Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 2 , Pages 135-141, August 2010

The Effect of Removal of Point-of-Care Fecal Occult Blood Testing on Performance of Digital Rectal Examinations in the Emergency Department

  • Nathan J. Cleveland, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Denver Health Medical Center, Residency in Emergency Medicine, Denver, CO
  • ,
  • Michael Yaron, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, and Colorado Emergency Medicine Research Center, Aurora, CO
  • ,
  • Adit A. Ginde, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, and Colorado Emergency Medicine Research Center, Aurora, CO
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Adit A. Ginde, MD, MPH, 12401 E 17th Ave, Campus Box B-215, Aurora, CO 80045; 720-848-6777, fax 720-848-7374

Received 22 October 2009; received in revised form 10 December 2009; accepted 16 December 2009. published online 11 January 2010.

Study objective

We determine whether removing point-of-care fecal occult blood testing from the emergency department (ED) is associated with a decrease in documented digital rectal examinations.

Methods

We performed a retrospective observational chart review study examining documented digital rectal examinations, before and after removal of a point-of-care fecal occult blood test, on all adult patients who presented to our ED with chief complaints that were likely to warrant a fecal occult blood test (intervention-sensitive). We studied the 6 months immediately before and after switching from bedside fecal occult blood testing to immunohistochemical laboratory fecal occult blood testing. We compared the results with those from a similar cohort of patients who presented during the same period, with chief complaints that would warrant a digital rectal examination for reasons other than fecal occult blood test (intervention-insensitive).

Results

A total of 4,981 and 5,557 patients met our inclusion criteria during the before and after intervention periods, respectively. We observed an overall reduction of 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8% to 12%) in digital rectal examinations in patients with intervention-sensitive chief complaints. The largest relative decreases in digital rectal examinations were observed in patients with chief complaints of abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea. Smaller decreases were observed in gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and rectal problem. There was an overall reduction of 3% (95% CI 0% to 5%) in documented digital rectal examinations in intervention-insensitive chief complaints. After controlling for all covariates, digital rectal examinations decreased in the postintervention period for intervention-sensitive (odds ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.50]) and, to a lesser extent, for intervention-insensitive (odds ratio 0.67 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.86]) conditions.

Conclusion

Removal of point-of-care fecal occult blood test from our ED was associated with a reduction in digital rectal examinations, particularly among chief complaints that may require fecal occult blood testing.

 

 Supervising editor: Steven M. Green, MD

 Author contributions: NJC and AAG conceived the study, designed the trial, and obtained institutional review board approval. NJC and MY performed electronic chart abstraction and data collection. AAG provided statistical advice and the primary data analysis. NJC authored the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. NJC takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.

 Publication date: Available online January 8, 2010.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

 Please see page 136 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article.

PII: S0196-0644(09)01842-3

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.12.021

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 2 , Pages 135-141, August 2010