The Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) is the official, peer-reviewed journal of the Southern Medical Association. It has a multidisciplinary and inter-professional focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists.

SMJ // Article

Original Article

Diagnostic Utility and Clinical Implications of Inpatient Fecal Occult Blood Testing

Authors: Richard F. Pearce, MD, Shreya Narayanan, MD, Carlos E. Bertran-Rodriguez, MD, Charles P. Cavalaris, MD, Ambuj Kumar, MD, Athanasious Tsalatsanis, PhD, Nicole Tragash, MD, Chanlir Segarra, MD, Wesley Wright, MD, Rene D. Gomez-Esquivel, MD

Abstract

Objective: The objetive was to evaluate the utility of inpatient and emergency department (ED) fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and its association with downstream healthcare utilization and costs.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients (18 years and older) who underwent FOBT in the ED or inpatient setting at our tertiary academic hospital between April 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021. Patients with known colorectal malignancy were excluded. The data collected included FOBT indications, test positivity, gastroenterology consultations, endoscopic procedures, bleeding source identification, colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses, and cost analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using ?2 and t tests, with significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: In total, 826 patients were included, and 370 (45%) had a positive FOBT. Common indications were gastrointestinal bleed (60%) and anemia (22%). A bleeding source was identified in 43% of FOBT-positive versus 32% of FOBT-negative patients (P < 0.001). Positive results led to more gastroenterology consultations (72% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), esophagogastroduodenoscopies (36% vs. 10%, P < 0.001), and colonoscopies (15% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). CRC was diagnosed in 3% of FOBT-positive and 1% of FOBT-negative patients (P = 0.45). Mean cost per positive FOBT patient was $1185 versus $497 for negative FOBT.

Conclusions: FOBT use in the inpatient and ED settings has limited diagnostic yield for CRC or evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding and is associated with significantly higher downstream healthcare utilization and cost. Institutional guidelines and decision support tools are needed to curtail inappropriate FOBT use and promote evidence-based care.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Elsafi SH, Alqahtani NI, Zakary NY, et al. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2015;8:279-284.
 
2. Friedman A, Chan A, Chin LC, et al. Use and abuse of faecal occult blood tests in an acute hospital inpatient setting. Intern Med J 2010;40:107-111.
 
3. Levin TR. Beyond colonoscopy: the role of alternative screening tests for colorectal cancer in your practice. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:8-10.
 
4. Ip S, Sokoro AA, Kaita L, et al. Use of fecal occult blood testing in hospitalized patients: results of an audit. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;28:489-494.
 
5. Mosadeghi S, Ren H, Catungal J, et al. Utilization of fecal occult blood test in the acute hospital setting and its impact on clinical management and outcomes. J Postgrad Med 2016;62:91-95.
 
6. Russell RO, Arroliga AC, Myers NL, et al. Use and de-implementation of fecal occult blood tests in the acute care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Qual Health Care 2025;37:mzae102.
 
7. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293:2609-2617.
 
8. Laing SS, Bogart A, Chubak J, et al. Psychological distress after a positive fecal occult blood test result among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:154-159.
 
9. Grobbee EJ, Wisse PHA, Schreuders EH, et al. Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;6:CD009276.
 
10. Sokoro A, Shafer LA, Darr M, et al. Utility of fecal immunochemical test vs guaiac fecal occult blood test for assessment of gastrointestinal bleed in hospitalized patients. Clin Chim Acta 2020;500:202-207.
 
11. Bhatti U, Jansson-Knodell C, Saito A, et al. Not FIT for use: fecal immunochemical testing in the inpatient and emergency settings. Am J Med 2022;135:76-81.