The Physical Examination

The physical examination dates back to antiquity, and is useful in assessing a number of clinical findings that can help to establish diagnosis. In other words, examination of a patient's body can help to determine what is happening and what to do.

As I was taught it, examination followed a detailed history-taking which consists of detailed questions and answers about health, symptoms and recent or past events.
I was lucky to attend a medical school (the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine). This is a very large teaching campus serving half Pennsylvania and also Ohio and West Virginia and had dedicated hospitals for veterans, children, women, ear nose and throat surgeries, eye surgeries and psychiatric patients. As the only medical students in Pittsburgh, we had the entire run of the place to ourselves. Also, the population there is the oldest in the U.S., so you do see a lot of folks. Additionally, the faculty included doctors who were very experienced and gained their experience when good history taking and physical examination skills were nearly all you had. This was before ultrasound, CT's and MRI's. Laparoscopic surgery a new technology at my time.

There are times when the physical exam is not so useful (such as discussing a new diagnosis of high cholesterol or diabetes based on abnormal screening blood tests) and other times where it is crucial (such as sore throat, abdominal pain or shortness of breath).

Unlike in days gone by when doctors rarely asked questions of their patients (such as the 1800's), I find that my teachers were correct: the majority of helping patients relies on accurate diagnosis, and the majority of diagnosis relies on history taking and a targeted examination. I continue to find it useful to elicit a full story, give patients adequate time to explain it and then ask what patients think is actually going on. Not, I admit, great for my schedule but it does help to get it right the first time whenever possible.

I see (h/t to Kevin, MD) this remains a topic of debate amongst doctors, which is not surprising in the context of advances in technology and increasing constraints on time.

This author's reflections on how technological advancement has changed medicine including the social aspects of it really resonates with me, as I see fewer and fewer of my colleagues in the hospital at all due to the trend towards doctors going fully into hospitals or fully into offices and clinics, but no longer both.

• I regret that more and more we seem to distrust our eyes (and almost all of dermatology for example relies on observation, as do a myriad of other diagnoses); we distrust our ears (and the tale the patient might tell us if we only listen long enough) and we distrust our senses. We are putting far too much emphasis on "test results" to tell us what to do next.

• We see too little of our radiology colleagues because we don't go down there as much as we used to. It's a loss--it was great to show them a CAT scan or MRI and give them the clinical context, and then hear their opinion.

• I miss the nurses' station with the chart racks which used to be the social center of each floor of the hospital. Since you can write your note from anywhere (including from Starbucks), we we wind up "talking" to each other through the medical record. We don't develop relationships that are good for coordinated patient care.

• I bemoan the fact that the art of bedside diagnosis is in danger of extinction. The people who invented these skills (beginning a hundred and fifty or more years ago) had to wait for an autopsy to reconcile what they saw or felt or heard on the outside of the body with what was actually going on inside. Now, we can make those correlations in real time; it should have made us superb at the bedside. Instead I worry we will get to a point where if you are missing a finger and show up in a hospital, no one will believe you till they get an MRI, CAT scan and an orthopedic consult.

I think this writer sums up nicely the use of a guided examination in arriving at an accurate diagnosis, which not only allows effective treatment to be started without delay, but also avoids unnecessary tests, radiation exposure and cost to the patient.

We believe that the truth is somewhere in between. We argue that clinicians who are skilled at the bedside examination make better use of diagnostic tests and order fewer unnecessary tests. If, for example, you recognise that the patient’s chest pain is confined to a dermatome and is associated with hyperaesthesia, and if you spot a few early vesicles looking like dew drops on rose petals, you have diagnosed varicella zoster and spared the patient the electrocardiography, measurement of cardiac enzymes, chest radiography, spiral computed tomography, and the use of contrast that might otherwise be inevitable. And so many clinical signs, such as rebound tenderness, lid lag, tremor, clubbing, or hemiparesis cannot be discerned by any imaging test.