What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up

Anna Buteau, Casey A. Seideman, Robert Svatek, Ramy F. Youssef, Gaurab Chakrabarti, Gary Reed, Deepa Bhat, Yair Lotan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. Materials and methods: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. Results: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82%), Caucasian (39%), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85%). Almost 58% of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6%), cystoscopy (9%, and cytology (7.3%). Only 36% of men and 8% of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32% and 51% of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. Conclusions: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)128-134
Number of pages7
JournalUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Primary Care Physicians
Hematuria
Cystoscopy
Cell Biology
Referral and Consultation
Urinalysis
Research Ethics Committees
Practice Guidelines
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Observational Studies
Outpatients
Erythrocytes
Smoking
Guidelines
Morbidity
Kidney
Pain
Survival
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Compliance
  • Electronic medical records
  • Hematuria
  • Primary care physicians
  • Referral

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology

Cite this

What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up. / Buteau, Anna; Seideman, Casey A.; Svatek, Robert; Youssef, Ramy F.; Chakrabarti, Gaurab; Reed, Gary; Bhat, Deepa; Lotan, Yair.

In: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, Vol. 32, No. 2, 02.2014, p. 128-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buteau, Anna ; Seideman, Casey A. ; Svatek, Robert ; Youssef, Ramy F. ; Chakrabarti, Gaurab ; Reed, Gary ; Bhat, Deepa ; Lotan, Yair. / What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up. In: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2014 ; Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 128-134.
@article{731f4fbbb8aa40a28b0559b403c3c9de,
title = "What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up",
abstract = "Background: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. Materials and methods: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. Results: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82{\%}), Caucasian (39{\%}), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85{\%}). Almost 58{\%} of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6{\%}), cystoscopy (9{\%}, and cytology (7.3{\%}). Only 36{\%} of men and 8{\%} of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32{\%} and 51{\%} of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. Conclusions: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.",
keywords = "Compliance, Electronic medical records, Hematuria, Primary care physicians, Referral",
author = "Anna Buteau and Seideman, {Casey A.} and Robert Svatek and Youssef, {Ramy F.} and Gaurab Chakrabarti and Gary Reed and Deepa Bhat and Yair Lotan",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.07.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "128--134",
journal = "Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is evaluation of hematuria by primary care physicians? Use of electronic medical records to assess practice patterns with intermediate follow-up

AU - Buteau, Anna

AU - Seideman, Casey A.

AU - Svatek, Robert

AU - Youssef, Ramy F.

AU - Chakrabarti, Gaurab

AU - Reed, Gary

AU - Bhat, Deepa

AU - Lotan, Yair

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Background: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. Materials and methods: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. Results: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82%), Caucasian (39%), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85%). Almost 58% of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6%), cystoscopy (9%, and cytology (7.3%). Only 36% of men and 8% of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32% and 51% of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. Conclusions: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.

AB - Background: To determine whether patients found to have hematuria by their primary care physicians are evaluated according to best practice policy. Materials and methods: The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center maintains institutional outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) that are used by all providers in all specialties. We conducted an Institutional Review Board approved observational study of patients found to have more than 5 red blood cells/high power field between March 2009 and February 2010. Results: There were 449 patients of whom the majority were female (82%), Caucasian (39%), with microscopic hematuria (MH) (85%). Almost 58% of patients were initially symptomatic with urinary symptoms or pain. Evaluation for the source of hematuria was limited and included imaging (35.6%), cystoscopy (9%, and cytology (7.3%). Only 36% of men and 8% of women were referred to a urologist. No abnormality was found in 32% and 51% of patients with gross hematuria and MH, respectively (P = 0.004). There were 4 bladder tumors and 1 renal mass detected. Male gender, ethnicity and gross (vs. microscopic) hematuria were associated with higher rate of urological referral. Advanced age, smoking, provider practice type, and the presence of urinary symptoms were not associated with an increase rate of urological referral. No additional cancers were diagnosed with 29-month follow-up. Conclusions: While urinalysis remains a common diagnostic tool, most cases of both microscopic and gross hematuria are not fully evaluated according to guidelines. Use of cystoscopy, cytology, and upper tract imaging is limited. Further studies will be needed to determine the extent of the problem and impact on morbidity and survival.

KW - Compliance

KW - Electronic medical records

KW - Hematuria

KW - Primary care physicians

KW - Referral

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892545189&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892545189&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.07.001

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.07.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 23153858

AN - SCOPUS:84892545189

VL - 32

SP - 128

EP - 134

JO - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

JF - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 2

ER -