Rescuing the Clinical Breast Examination: Advances in Classifying Technique and Assessing Physician Competency.

Shlomi Laufer, Anne-Lise D D'Angelo, Calvin Kwan, Rebbeca D Ray, Rachel Yudkowsky, John R Boulet, William C McGaghie, Carla M Pugh
Author Information
  1. Shlomi Laufer: *Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI †Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI ‡Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL §Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research, Philadelphia, PA ¶Department of Medical Education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Develop new performance evaluation standards for the clinical breast examination (CBE).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There are several, technical aspects of a proper CBE. Our recent work discovered a significant, linear relationship between palpation force and CBE accuracy. This article investigates the relationship between other technical aspects of the CBE and accuracy.
METHODS: This performance assessment study involved data collection from physicians (n = 553) attending 3 different clinical meetings between 2013 and 2014: American Society of Breast Surgeons, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Four, previously validated, sensor-enabled breast models were used for clinical skills assessment. Models A and B had solitary, superficial, 2 cm and 1 cm soft masses, respectively. Models C and D had solitary, deep, 2 cm hard and moderately firm masses, respectively. Finger movements (search technique) from 1137 CBE video recordings were independently classified by 2 observers. Final classifications were compared with CBE accuracy.
RESULTS: Accuracy rates were model A = 99.6%, model B = 89.7%, model C = 75%, and model D = 60%. Final classification categories for search technique included rubbing movement, vertical movement, piano fingers, and other. Interrater reliability was (k = 0.79). Rubbing movement was 4 times more likely to yield an accurate assessment (odds ratio 3.81, P < 0.001) compared with vertical movement and piano fingers. Piano fingers had the highest failure rate (36.5%). Regression analysis of search pattern, search technique, palpation force, examination time, and 6 demographic variables, revealed that search technique independently and significantly affected CBE accuracy (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support measurement and classification of CBE techniques and provide the foundation for a new paradigm in teaching and assessing hands-on clinical skills. The newly described piano fingers palpation technique was noted to have unusually high failure rates. Medical educators should be aware of the potential differences in effectiveness for various CBE techniques.

References

  1. Am J Surg. 2008 Jun;195(6):874-80 [PMID: 18514639]
  2. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 [PMID: 18929686]
  3. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004 Nov-Dec;54(6):345-61 [PMID: 15537577]
  4. JAMA. 1985 Apr 19;253(15):2224-8 [PMID: 3974114]
  5. J Am Coll Surg. 2001 Nov;193(5):479-85 [PMID: 11708503]
  6. Am J Surg. 2009 Apr;197(4):525-32 [PMID: 19324111]
  7. N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2664-9 [PMID: 17182991]
  8. Percept Psychophys. 1992 Dec;52(6):661-70 [PMID: 1287570]
  9. West J Med. 1996 Apr;164(4):355-8 [PMID: 8732745]
  10. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 1;31(7):961-5 [PMID: 23129741]
  11. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004 Nov-Dec;54(6):327-44 [PMID: 15537576]
  12. J Gen Intern Med. 1989 Jul-Aug;4(4):277-83 [PMID: 2788213]
  13. Br J Surg. 2010 Aug;97(8):1246-52 [PMID: 20602500]
  14. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42 [PMID: 19920273]
  15. Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):830-49 [PMID: 15486214]
  16. Anesthesiology. 2007 Nov;107(5):705-13 [PMID: 18073544]
  17. Am Fam Physician. 2005 May 1;71(9):1731-8 [PMID: 15887452]
  18. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(2):122-7 [PMID: 22490092]
  19. JAMA. 1999 Oct 6;282(13):1270-80 [PMID: 10517431]
  20. Am J Surg. 2016 Feb;211(2):445-50 [PMID: 26701699]
  21. Am J Surg. 2007 Jun;193(6):766-70 [PMID: 17512293]
  22. Am J Surg. 1998 Jun;175(6):497-502 [PMID: 9645781]
  23. N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 19;372(8):784-6 [PMID: 25693026]
  24. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Sep-Oct;9(5):448-60 [PMID: 12223497]
  25. JAMA. 1999 Sep 1;282(9):861-6 [PMID: 10478693]
  26. JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1599-614 [PMID: 26501536]
  27. Am J Surg. 2015 Apr;209(4):645-51 [PMID: 25725505]
  28. Teach Learn Med. 2009 Apr-Jun;21(2):116-20 [PMID: 19330689]
  29. J Surg Res. 2012 Sep;177(1):27-32 [PMID: 22537839]
  30. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):244-55 [PMID: 26756588]
  31. J Sports Sci. 2002 Aug;20(8):615-22 [PMID: 12190281]

Grants

  1. R01 EB011524/NIBIB NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Breast Neoplasms
Clinical Competence
Female
Fingers
Gynecology
Humans
Male
Movement
Obstetrics
Palpation
Physicians, Family
Surgeons

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CBE=searchtechniqueclinicalaccuracymodelmovementfingerspalpationassessmentAmericanpiano0newperformancebreastexaminationtechnicalaspectsrelationshipforce3BreastskillsModelsBsolitary2 cmmassesrespectivelyCDindependentlyFinalcomparedratesclassificationverticalP<001failuretechniquesOBJECTIVE:DevelopevaluationstandardsSUMMARYBACKGROUNDDATA:severalproperrecentworkdiscoveredsignificantlineararticleinvestigatesMETHODS:studyinvolveddatacollectionphysiciansn553attendingdifferentmeetings20132014:SocietySurgeonsAcademyFamilyPhysiciansCollegeObstetriciansGynecologistsFourpreviouslyvalidatedsensor-enabledmodelsusedsuperficial1 cmsoftdeephardmoderatelyfirmFingermovements1137videorecordingsclassified2observersclassificationsRESULTS:Accuracy996%897%75%60%categoriesincludedrubbingInterraterreliabilityk79Rubbing4timeslikelyyieldaccurateoddsratio81Pianohighestrate365%Regressionanalysispatterntime6demographicvariablesrevealedsignificantlyaffectedCONCLUSIONS:resultssupportmeasurementprovidefoundationparadigmteachingassessinghands-onnewlydescribednotedunusuallyhighMedicaleducatorsawarepotentialdifferenceseffectivenessvariousRescuingClinicalExamination:AdvancesClassifyingTechniqueAssessingPhysicianCompetency

Similar Articles

Cited By