The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 4 , Pages 329-334, April 2010

Optimization of Clinical Breast Examination

  • William H. Goodson III, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, Calif
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests should be addressed to William H. Goodson III, MD, 2100 Webster Street #401, San Francisco, CA 94115
  • ,
  • Thomas K. Hunt, MD

      Affiliations

    • Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center, Anchorage, Alaska
  • ,
  • Julia N. Plotnik, RN

      Affiliations

    • Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center, Anchorage, Alaska
  • ,
  • Dan H. Moore II, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, Calif
    • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco

Abstract 

Background

Breast examination is necessary for evaluation of the 8% to 17% of cancers missed by mammograms, but it is being done less often and less effectively. To improve the use of breast examination, we tested whether a technique to focus attention could improve the call rate (the percent of examinations leading to further evaluation), a measure of quality, without retraining in examination technique.

Methods

Clinicians were randomized to complete 1 of 2 dedicated, de-identified forms after routine breast examination: a long form intended to focus attention by requesting general breast descriptors along with clinical information and breast examination findings (10 clinicians recorded 964 examinations) or a short form recording only clinical information and examination findings (11 clinicians recorded 558 examinations). There was no technique retraining. Study call rates were compared with historical controls (298 breast examinations by 16 clinicians).

Results

The call rates by the study groups of clinicians were similar, but the call rate using either form (8.3%) was significantly higher than the call rate in the preceding year when no dedicated form was used (4.7%; P=.031), suggesting a Hawthorne effect in which altering conditions of data collection (using the dedicated forms) functioned as an independent variable. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data predicted 3.4 cancers in all 1822 patients; 4 cancers were found.

Conclusion

Breast examination call rate doubled when attention was focused on examination results using a dedicated form, and we found the anticipated cancers. Breast examination quality can be improved by focusing clinician attention without retraining in technique.

Keywords: Clinical breast examination, Reminders, Retraining, Screening

 

 Funding: Various donor funds held in the California Pacific Medical Center Foundation, San Francisco, California. No donations were from commercial entities.

 Conflict of Interest: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest associated with the work presented in this manuscript.

 Authorship: All authors had access to the data and played a role in writing this manuscript.

PII: S0002-9343(09)01056-0

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.08.023

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 4 , Pages 329-334, April 2010