Digital rectal examination and urethral catheterization by medical students: comparative study

  • Ismaeel Hama Ameen Aghaways Department of General Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Sulaimania, Sulaimania, Iraq
Keywords: Medical students, small teaching group, traditional teaching group, DRE, urethral catheterization

Abstract

Background and objective: To determine the difference of acquired skills of how to perform Digital Rectal Examination and Urethral Catheterization, by medical students of two groups. Group (A) large group (traditional teaching group) and Group (B) small teaching group

Methods: A questionnaire containing information related to digital rectal examination (DRE) and urethral catheterization was given to all year six medical students at College of Medicine, University of Sulaimanyia , in June 2004 and 2007, just before their fina examination. The questionnaire focused on the important points in relation to ways of teaching.

Results: Responses to all given questions in the questionnaire from the two groups were different, 54% of students from traditional teaching group responded as oppose to 53% from small group . Up to 93% of traditional teaching group student were taught how to perform Digital Rectal Examination, while approximately 80% of students from small teaching group have been taught to do DRE. Only 23% of those among traditional teaching group have done more than 3 DRE, while that of small teaching group was only 8%. In both groups, their findings were uncommonly checked by senior doctor. In both groups nearly 80% of the students had never felt a clinically malignant prostate and nearly the same for rectal tumor. Students from traditional teaching group, who did Digital Rectal Examination, 22% of them were not sure about their ability to give an opinion based on their clinical findings, while 33% of the small teaching groups were unable to give opinion. Nearly 73% in traditional reaching group have been taught how to perform male urethral catheterization, while that of small teaching group was 78%. In traditional teaching group, only 23% have performed 2 and less male urethral catheterization on qualification while 44% in small teaching group. 39% of small teaching group were not confident at all to do male urethral catheterization, while that of traditional teaching group was 27% only.

Conclusion: There was obvious similarity between the two groups regarding the lack of basic skill in conducting DRE, urethral catheterization. This was probably due lack of objectives in the teaching curriculum.

References

Lawrentschuk N, Botton D M Experience and attitudes of final year medical students to DRE, the Medical Journal of Australia, 2004, 181 (6)323-5.

Levis J C. A challenge to Saudi Arabian Hospital?, Saudi Medical Journal,1984 5:1;97-102.

McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J., Morbidity statistics from general practice fourth national study 1991 -1992, Royal College of General Practitioners, Office of population censuses , and department of health 1995.

Franklin C, Lowe M.D, Charles B, Brandler M.D ,Evaluation of the urological patients in Walsh P C, Retik A B, Stamey T A, Vaughan E D (edit).Campbell’s Urology 6th edition 1992,Philadelphia W,B Saunders. Page 314.

McBurney C, The Vermiform appendix in Hardingrains A.J, Ritche D, Baily and loves Short Practice of Surgery 1981 Eighteenth Edition.London, Lewis H.K , Page 1060.

patel H R H , Arya M, The urinary catheter : a voiding catastrophe , Hospital Medicine , March 2001 , volume 62. No.3

Horgan AF, Prasad B, Waldron DJ, O`Sullivan DC, Acute urinary retention, Comparison of suprapubic and urethral catheterization, BJU,1992;70;149-51.

Stoller M L. Retrograde instrumentation of the urinary tract, in Tanagho E A, McAninch JW.(edit).Smith`s General Urology, fifteenth edition, 2000,page 196.

Burch VC , Nash RC, Zambow T, Gibbs T, Aubin L, Lacobs B .. et al, A structural assessment of newly qualified graduates, medical Education, 2005;39;723-731 FORD M.J, CUMMING A.D, The Alimentary and Genitourinary system, examination of the rectum, in Munro J F, Campbell I W, (edit).Macleod`s Clinical Examination, Tenth edition, Churchills Livingstone, London 2000; page 174.

TURNER K.J. BREWSTER S.F, Rectal examination and urethral catheterization by medical students and house officers: taught but not used; BJU International ,2000;86,422-6.

Hennigan T W, Frank SPT, Hocken DB, Allen-Marsh TG ,influence of undergraduate teaching on medical students attitudes to rectal examination, BMJ,1991;302;829

Lempp H, The Hidden Curriculum in Undergraduate Medical Education; qualitative study of medical students perception of teaching ,BMJ;2004 October 2:329(7469):770-3

Reynolds M. SMITH T. Minimum standards for Training, A consumer viewpoint, BMJ; 1985, vol 290;38-5.

The Education Committe of the General Medical Council. Goals and objectives of undergraduate medical education, (Tomorrow Doctors) The General Medical Council of The Medical Education and Registration of United Kingdom. December 1993, London Page 12.

McKilop JH; Changing perception of the purpose of undergraduate medical education,SMJ;2006-51(1):23-6.

Watkin NA, Moisey CUM, Gallegos CRR, Charlton CAC. Urethral catheterization –any body listeining ˀ Annal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1994 (Suppl) ;13 Pub Med PMID 8017798.

Tervo RC; Dimitrievch E, Trujilo A L, Whittle K,Pedinius P,Wellmann L . The objective Structural Clinical Examination (OSCE) in the clinical clerkship;an overview. SDJ Med 1997;50(5); 153-6 (ISSN :0038-3317).

Wallace J, Rao R, Haslam R. Simulated patient and objective structural examination, advances in psychiatric treatment 2002, vol.8;342-50.

Published
2018-10-07
How to Cite
Aghaways, I. (2018). Digital rectal examination and urethral catheterization by medical students: comparative study. Zanco Journal of Medical Sciences (Zanco J Med Sci), 17(3), 526 - 532. https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2013.0044
Section
Original Articles