Standardizing bimanual vaginal examination using cognitive task analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To create a standardized universal list of procedural steps for bimanual vaginal examination (BVE) for teaching, assessment, and simulator development. METHODS: This observational study, conducted from June-July 2012 and July-December 2014, collected video data of 10 expert clinicians performing BVE in a nonclinical environment. Video data were analyzed to produce a cognitive task analysis (CTA) of the examination steps performed. The CTA was further refined through structured interviews to make it suitable for teaching or assessment. It was validated through its use as a procedural examination checklist to rate expert clinician performance. RESULTS: BVE was deconstructed into 88 detailed steps outlining the complete examination process. These initial 88 steps were reduced to 35 by focusing on the unseen internal examination, then further refined through interviews with five experts into 30 essential procedural steps, five of which are additional steps if pathology is suspected. Using the CTA as a procedural checklist, the mean number of steps performed and/or verbalized was 21.6 ± 3.12 (72% ± 10.4%; range, 15.9-27.9, 53%-93%). CONCLUSION: This approach identified 30 essential steps for performing BVE, producing a new technique and standardized tool for teaching, assessment, and simulator development

Taking the Pressure Off the Patient - Understanding Digital Rectal Examinations on a Real Subject.

Better understanding of palpation techniques during unsighted physical examinations has mostly been limited to qualitative and quantitative studies of performance of experts whilst conducting examinations on plastic benchtop models. However, little is known about their performance when conducting such examinations on real subjects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to better understand palpation techniques of experts whilst conducting a Digital Rectal Examination on a real subject. METHODS: We recruited four consultants from relevant specialties and asked them to conduct two DREs on a Rectal Teaching Assistant whilst wearing small position and pressure sensors on their examining finger. We segmented the relevant anatomy from an MRI taken of the pelvic region, registered 3D models and analysed retrospectively performance in relation to executed tasks, supination/pronation, palpation convex hull and pressure applied. RESULTS: Primary care consultants examined the anatomy more holistically compared to secondary care experts, the maximum pressure applied across experiments is 3.3N, overall the pressure applied on the prostate is higher than that applied to rectal walls, and the urologist participant not only applied the highest pressure but also did so with the highest most prominent frequency (15.4 and 25.3 Hz). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our research allow for better understanding of experts' technical performance from relevant specialities when conducting a DRE, and suggest the range of pressure applied whilst palpating anatomy. SIGNIFICANCE: This research will be valuable in improving the design of haptics-based learning tools, as well as in encouraging reflection on palpation styles across different specialities to develop metrics of performance