Search

Introduction: The aim of this clinical update is to summarize articles and guidelines published in the last year with the potential to change current clinical practice as it relates to women's health.Methods: We used two independent search strategies to identify articles relevant to women's health published between March 1, 2007 and February 29, 2008. First, we reviewed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and journal indices from the ACP Journal Club, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Circulation, Diabetes, JAMA, JGIM, Journal of Women's Health, Lancet, NEJM, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Women's Health Journal Watch. Second, we performed a MEDLINE search using the medical subject heading term "sex factors." The authors, who all have clinical and/or research experience in the area of women's health, reviewed all article titles, abstracts, and, when indicated, full publications. We excluded articles related to obstetrical aspects of women's health focusing on those relevant to general internists. We had two acceptance criteria, scientific rigor and potential to impact women's health. We also identified new and/or updated women's health guidelines released during the same time period.Results: We identified over 250 publications with potential relevance to women's health. Forty-six articles were selected for presentation as part of the Clinical Update, and nine were selected for a more detailed discussion in this paper. Evidence-based women's health guidelines are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Important Women's Health Guidelines in 2007-2008: New or Updated Topic Issuing organization Updated recommendations and comments Mammography screening in women 40-4917 ACP Individualized risk assessment and informed decision making should be used to guide decisions about mammography screening in this age group. To aid in the risk assessment, a discussion of the risk factors, which if present in a woman in her 40s increases her risk to above that of an average 50-year-old woman, is provided in the guidelines. In addition, available risk prediction models, such as the NIH Web site calculator (http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/) can also be used to estimate quantitative breast cancer risk. This model was updated in 2008 with race-specific data for calculating risk in African-American women.18 The harms and benefits of mammography should be discussed and incorporated along with a woman's preferences and breast cancer risk profile into the decision on when to begin screening. If a woman decides to forgo mammography, the decision should be readdressed every 1 to 2 years. STD screening guidelines19 USPSTF and CDC Routine screening for this infection is now recommended for ALL sexually active women age 24 and under, based on the recent high prevalence estimates for chlamydia It is not recommended for women (pregnant or nonpregnant) age 25 and older, unless they are at increased risk for infection. STD treatment guidelines20 CDC Flouroquinolones are NO longer recommended for treatment of N. gonorrhea, due to increasing resistance (as high as 15% of isolates in 2006). For uncomplicated infections, treatment of gonorrhea should be initiated with ceftriaxone 125 mg IM or cefixime 400 mg PO and co-treatment for chlamydia infection (unless ruled out with testing). Recent estimates demonstrate that almost 50% of persons with gonorrhea have concomitant chlamydia infection21. STD = sexually transmitted disease, NIH = National Institutes of Health, ACP = American College of Physicians, USPSTF = United States Prevention Services Task Force, CDC = Centers for Disease Control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in breast cancer risk assessment and risk reduction technologies, little is still known about how high- risk women make sense of their risk and assess prevention options, particularly among minority and low-income women. Qualitative methods explore the complex meanings and logics of risk and prevention that quantitative approaches overlook. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how women attending a high risk breast cancer clinic at a public hospital conceptualize their breast cancer risk and think about the prevention options available to them. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were used to gather data from 33 high-risk women (75% African American) between May and August 2004. Interview transcripts were analyzed for recurrent themes and patterns. RESULTS: Despite general awareness of their objective risk status, many women in this study reported they did not feel ‘high risk’ because they lacked signs and symptoms of cancer. Risk was described as an experienced acute problem rather than a statistical possibility. Women also frequently stated that thinking about cancer might cause it to happen and so it is better not to ‘dwell on it.’ While screening was welcomed, women were generally skeptical about primary prevention. In particular, preventive therapies were perceived to cause problems and were only acceptable as treatment options for a disease. CONCLUSIONS: The body of ideas about risk and prevention expressed by this population differ from the medical model. These findings have implications for risk perception research as well as for the efficacy of risk communication and prevention counseling in clinical contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To measure the effectiveness of an educational intervention designed to teach residents four essential evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills: question formulation, literature searching, understanding quantitative outcomes, and critical appraisal.Design: Firm-based, controlled trial.Setting: Urban public hospital.Participants: Fifty-five first-year internal medicine residents: 18 in the experimental group and 37 in the control group.Intervention: An EBM course, taught 2 hours per week for 7 consecutive weeks by senior faculty and chief residents focusing on the four essential EBM skills.Measurements and Main Results: The main outcome measure was performance on an EBM skills test that was administered four times over 11 months: at baseline and at three time points postcourse. Postcourse test 1 assessed the effectiveness of the intervention in the experimental group (primary outcome]; postcourse test 2 assessed the control group after it crossed over to receive the intervention; and postcourse test 3 assessed durability. Baseline EBM skills were similar in the two groups. After receiving the EBM course, the experimental group achieved significantly higher postcourse test scores (adjusted mean difference, 21%; 95% confidence interval, 13% to 28%; P < .001). Postcourse improvements were noted in three of the four EBM skill domains (formulating questions, searching, and quantitative understanding [P < .005 for all], but not in critical appraisal skills [P = .4]). After crossing over to receive the educational intervention, the control group achieved similar improvements. Both groups sustained these improvements over 6 to 9 months of follow-up.Conclusions: A brief structured educational intervention produced substantial and durable improvements in residents' cognitive and technical EBM skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication of statistics and probability is challenging in the cancer care setting. The objectives of this study are to evaluate a novel approach to cancer communication through the use of a computer assessment of patient health numeracy. Methods: We conducted a pilot study of the Computer Adapted Test of Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (CAT-NUMi) before the cancer treatment consultation for women with stage 0–3 breast cancer. Patient outcomes included the interpersonal processes of care (IPC) and the decisional conflict scale. We evaluated clinician use of numeric information in the cancer consultation and assessed feasibility outcomes from the clinician and patient perspective. Results: Patient participants (n = 50) had a median (interquartile range) age of 51 years (46–61), 70% were English speaking, and 30% Spanish speaking. Decisional conflict was low with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) decisional conflict score of 17.4 (12.3). The lack of clarity score (range 1–5) on the IPC was low (mean, SD),1.70 (0.71), indicating clear communication. Clinicians more often used percentages in communicating prognosis among those with higher numeracy scores (median, range): high (2, 0–8), medium (1, 0–7), and low (0, 0–8); p = 0.04. The patient experience of taking the CAT-NUMi was rated as very good or excellent by 65%, fair by 33%, and poor by 2% of patients. Conclusion: Screening for health numeracy with a short computer-based test may be a feasible strategy to optimize clear communication in the cancer treatment consultation. Further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy across cancer treatment clinical settings and populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health numeracy can be defined as the ability to use numeric information in the context of health. The interpretation and application of numbers in health may vary across cultural groups.Objective: To explore the construct of health numeracy among persons who identify as Mexican American.Design: Qualitative focus group study. Groups were stratified by preferred language and level of education. Audio-recordings were transcribed and Spanish groups (n = 3) translated to English. An analysis was conducted using principles of grounded theory.Participants: A purposeful sample of participants from clinical and community sites in the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas.Main Measures: A theoretical framework of health numeracy was developed based upon categories and major themes that emerged from the analysis.Key Results: Six focus groups were conducted with 50 participants. Initial agreement in coding was 59-67% with 100% reached after reconciliation by the coding team. Three major themes emerged: 1) numeracy skills are applied to a broad range of communication and decision making tasks in health, 2) affective and cognitive responses to numeric information influence use of numbers in the health setting, and 3) there exists a strong desire to understand the meaning behind numbers used in health. The findings informed a theoretical framework of health numeracy.Conclusions: Numbers are important across a range of skills and applications in health in a sample of an urban Mexican-American population. This study expands previous work that strives to understand the application of numeric skills to medical decision making and health behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Spanish-speaking population in the U.S. is large and growing and is known to have lower health literacy than the English-speaking population. Less is known about the health numeracy of this population due to a lack of health numeracy measures in Spanish.Objective: we aimed to develop and validate a short and easy to use measure of health numeracy for Spanish-speaking adults: the Spanish Numeracy Understanding in Medicine Instrument (Spanish-NUMi).Design: Items were generated based on qualitative studies in English- and Spanish-speaking adults and translated into Spanish using a group translation and consensus process. Candidate items for the Spanish NUMi were selected from an eight-item validated English Short NUMi. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) was conducted to evaluate equivalence between English and Spanish items. Cronbach's alpha was computed as a measure of reliability and a Pearson's correlation was used to evaluate the association between test scores and the Spanish Test of Functional Health Literacy (S-TOFHLA) and education level.Participants: Two-hundred and thirty-two Spanish-speaking Chicago residents were included in the study.Key Results: The study population was diverse in age, gender, and level of education and 70 % reported Mexico as their country of origin. Two items of the English eight-item Short NUMi demonstrated DIF and were dropped. The resulting six-item test had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.72, a range of difficulty using classical test statistics (percent correct: 0.48 to 0.86), and adequate discrimination (item-total score correlation: 0.34-0.49). Scores were positively correlated with print literacy as measured by the S- TOFHLA (r = 0.67; p < 0.001) and varied as predicted across grade level; mean scores for up to eighth grade, ninth through twelfth grade, and some college experience or more, respectively, were 2.48 (SD ± 1.64), 4.15 (SD ± 1.45), and 4.82 (SD ± 0.37).Conclusions: The Spanish NUMi is a reliable and valid measure of important numerical concepts used in communicating health information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latinas suffer disproportionately from breast cancer, partially due to lower uptake of guideline-concordant breast cancer screening. We describe the design of a study to compare two approaches addressing this important public health problem. We are conducting a 5-year randomized controlled trial. From a federally qualified health center network and through community outreach, we are recruiting 400 Latinas from Chicago who are non-adherent with United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening guidelines. Participants are randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive one of two phone-based interventions (empowerment, education) administered across 3 weekly sessions. Both interventions provide information about breast cancer early detection. The empowerment intervention additionally teaches participants to share information about breast cancer screening with family and friends, while the education intervention educates patients about breast cancer prevention. Non-adherent Latina participants recruit family and friends eligible for breast cancer screening to take part in the study as network members. Network members do not participate in the intervention. Primary outcomes are initial (any mammogram post-enrollment) and repeat (measured at two-year intervals after enrollment) breast cancer screening among intervention participants and network members. Additionally, we will use multi-level structural equation models to assess potential mediators of the impact of the interventions. This study will inform the development of empowerment approaches to increase participation in breast cancers screening among Latinas and reduce health disparities. NCT05841355 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latines suffer from breast cancer (BC), due to elevated biological and social determinants of health (SDOH) risks. This study compares the effects of different strategies on uptake of cancer genetic services, specifically hereditary cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing, and risk-based BC care. In Chicago, Illinois, Aim 1 participants are recruited from a federally qualified health center (FQHC) and community venues. For Aim 1, eligible participants: (1) are female; (2) are Latine; (3) are 30+ years old; (4) have personal or family history of BC or cancers with shared hereditary mutations; (5) have at least one SDOH risk; and (6) have not received any cancer genetic services. Participants are randomly assigned to different study arms. Both arms include phone-based sessions, FQHC-based navigation for SDOH, and low- or no-cost cancer genetic services. The educate sessions focus on risk assessment and prevention. The empower sessions focus on risk assessment and equip participants with the skills to share information about FQHC-based cancer genetic services. For Aim 2, eligible participants are: (1) female; (2) network members of Aim 1 participants; and (3) eligible for BC screening based on guidelines recommended by the American Cancer Society (ACS). Primary outcomes include uptake of any cancer genetic services. Analyses will also explore intervention differences by neighborhood context. This is one of the first trials focused on Latines' participation in cancer genetic services and risk-based BC care within the context of SDOH - which has major implications for equity in precision cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ForewordNational Institutes of Health consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the Federal Government.The statement reflects the panel’s assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a “snapshot in time” of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research.Objective: To provide health-care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is noninferior to in‐person disclosure. However, how patients who prefer in‐person communication of results differ from those who agree to telephone disclosure is unclear but important when considering delivery models for genetic medicine. Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone to in‐person disclosure of genetic test results. We evaluated preferences for in‐person disclosure, factors associated with this preference and outcomes compared to those who agreed to randomization. Among 1178 enrolled patients, 208 (18%) declined randomization, largely given a preference for in‐person disclosure. These patients were more likely to be older (P = 0.007) and to have had multigene panel testing (P < 0.001). General anxiety (P = 0.007), state anxiety (P = 0.008), depression (P = 0.011), cancer‐specific distress (P = 0.021) and uncertainty (P = 0.03) were higher after pretest counseling. After disclosure of results, they also had higher general anxiety (P = 0.003), depression (P = 0.002) and cancer‐specific distress (P = 0.043). While telephone disclosure is a reasonable alternative to in‐person disclosure in most patients, some patients have a strong preference for in‐person communication. Patient age, distress and complexity of testing are important factors to consider and requests for in‐person disclosure should be honored when possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. Methods: We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01736345), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. Results: Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (P =.02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P <.01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety (P =.04), state anxiety (P =.03), depression (P =.04), and uncertainty (P =.05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety (P =.05) and cancer-specific distress (P =.05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty (P =.04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. Conclusion: MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Germline genetic testing is standard practice in oncology. Outcomes of telephone disclosure of a wide range of cancer genetic test results, including multigene panel testing (MGPT) are unknown.Methods: Patients undergoing cancer genetic testing were recruited to a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial (NCT01736345) comparing telephone disclosure (TD) of genetic test results with usual care, in-person disclosure (IPD) after tiered-binned in-person pretest counseling. Primary noninferiority outcomes included change in knowledge, state anxiety, and general anxiety. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific distress, depression, uncertainty, satisfaction, and screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions. To declare noninferiority, we calculated the 98.3% one-sided confidence interval of the standardized effect; t tests were used for secondary subgroup analyses. Only noninferiority tests were one-sided, others were two-sided.Results: A total of 1178 patients enrolled in the study. Two hundred eight (17.7%) participants declined random assignment due to a preference for in-person disclosure; 473 participants were randomly assigned to TD and 497 to IPD; 291 (30.0%) had MGPT. TD was noninferior to IPD for general and state anxiety and all secondary outcomes immediately postdisclosure. TD did not meet the noninferiority threshold for knowledge in the primary analysis, but it did meet the threshold in the multiple imputation analysis. In secondary analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between arms in screening and risk-reducing surgery intentions, and no statistically significant differences in outcomes by arm among those who had MGPT. In subgroup analyses, patients with a positive result had statistically significantly greater decreases in general anxiety with telephone disclosure (TD -0.37 vs IPD +0.87, P = .02).Conclusions: Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined associations between patient characteristics, health behaviors, and health outcomes and explored the role of health literacy as a potential mediator of outcomes. English- and Spanish-speaking adults with Type 2 diabetes used a bilingual multimedia touchscreen to complete questionnaires. The behavioral model for vulnerable populations guided multivariable regression and mediation testing. Dependent variables were diabetes self-care, health status, and satisfaction with communication. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, health literacy, health beliefs, and self-efficacy. Spanish speakers had lower health literacy and poorer physical, mental, and overall health compared to English speakers. Higher health literacy was associated with less social support for diet, fewer diet and medication barriers, younger age, higher diabetes knowledge, and talking with health care professionals to get diabetes information. In contrast to expectations, health literacy was not associated with diabetes self-care, health status, or satisfaction with communication, and it did not mediate the effects of other factors on these outcomes. Diabetes self-efficacy was significantly associated with health behaviors and outcomes. The association between Spanish language preference and poorer health was not mediated by this group's lower health literacy. Increasing health-related self-efficacy might be an important clinical strategy for improving outcomes in underserved patients with Type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis ( IGM) is an infrequently reported benign breast disease of unknown etiology. Surgical treatment has been widely advocated but can be disfiguring. We describe demographic and clinico-pathologic features of women with IGM in a safety net hospital, and evaluate steroid therapy as a breast-conserving modality of treatment. We also examine a possible ethnic predominance in Hispanic women. We conducted an observational prospective cohort study of all women with biopsy-proven granulomatous mastitis in the breast clinics of an urban safety net public hospital from 2006 to 2010. Demographic, ethnic and clinical data, treatment history, and response to treatment were collected. Patients were followed up prospectively to determine the type of treatment prescribed, complete resolution of disease, and median time to resolution. A nested case-control study was conducted to examine Hispanic prevalence using chi-square statistic. The mean age was 35 years. 80% were Hispanic. 80% presented with a painful breast mass. 59% initially received antibiotics with incomplete resolution. 90% women were prescribed oral steroids, 3% underwent surgical treatment, and 6% remained under observation with spontaneous resolution. Of those who received steroid, 80% had complete resolution of disease with a median time to complete resolution of 159 days ( IQR 120-241 days). Ethnicity data in a nested case-control study revealed that women in the IGM group were more likely to be Hispanic than in the control group with an odds ratio of 3 (95% CI 1.42-6.24, p-value 0.0032). IGM is a benign but locally aggressive breast disease. Treatment with steroids is an effective breast-conserving option. Predominance in Hispanic women of childbearing age suggests a common genetic, environmental, immunologic, or infectious etiology and warrants further study with a multi-disciplinary approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer patients represent the largest group of adult cancer survivors in the US. Most breast cancers in women 50 years of age and older are hormone receptor positive. Third generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the newest class of drugs used in treating hormone responsive breast cancer. It is often during start of adjuvant hormone therapy that the breast cancer patient establishes (or reestablishes) close follow-up with their general internist.Objective: Given the large numbers of breast cancer patients in the US and the increasing use of third generation AI's, general internists will need to have a clear understanding of these drugs including their benefits and potential harms. Currently there are three third generation aromatase inhibitors FDA approved for use in the US. All have been shown to be superior to tamoxifen in disease free survival (DFS) in the treatment of both metastatic and early breast cancers.Results: While the data on side effects is limited, AI (compared to tamoxifen) may result in higher rates of osteoporosis and fractures, more arthralgias, and increased vaginal dryness and dysparuenia. Limited information on their effects on the cardiovascular system and neuro-cognitive function are also available. Patient's receiving adjuvant hormone therapy are generally considered disease free or disease stable and require less intensive monitoring by their breast cancer specialist.Conclusions: In situations where patients experience significant negative side effects from AI therapy, discussions to discontinue treatment (and switch to an alternative endocrine therapy) should involve the cancer specialist and take into consideration the patient's risk for breast cancer recurrence and the impact of therapy on their quality of life. In some cases, patients may choose to never initiate AI treatment. In other cases, patients may choose to prematurely discontinue therapy even if therapy is well tolerated. In both settings increased knowledge by the general internists will likely facilitate discussions of risks versus benefits of therapy and possibly improve compliance to adjuvant hormone therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), cancer survivorship encompasses the "physical, psychosocial, and economic issues of cancer from diagnosis until the end of life." Today, one in 30 Americans are cancer survivors. Almost two-thirds have at least one chronic health condition. As the numbers of cancer survivors increase, cancer itself can be viewed as a chronic medical condition. This paper illustrates some of the challenges faced by cancer survivors. We discuss the limitations of current models of survivorship care, including shared care. In addition, we explore how the American Board of Internal Medicine's previously proposed credential of Comprehensive Care Internist could serve to define and integrate the complex needs of adult cancer survivors with the skills and talents of general internists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of women with breast cancer as teachers of the importance of breast cancer screening to their first-degree female relatives. The sample was restricted to low-income working age women recruited from four hospitals. The study design was a randomized clinical trial. At each hospital, breast cancer patients (probands) were randomized into one of two study groups: (i) intensive, individual educational training on breast cancer screening or (ii) standard clinic education on breast cancer screening. The probands were instructed to teach at least one of their first-degree female relatives (21+ years of age) about breast cancer screening techniques. Three to six months after the enrollment of the probands, their relatives were contacted by telephone to determine breast cancer screening practices. A total of 79 probands and 96 relatives participated in the study. Relatives in the education group when compared with the control group were: 1.25 times more likely to have clinical breast examination (p = 0.005), 2.83 times more likely to have scheduled a clinical breast examination (p = 0.046), and, 1.36 times more likely to have been told about performing breast self-examination (p = 0.05). Additionally, relatives in the education group were more likely to have received a pamphlet on breast cancer screening (RR = 1.58, p = 0.009) and have discussed the importance of breast cancer screening (RR = 1.33, p = 0.020) from the proband. Special education training did not impact mammography utilization of the relatives. From these findings, a tri-ethnic group of low-income women with breast cancer can be effective teachers of breast cancer screening practices, at least for promoting clinical breast examination and transmitting messaging for performance of breast self-examination if given the adequate training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine if structured teaching of bedside cardiac examination skills improves medical residents' examination technique and their identification of key clinical findings. DESIGN: Firm-based single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING: Inpatient service at a university-affiliated public teaching hospital PARTICIPANTS: Eighty Internal Medicine residents. METHODS: The study assessed 2 intervention groups that received 3-hour bedside teaching sessions during their 4-week rotation using either: (1) a traditional teaching method, ‘demonstration and practice’ (DP) (n =26) or (2) an innovative method, ‘collaborative discovery’ (CD) (n=24). The control group received their usual ward teaching sessions (n=25). The main outcome measures were scores on examination technique and correct identification of key clinical findings on an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). RESULTS: All 3 groups had similar scores for both their examination technique and identification of key findings In the preintervention OSCE. After teaching, both intervention groups significantly improved their technical examination skills compared with the control group. The increase was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4% to 17%) for CD versus control and 12% (95% CI 6% to 19%) for DP versus control (both P<.005) equivalent to an additional 3 to 4 examination skills being correctly performed. Improvement in key findings was limited to a 5% (95% CI 2% to 9%) increase for the CD teaching method, CD versus control P=.046, equivalent to the identification of an additional 2 key clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Both programs of bedside teaching increase the technical examination skills of residents but improvements in the identification of key clinical findings were modest and only demonstrated with a new method of teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]