Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers

Abstract Background Our goal was to identify, and risk stratify primary care patients with microscopic hematuria (MH), describe the diagnostic evaluations they received, and determine whether the evaluations were consistent with the recommendations of the 2020 AUA/SUFU microscopic hematuria guidelin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Clemens An, Jake Jeong, Cedrick Chiu, Evan Gaston, Amanda Kennedy, Kevan Sternberg
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-01-01
Series:Journal of General and Family Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.740
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841557135806169088
author Clemens An
Jake Jeong
Cedrick Chiu
Evan Gaston
Amanda Kennedy
Kevan Sternberg
author_facet Clemens An
Jake Jeong
Cedrick Chiu
Evan Gaston
Amanda Kennedy
Kevan Sternberg
author_sort Clemens An
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Our goal was to identify, and risk stratify primary care patients with microscopic hematuria (MH), describe the diagnostic evaluations they received, and determine whether the evaluations were consistent with the recommendations of the 2020 AUA/SUFU microscopic hematuria guidelines. Methods A retrospective review of patients presenting to primary care clinics with a diagnosis of MH was performed. The patient risk category was determined based on the 2020 AUA/SUFU guidelines. Diagnostic strategies were recorded, and guideline concordance was determined. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe outcomes. Results A total of 368 patients had a diagnosis of MH; 267/368 (72.6%) patients had all pertinent data available for risk stratification. One‐hundred and fifty‐six (58.4) patients were high‐risk and 55 (35.3%) had a urologic visit. Forty‐one of the 55 (75%) were diagnostically evaluated of which 13 (31.7%) were in‐line with guideline recommendations. Eighty‐two (30.7%) patients were at intermediate risk of which 33 (40.2%) had a urology visit. Of these 33 intermediate‐risk patients, 27 (81.8%) were diagnostically evaluated, five (18.5%) of which were in‐line with guideline recommendations. Twenty‐nine patients were low risk of which 4 (13.8%) had a urology visit. Three of the four patients seen by urology (75%) were evaluated with imaging studies and none received a cystoscopy. Conclusion Almost 60% of the patients in our cohort were high‐risk according to the AUA/SUFU 2020 guidelines. Across all strata, the majority of patients lacked a urology visit and diagnostic evaluation consistent with guideline recommendations. Future efforts should ensure appropriate urologic referral and optimize initial diagnostic strategies for patients with MH.
format Article
id doaj-art-144106a4d9ea4ab2976d4b57bbda2f0b
institution Kabale University
issn 2189-7948
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of General and Family Medicine
spelling doaj-art-144106a4d9ea4ab2976d4b57bbda2f0b2025-01-06T16:06:17ZengWileyJournal of General and Family Medicine2189-79482025-01-01261737810.1002/jgf2.740Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providersClemens An0Jake Jeong1Cedrick Chiu2Evan Gaston3Amanda Kennedy4Kevan Sternberg5The Robert Larner M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont Burlington Vermont USAWashington University School of Medicine Saint Louis Missouri USADepartment of Urology UMass Memorial Health Worcester Massachusetts USAThe Robert Larner M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont Burlington Vermont USADepartment of Medicine Quality Program The Robert Larner M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont Burlington Vermont USADepartment of Urology UMass Memorial Health Worcester Massachusetts USAAbstract Background Our goal was to identify, and risk stratify primary care patients with microscopic hematuria (MH), describe the diagnostic evaluations they received, and determine whether the evaluations were consistent with the recommendations of the 2020 AUA/SUFU microscopic hematuria guidelines. Methods A retrospective review of patients presenting to primary care clinics with a diagnosis of MH was performed. The patient risk category was determined based on the 2020 AUA/SUFU guidelines. Diagnostic strategies were recorded, and guideline concordance was determined. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe outcomes. Results A total of 368 patients had a diagnosis of MH; 267/368 (72.6%) patients had all pertinent data available for risk stratification. One‐hundred and fifty‐six (58.4) patients were high‐risk and 55 (35.3%) had a urologic visit. Forty‐one of the 55 (75%) were diagnostically evaluated of which 13 (31.7%) were in‐line with guideline recommendations. Eighty‐two (30.7%) patients were at intermediate risk of which 33 (40.2%) had a urology visit. Of these 33 intermediate‐risk patients, 27 (81.8%) were diagnostically evaluated, five (18.5%) of which were in‐line with guideline recommendations. Twenty‐nine patients were low risk of which 4 (13.8%) had a urology visit. Three of the four patients seen by urology (75%) were evaluated with imaging studies and none received a cystoscopy. Conclusion Almost 60% of the patients in our cohort were high‐risk according to the AUA/SUFU 2020 guidelines. Across all strata, the majority of patients lacked a urology visit and diagnostic evaluation consistent with guideline recommendations. Future efforts should ensure appropriate urologic referral and optimize initial diagnostic strategies for patients with MH.https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.740CT urogramcystoscopyguideline concordancemicroscopic hematuriapatient outcomesprimary care providers
spellingShingle Clemens An
Jake Jeong
Cedrick Chiu
Evan Gaston
Amanda Kennedy
Kevan Sternberg
Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
Journal of General and Family Medicine
CT urogram
cystoscopy
guideline concordance
microscopic hematuria
patient outcomes
primary care providers
title Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
title_full Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
title_fullStr Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
title_full_unstemmed Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
title_short Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
title_sort risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers
topic CT urogram
cystoscopy
guideline concordance
microscopic hematuria
patient outcomes
primary care providers
url https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.740
work_keys_str_mv AT clemensan riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders
AT jakejeong riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders
AT cedrickchiu riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders
AT evangaston riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders
AT amandakennedy riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders
AT kevansternberg riskstratificationanddiagnosticevaluationofpatientsfoundtohavemicroscopichematuriabytheirprimarycareproviders