate the rate of unrealized DRE and to analyze the factors preventing threir achievement.
Methods. This is a prospective observational study conducted among 105 GPs practicing in Sousse. We used a pre-established pre-tested and self-administered questionnaire.
Results. We identified 551 DRE that were indicated but unrealized. There was a significant influence between the non-realization of DRE on the one hand, and on the other hand: the lack of experience; the closeness of the specialist; the lack of training and the lack of conviction of the importance of this examination. Embarrassment during the realization of the DRE was felt in 69.3% of cases. Factors associated with this embarrassment were: female practitioner; the young age of the practitioner; the rural practice and the nature of internship placements.
Conclusion. Although it is a simple and inexpensive gesture, the DRE remains neglected by many physicians. Several factors appear to influence the achievement of the DRE. Ongoing continuing medical education seems necessary, especially as we found a lack of belief in the importance of this examination.

Keywords:

Family Physicians; Digital Rectal Examination; Indication; Unfulfillment

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Wong RK, Drossman DA, Bharucha AE, et al. The digital rectal examination: a multicenter survey of physicians' and students' perceptions and practice patterns. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107: 1157-1163.
  2. Safder S, Rewalt M, Elitsur Y. Digital rectal examination and the primary care physicians: a lost art? Clin Pediatr 2006; 45: 411-414.
  3. Drossman DA. Medicine has become a business, but what is the cost? Gastroenterology 2004;126:952-953.
  4. Yeung JMC, Yeeles H, Tang SW, Hong LL, Amin S. How good are newly qualified doctors at digital rectal examination? Colorectal Dis 2011; 13: 337-340.
  5. Nensi A, Chande N. A survey of digital rectal examination training in Canadian medical schools. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 441-444.
  6. Deirdre F. Digital rectal examination: national survey of under graduate medical training in Ireland. Postgrad Med J 2007; 83: 599-601.
  7. Popadiuk C, Pottle M, Curran V. Teaching digital rectal examinations to medical students: An evaluation study of teaching methods. Acad Med. 2002; 77: 1140-1146.
  8. Low-Beer N, Kinnison T, Baillie S, Bello F, Kneebone R, Higham J. Hidden practice revealed: using task analysis and novel simulator design to evaluate the teaching of digital rectal examination. Am J Surg 2011; 201: 46-53.
  9. Isherwood J, Ashkir Z, Panteleimonitis S, et al. Teaching digital rectal examination to medical students using a structured workshop. A point in the right direction? J Surg Educ. 2013; 70: 254-257.
  10. Balkissoon R, Blossfield K, Salud L, Ford D, Pugh C. Lost in translation: unfolding medical students' misconceptions of how to perform a clinical digital rectal examination. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 525-532.
  11. Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Experience and attitudes of final year medical students to digital rectal examination. Med J 2004; 181: 323-325.
  12. Ker JS. Developing professional clinical skills for practice. The results of a feasibility study using a reflective approach to intimate examination. Med Educ 2003; 37: 34-41.
  13. Yanoshak SJ, Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Jaffe JS, Ginsberg PC, Harkaway RC. Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination. Urology 2000; 55: 690-693.
  14. Robert J-D. DRE acceptability by the patient in general practice in the department of Puy-de-Dôme [Thesis]. Clermont Ferrand I; 2009: 187 pages.
  15. Furlan AB, Kato R, Vicentini F, Cury J, Antunes AA, Srougi M. Patient's reactions to digital rectal examination of the prostate. Int Braz J Urol. 2008; 34: 572-575.
  16. Nijs HG, Essink-Bot ML, DeKoning HJ, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH. Why do men refuse or attend population- based screening for prostate cancer? J Public Health Med. 2000; 22: 312-316.
  17. Romero FR, Romero AW, Filho TB, Bark NM,Yamazaki DS, de Oliveira JuÌnior FC. Patients' perceptions of pain and discomfort during digital rectal exam for prostate cancer screening. Arch Esp Urol 2008 ; 61: 850-854.
  18. Keemers-Gels ME, Groenendijk RP, van den Heuvel JH, Boetes C, Peer PG, Wobbes TH. Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000; 60: 235-240.
  19. Hilden M, Sidenius K, Langhoff-Roos J, Wijma B, Schei B. Women's experiences of the gynecologic examination: Factors associated with discomfort. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003; 82: 1030-1036.
  20. Lee DJ, Consedine NS, Spencer BA. Barriers and facilitators to digital rectal examination screening among african-american and african-caribbean men. Urology. 2011; 77: 891-898.
  21. Marquié L, Raufaste E, Lauque D, Mariné C, Ecoiffier M, Sorum P. Pain rating by patients and physicians: Evidence of systematic pain miscalibration. Pain. 2003; 102: 289-296.
  22. Seehusen DA, Johnson DR, Earwood JS, et al. Improving women's experience during speculum examinations at routine gynaecological visits: Randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2006; 333: 171.