Lost in translation: unfolding medical students' misconceptions of how to perform a clinical digital rectal examination.

BACKGROUND: Digital rectal examination (DRE) skills are difficult to teach and assess. This study sought to assess the construct validity of newly developed DRE simulators, which were then used to evaluate DRE palpation techniques and accuracy based on experience. METHODS: Medical students (n = 30), residents (n = 24), and experienced clinicians (n = 24) performed clinical DREs on the simulators and documented their findings. During the examinations, computer-generated quantitative performance data were collected. RESULTS: Students focused more on pronating and supinating their examining finger in the rectum. In addition, students were less accurate when assessing the prostate gland compared with experienced clinicians and residents (students = 33%, residents = 64%, and clinicians = 76%; P <.05. CONCLUSIONS: The DRE simulators were useful in defining specific differences in clinical DRE palpation techniques based on experience. We believe the observed differences are largely caused by students' misconceptions about how to perform the DRE.

A simulation-based assessment of clinical breast examination technique: do patient and clinician factors affect clinician approach?

BACKGROUND: Recent publications describing widely accepted clinical breast examination (CBE) techniques have sparked interest in setting standards for CBE. In support of CBE training and assessment, the purpose of our study was to quantify CBE palpation techniques using simulation technology and assess the affects of clinical presentation and clinician background on CBE techniques. METHODS: Three sensored silicone breast models were configured to represent 3 different clinical presentations. The models were examined by 102 clinicians at a local breast cancer meeting, and their performance was captured by using sensored based data acquisition technology. RESULTS: Clinicians had significantly longer examination times on the fatty breast with no masses compared with the breast with a dominant mass and the breast with fibrocystic changes (66.37 seconds, 40.50 seconds, and 42.28 seconds, P < .05). In addition, on average, female clinicians had significantly greater examination times (females = 56.66 seconds, males = 42.09 seconds, P < .05) and touched more sensors (females = 7.97, males = 6.30, P < .05) with greater pressures (females = 5.21, males = 4.82, P < .05) than their male counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical presentation and clinician background may affect CBE technique yet does not appear to negatively affect clinician accuracy. Additional research quantifying the range of CBE techniques used in medical practice may inform CBE standardization and competency testing.