Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature

Improved provider preparedness through an 8-part genetics and genomic education program

PURPOSE

Large-scale genetics education appropriate for general practice providers is a growing priority. We describe the content and impact of a mandatory system-wide program implemented at Sanford Health.

METHODS

The Imagenetics Initiative at Sanford Health developed a 2-year genetics education program with quarterly web-based modules that were mandatory for all physicians and advanced practice providers. Scores of 0 to 5 were calculated for each module on the basis of the number of objectives that the participants reported as fulfilled. In addition, the participants completed surveys before starting and after finishing the education program, which included a 7-item measure scored 7 to 28 on the perceived preparedness to practice genetics.

RESULTS

Between 2252 and 2822 Sanford Health employees completed each of the 8 quarterly education modules. The ratings were highest for the module about using genomics to improve patient management (mean score = 4.3) and lowest for the module about different types of genetic tests and specialists. The mean perceived preparedness scores increased from 15.7 at pre-education to 19.1 at post-education (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Web-based genetics education was highly effective in increasing health care providers' confidence about using genetics. Both comfort with personal knowledge and confidence regarding access to the system's genomic medicine experts increased significantly. The results demonstrate how scalable approaches can improve provider preparedness.

Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain's framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains - knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Furthermore, policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

Precision Medicine-A Demand Signal for Genomics Education

Pressed by the accumulating knowledge in genomics and the proven success of the translation of cancer genomics to clinical practice in oncology, the Obama administration unveiled a $215 million commitment for the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) in 2016, a pioneering research effort to improve health and treat disease using a new model of patient-powered research. The objectives of the initiative include more effective treatments for cancer and other diseases, creation of a voluntary national research cohort, adherence to privacy protections for maintaining data sharing and use, modernization of the regulatory framework, and forging public-private partnerships to facilitate these objectives. Specifically, the DoD Military Health System joined other agencies to execute a comprehensive effort for PMI. Of the many challenges to consider that may contribute to the implementation of genomics-lack of familiarity and understanding, poor access to genomic medicine expertise, needs for extensive informatics and infrastructure to integrate genomic results, privacy and security, and policy development to address the unique requirements of military medical practice-we will focus on the need to establish education in genomics appropriate to the provider's responsibilities. Our hypothesis is that there is a growing urgency for the development of educational experiences, formal and informal, to enable clinicians to acquire competency in genomics commensurate with their level of practice. Several educational approaches, both in practice and in development, are presented to inform decision-makers and empower military providers to pursue courses of action that respond to this need.

Challenges and practical solutions for managing secondary genomic findings in primary care

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Genetic Referral Patterns and Responses to Clinical Scenarios: A Survey of Primary Care Providers and Clinical Geneticists

Introduction:

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are considered the gatekeepers of genetic services, but they often underutilize or inappropriately utilize such services, leading to lack of early treatment, incorrect diagnoses, and unnecessary procedures. This study aims to delineate PCP referral patterns, including the frequency of, motivators for, and barriers to genetic referrals and testing in the present landscape of genomics.

Methods:

A 34-item online survey was distributed to PCPs in the United States (US). PCP demographics, practice characteristics, and referral patterns, motivators, and barriers were analyzed. Six hypothetical clinical scenarios included in the survey also were presented to a cohort of clinical geneticists. We calculated PCPs’ rates of ordering genetic tests and of referral to genetics services in the past year. Rates and responses to clinical scenarios were compared based on respondents’ personal and practice characteristics.

Results:

A total of 95 PCPs and 25 clinical geneticists participated. Among the PCPs, 79% reported referring and 50% reported ordering genetic testing in the last year. PCPs with genetic counselors (GCs) in their clinic referred at significantly higher rates than those without (P = .008). White PCPs referred at significantly higher rates compared to Black or African American PCPs (P = .009). The most commonly reported motivators for referring patients to genetic services were preference for specialist coordination, lack of knowledge, and family’s desire for risk information. The most commonly reported barriers were patient refusal, provider concerns about costs to patients, and uncertainty of when a genetic referral is appropriate. In response to clinical scenarios, clinical geneticists were in agreement about the need for genetic testing or referral for 2 of the scenarios. For these 2 scenarios, only 48% and 71% of PCPs indicated that they would offer genetic testing or referral, respectively.

Conclusions:

Responses to clinical scenarios suggest that it is not clear to PCPs when referrals or testing are needed. Collaboration with GCs is one approach to reducing barriers to and improving PCPs’ utilization of genetic services. Clear guidelines from clinical geneticists may help facilitate appropriate use of genetics services by PCPs. Additional research is needed to further describe barriers that PCPs face in genetic testing/referrals.

OB/GYN residents' training, attitudes, and comfort level regarding genetics

PURPOSE

While the availability, utility, and complexity of genetic testing expands, limited information exists regarding obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) residents' knowledge of genetics and confidence in providing genetic services. This study examined OB/GYN residents' educational and clinical experiences with genetics during residency, personal attitudes regarding the value of genetics and its role in their practice, level of comfort with genetic counseling, and potential motivators for learning about genetics.

METHODS

Eligible participants included residents currently enrolled in a CREOG-associated OB/GYN training program in the USA or Canada. A link to an anonymous 49-question RedCap survey was emailed to program coordinators in October 2017 to be forwarded to all OB/GYN residents.

RESULTS

Eighty-two OB/GYN residents representing all postgraduate years of training completed the survey. Residents indicated learning about genetics through discussions with attending physicians, lectures/courses, and publications. While residents felt their attendings valued (81%) and were knowledgeable about (85%) genetics, 28% felt their attendings did not reinforce concepts that were learned in coursework. Residents valued staying informed about the field of genetics and felt providing genetic services was within their scope of practice; however, there were deficiencies in self-reported comfort level, particularly regarding hereditary cancer counseling. Residents cited accessibility of information as a top motivator to stay informed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically relevant, accessible didactic information about genetics reinforced in the clinical setting may increase residents' level of comfort with providing genetic services.

Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Readiness for Delivering Genetic and Genomic Services to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Increased genomics knowledge and access are advancing precision medicine and care delivery. With the translation of precision medicine across health care, genetics and genomics will play a greater role in primary care services. Health disparities and inadequate representation of racial and ethnically diverse groups threaten equitable access for those historically underserved. Health provider awareness, knowledge, and perceived importance are important determinants of the utilization of genomic applications.

METHODS

We evaluated the readiness of primary care providers at a Federally Qualified Health Center, the Community Health Center, Inc. (CHCI) for delivering genetic and genomic testing to underserved populations. Online survey questions focused on providers' education and training in basic and clinical genetics, familiarity with current genetic tests, and needs for incorporating genetics and genomics into their current practice.

RESULTS

Fifty of 77 (65%) primary care providers responded to the survey. Less than half received any training in basic or clinical genetics (40%), were familiar with specific genetic tests (36%), or felt confident with collecting family health history (44%), and 70% believed patients would benefit from genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Despite knowledge gaps, respondents recognized the value and need to bring these services to their patients, though would like more education on applying genetics and genomics into their practice, and more training about discussing risk factors associated with race or ethnicity. We provide further evidence of the need for educational resources and standardized guidelines for providers caring for underserved populations to optimize appropriate use and referral of genetic and genomic services and to reduce disparities in care.

Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models

The application of pharmacogenomics could meaningfully contribute toward medicines optimization within primary care. This review identified 13 studies describing eight implementation models utilizing a multi-gene pharmacogenomic panel within a primary care or community setting. These were small feasibility studies (n <200). They demonstrated importance and feasibility of pre-test counseling, the role of the pharmacist, data integration into the electronic medical record and point-of-care clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Findings were considered alongside existing primary care prescribing practices and implementation frameworks to demonstrate how issues may be addressed by existing nationalized healthcare and primary care infrastructure. Development of point-of-care CDSS should be prioritized; establishing clinical leadership, education programs, defining practitioner roles and responsibilities and addressing commissioning issues will also be crucial.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July-August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.

Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs.

Following NCCN guidelines within one hospital system in the United States: Comparison between cancer centers and genetic counselor utilization

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high-risk screening or risk-reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system's cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system's registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non-GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non-GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p < .001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p < .001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p < .001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p < .001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type.

Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?

Precision medicine is increasingly incorporated into clinical practice via three primary data conduits: environmental, lifestyle, and genetic data. In this manuscript we take a closer look at the genetic tier of precision medicine. The volume and variety of data provides a more robust picture of health for individual patients and patient populations. However, this increased data may also have an adverse effect by muddling our understanding without the proper pedagogical tools. Patient genomic data can be challenging to work with. Physicians may encounter genetic results which are not fully understood. Genetic tests may also lead to the quandary of linking patients with diseases or disorders where there are no known treatments. Thus, physicians face a unique challenge of establishing the proper scope of their duty to patients when dealing with genomic data. Some of those scope of practice boundaries have been established as a result of litigation, while others remain an open question. In this paper, we map out some of the legal challenges facing the genomic component of precision medicine, both established and some questions requiring additional guidance. If physicians begin to perceive genomic data as falling short in overall benefit to their patients, it may detrimentally impact precision medicine as a whole. Helping to develop guidance for physicians working with patient genomic data can help avoid this fate of faltering confidence.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.

OBJECTIVE

To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.

RESULTS

Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Barriers and strategies to integrate medical genetics and primary care in underserved populations: a scoping review

Despite clinical and technological advances, serious gaps remain in delivering genetic services due to disparities in workforce distribution and lack of coverage for genetic testing and counseling. Genetic services delivery, particularly in medically underserved populations, may rely heavily on primary care providers (PCPs). This study aims to identify barriers to integrating genetic services and primary care, and strategies to support integration, by conducting a scoping review. Literature synthesis found barriers most frequently cited by PCPs including insufficient knowledge about genetics and risk assessment, lack of access to geneticists, and insufficient time to address these challenges. Telegenetics, patient-centered care, and learning communities are strategies to overcome these barriers. Telegenetics supplements face-to-face clinics by providing remote access to genetic services. It may also be used for physician consultations and education. Patient-centered care allows providers, families, and patients to coordinate services and resources. Access to expert information provides a critical resource for PCPs. Learning communities may represent a mechanism that facilitates information exchange and knowledge sharing among different providers. As PCPs often play a crucial role caring for patients with genetic disorders in underserved areas, barriers to primary care-medical genetics integration must be addressed to improve access. Strategies, such as telegenetics, promotion of evidence-based guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored education in genetics-related topics, and other system-level strategies, will facilitate better genetics and primary care integration, which in turn, may improve genetic service delivery to patients residing in underserved communities.

Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings

BACKGROUND

Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients' and the general public's perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure.

METHODS

Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts.

RESULTS

Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient's decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential.

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.

Pediatric Oncologists' Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care

Pediatric oncologists’ perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists’ experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients’ families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients’ reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families’ questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists’ genetics expertise, and navigating families’ emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs’ and geneticists’ support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.

Toward a Population-Based Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Approach? The Needs and Concerns of Healthcare Providers

Given the expanding knowledge base in cancer genomics, risk-based screening is among the promising avenues to improve breast cancer (BC) prevention and early detection at the population level. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HPs) regarding the implementation of such an approach and identify tools that can support HPs. After undertaking an in-depth thematic content analysis of the responses, 11 themes were identified. These were embedded into a logical model to distinguish the potential eligible participants (who?), the main clinical activities (how?) and associated tools (what?), the key factors of acceptability (which?), and the expected effects of the strategy (why?). Overall, it was found that the respondents positively welcomed the implementation of this strategy and agreed on some of the benefits that could accrue to women from tailored risk-based screening. Some important elements, however, deserve clarification. The results also highlight three main conditions that should be met to foster the acceptability of BC risk stratification: respecting the principle of equity, paying special attention to knowledge management, and rethinking human resources to capitalize on the strengths of the current workforce. Because the functioning of BC risk-based screening is not yet well defined, important planning work is required before advancing this organizational innovation, and outstanding issues must be resolved to get HPs on board.

Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential.

METHODS

We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling.

DISCUSSION

BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

Rates of genetic testing in patients prescribed drugs with pharmacogenomic information in FDA-approved labeling

This study examined rates of genetic testing in two cohorts of publicly insured individuals who have newly prescribed medication with FDA pharmacogenomic labeling guidance. Genetic testing was rare (4.4% and 10.5% in Medicaid and Medicare cohorts, respectively) despite the fact that all participants selected were taking medications that contained pharmacogenomic labeling information. When testing was conducted it was typically done before the initial use of a target medication. Factors that emerged as predictors of the likelihood of undergoing genetic testing included White ethnicity (vs. Black), female gender, and age. Cost analyses indicated higher expenditures in groups receiving genetic testing vs. matched comparators with no genetic testing, as well as disparities between proactively and reactively tested groups (albeit in opposite directions across cohorts). Results are discussed in terms of the possible reasons for the low base rate of testing, mechanisms of increased cost, and barriers to dissemination and implementation of these tests.

Primary care providers' role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') role in result notification for newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF), given that expanded NBS has increased the number of positive screening test results, drawing attention to the role of PCPs in supporting families.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews.

SETTING

Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care providers (FPs, pediatricians, and midwives) who received a positive CF NBS result for an infant in their practice in the 6 months before the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether the PCP notified the family of the initial positive CF screening result.

RESULTS

Data from 321 PCP surveys (response rate of 51%) are reported, including 208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, and 45 midwives. Interviews were completed with 34 PCPs. Most (65%) surveyed PCPs reported notifying the infant's family of the initial positive screening result; 81% agreed that they have an important role to play in NBS; and 88% said it was important for PCPs, rather than the NBS centre, to notify families of initial positive results. With support and information from NBS centres, 68% would be extremely or very confident in doing so; this dropped to 54% when reflecting on their recent reporting experience. More than half (58%) of all PCPs said written point-of-care information from the NBS centre was the most helpful format. Adjusted for relevant factors, written educational information was associated with a lower rate of notifying families than written plus verbal information (risk ratio of 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92). In the interviews, PCPs emphasized the challenge of balancing required content knowledge with the desire for the news to come from a familiar provider.

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs notify families of NBS results and value this role. These data are relevant as NBS programs and other genomic services expand and consider ways of keeping PCPs confident and actively involved.

Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results

OBJECTIVE

To explore primary care providers' (PCPs') preferred roles and confidence in caring for infants receiving a positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) result, as well as management of CF family planning issues, given that expanded NBS has resulted in an increase in positive results.

DESIGN

Mailed questionnaire.

SETTING

Ontario.

PARTICIPANTS

Ontario FPs, pediatricians, and midwives identified by Newborn Screening Ontario as having had an infant with a positive CF NBS result in their practice in the previous 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary care providers' preferred roles in providing well-baby care for infants with positive CF screening results.

RESULTS

Overall, 321 of 628 (51%) completed surveys (208 FPs, 68 pediatricians, 45 midwives). For well-baby care for infants confirmed to have CF, 77% of PCPs indicated they would not provide total care (ie, 68% would share care with other specialists and 9% would refer to specialists completely); for infants with an inconclusive CF diagnosis, 50% of PCPs would provide total care, 45% would provide shared care, and 5% would refer to a specialist; for CF carriers, 89% of PCPs would provide total care, 9% would provide shared care, and 2% would refer. Half (54%) of PCPs were extremely or very confident in providing reassurance about CF carriers' health. Only 25% knew how to order parents' CF carrier testing; 67% knew how to refer for prenatal diagnosis. Confidence in reassuring parents about the health of CF carrier children was associated with providing total well-baby care for CF carriers (risk ratio of 1.50; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.97) and infants with an inconclusive diagnosis (risk ratio of 3.30; 95% CI 1.34 to 8.16).

CONCLUSION

Most PCPs indicated willingness to treat infants with a range of CF NBS results in some capacity. It is concerning that some indicated CF carriers should have specialist involvement and only half were extremely or very confident about reassuring families about carrier status. This raises issues about possible medicalization of those with carrier status, prompting the need for PCP education about genetic disorders and the meaning of genetic test results.

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications

Background

Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients.

Methods

The Clinical Genome Resource’s (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus.

Results

Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing).

Conclusions

The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-021-00887-x.

Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

Scaling Genetic Counseling in the Genomics Era

The development of massively parallel sequencing-based genomic sequencing tests has increased genetic test availability and access. The field and practice of genetic counseling have adapted in response to this paradigm-shifting technology and the subsequent transition to practicing genomic medicine. While the key elements defining genetic counseling remain relevant, genetic counseling service delivery models and practice settings have evolved. Genetic counselors are addressing the challenges of direct-to-consumer and consumer-driven genetic testing, and genetic counseling training programs are responding to the ongoing increased demand for genetic counseling services across a broadening range of contexts. The need to diversify both the patient and participant groups with access to genetic information, as well as the field of genetic counseling, is at the forefront of research and training program initiatives. Genetic counselors are key stakeholders in the genomics era, and their contributions are essential to effectively and equitably deliver precision medicine.

Democratizing genomics: Leveraging software to make genetics an integral part of routine care

Genetic testing can provide definitive molecular diagnoses and guide clinical management decisions from preconception through adulthood. Innovative solutions for scaling clinical genomics services are necessary if they are to transition from a niche specialty to a routine part of patient care. The expertise of specialists, like genetic counselors and medical geneticists, has traditionally been relied upon to facilitate testing and follow-up, and while ideal, this approach is limited in its ability to integrate genetics into primary care. As individuals, payors, and providers increasingly realize the value of genetics in mainstream medicine, several implementation challenges need to be overcome. These include electronic health record integration, patient and provider education, tools to stay abreast of guidelines, and simplification of the test ordering process. Currently, no single platform offers a holistic view of genetic testing that streamlines the entire process across specialties that begins with identifying at-risk patients in mainstream care settings, providing pretest education, facilitating consent and test ordering, and following up as a "genetic companion" for ongoing management. We describe our vision for using software that includes clinical-grade chatbots and decision support tools, with direct access to genetic counselors and pharmacists within a modular, integrated, end-to-end testing journey.

Experiences with offering pro bono medical genetics services in the West Indies: Benefits to patients, physicians, and the community

We describe our experiences with organizing pro bono medical genetics and neurology outreach programs on several different resource-limited islands in the West Indies. Due to geographic isolation, small population sizes, and socioeconomic disparities, most Caribbean islands lack medical services for managing, diagnosing, and counseling individuals with genetic disorders. From 2015 to 2019, we organized 2-3 clinics per year on various islands in the Caribbean. We also organized a week-long clinic to provide evaluations for children suspected of having autism spectrum disorder. Consultations for over 100 different individuals with suspected genetic disorders were performed in clinics or during home visits following referral by locally registered physicians. When possible, follow-up visits were attempted. When available and appropriate, clinical samples were shipped to collaborating laboratories for molecular analysis. Laboratory tests included karyotyping, cytogenomic microarray analysis, exome sequencing, triplet repeat expansion testing, blood amino acid level determination, biochemical assaying, and metabolomic profiling. We believe that significant contributions to healthcare by genetics professionals can be made even if availability is limited. Visiting geneticists may help by providing continuing medical education seminars. Clinical teaching rounds help to inform local physicians regarding the management of genetic disorders with the aim of generating awareness of genetic conditions. Even when only periodically available, a visiting geneticist may benefit affected individuals, their families, their local physicians, and the community at large.

Pharmacogenomics for Primary Care: An Overview

Most of the prescribing and dispensing of medicines happens in primary care. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is the study and clinical application of the role of genetic variation on drug response. Mounting evidence suggests PGx can improve the safety and/or efficacy of several medications commonly prescribed in primary care. However, implementation of PGx has generally been limited to a relatively few academic hospital centres, with little adoption in primary care. Despite this, many primary healthcare providers are optimistic about the role of PGx in their future practice. The increasing prevalence of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and primary care PGx studies herald the plausible gradual introduction of PGx into primary care and highlight the changes needed for optimal translation. In this article, the potential utility of PGx in primary care will be explored and on-going barriers to implementation discussed. The evidence base of several drug-gene pairs relevant to primary care will be outlined with a focus on antidepressants, codeine and tramadol, statins, clopidogrel, warfarin, metoprolol and allopurinol. This review is intended to provide both a general introduction to PGx with a more in-depth overview of elements relevant to primary care.

Factors influencing cancer genetic somatic mutation test ordering by cancer physician

BACKGROUND

Clinical whole exome sequencing was introduced in an Australian centre in 2017, as an alternative to Sanger sequencing. We aimed to identify predictors of cancer physicians' somatic mutation test ordering behaviour.

METHODS

A validated instrument assessed somatic mutation test ordering, genomic confidence, perceived utility of tumour molecular profiling, and percent of patients eligible for targeted therapy. A cash incentive was included in 189/244 questionnaires which were mailed to all Queensland cancer specialists in November 2018.

RESULTS

110 participated (response rate 45%); 54.7% oncologists, and the remainder were surgeons, haematologists and pulmonologists. Oncologists were more likely to respond (p = 0.008), and cash incentive improved the response rate (p < 0.001). 67/102 (65.7%) of physicians ordered ≥ 5 somatic mutation tests annually. Oncologists saw 86.75 unique patients monthly and ordered 2.33 somatic mutation tests (2.2%). An average of 51/110 (46.1%) reported having little/no genomic confidence. Logistic regression identified two significant predictors of somatic mutation test ordering: being an oncologist (OR 3.557, CI 1.338-9.456; p = 0.011) and having greater confidence in interpreting somatic results (OR 5.926, CI 2.230-15.74; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous studies, the majority of cancer physicians ordered somatic mutation tests. However, the percentage of patients on whom tests were ordered was low. Almost half respondents reported low genomic confidence. Somatic mutation test ordering was higher amongst oncologists and those with increased confidence in interpreting somatic variants. It is unclear whether genomically confident individuals ordered more tests or whether ordering more tests increased genomic confidence. Educational interventions could improve confidence and enhance test ordering behaviour.

Ethical Considerations on Pediatric Genetic Testing Results in Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and access to expanded genetic testing have resulted in more children and adolescents receiving genetic testing for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. With increased adoption of the electronic health record (EHR), genetic testing is increasingly resulted in the EHR. However, this leads to challenges in both storage and disclosure of genetic results, particularly when parental results are combined with child genetic results.

PRIVACY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Accidental disclosure and erroneous documentation of genetic results can occur due to the nature of their presentation in the EHR and documentation processes by clinicians. Genetic information is both sensitive and identifying, and requires a considered approach to both timing and extent of disclosure to families and access to clinicians.

METHODS

This article uses an interdisciplinary approach to explore ethical issues surrounding privacy, confidentiality of genetic data, and access to genetic results by health care providers and family members, and provides suggestions in a stakeholder format for best practices on this topic for clinicians and informaticians. Suggestions are made for clinicians on documenting and accessing genetic information in the EHR, and on collaborating with genetics specialists and disclosure of genetic results to families. Additional considerations for families including ethics around results of adolescents and special scenarios for blended families and foster minors are also provided. Finally, administrators and informaticians are provided best practices on both institutional processes and EHR architecture, including security and access control, with emphasis on the minimum necessary paradigm and parent/patient engagement and control of the use and disclosure of data.

CONCLUSION

The authors hope that these best practices energize specialty societies to craft practice guidelines on genetic information management in the EHR with interdisciplinary input that addresses all stakeholder needs.

Prevalence and types of inconsistencies in clinical pharmacogenetic recommendations among major U.S. sources

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics (PGx) is slow. Previous studies have identified some inconsistencies among clinical PGx recommendations, but the prevalence and types of inconsistencies have not been comprehensively analyzed among major PGx guidance sources in the U.S. PGx recommendations from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug labels, and major U.S. professional medical organizations were analyzed through May 24, 2019. Inconsistencies were analyzed within the following elements: recommendation category; whether routine screening was recommended; and the specific biomarkers, variants, and patient groups involved. We identified 606 total clinical PGx recommendations, which contained 267 unique drugs. Composite inconsistencies occurred in 48.1% of clinical PGx recommendations overall, and in 93.3% of recommendations from three sources. Inconsistencies occurred in the recommendation category (29.8%), the patient group (35.4%), and routine screening (15.2%). In conclusion, almost one-half of clinical PGx recommendations from prominent U.S. guidance sources contain inconsistencies, which can potentially slow clinical implementation.

Genetic Testing and Counseling in Metabolic Liver Disease: An Interactive Lecture for Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

Medical students have limited opportunities to learn about current genetic testing. This session provided exposure to different types of testing and the complex issues that physicians may encounter when counseling patients on proper testing and interpreting results.

METHODS

We designed a 1-hour interactive lecture for second-year medical students. We presented an overview of the topic, then applied the concepts to specific disorders and cases. Students were asked to answer questions regarding cases using an audience response system, and we used their responses as the basis for our in-class discussion. This session has been held twice, with 25 students attending in 2018 and 31 students in 2019. The session was also recorded so that additional students not in attendance could watch, and was available to 151 students in 2018 and 333 students in 2019.

RESULTS

Students answered questions via audience response system. There was a range of 47%-100% of students giving the correct answers in 2018, and 55%-93% in 2019. Exam questions covering genetic counseling issues were answered correctly by 66% and 77% of students in 2018, and 70% and 68% of students in 2019.

DISCUSSION

This session provided an opportunity for medical students to be exposed to some of the complex ethical and psychosocial issues that may arise with genetic testing for liver disease and to consider how to navigate them. Using an audience response system during the lecture made the session more interactive and allowed the teacher to correct errors and teach based on the responses.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program

BACKGROUND

In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios.

METHODS

We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group.

RESULTS

Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement.

Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The discovery of genes underlying inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer has revolutionized the ability to identify women at high risk for these diseases before they become affected. Women who are carriers of deleterious variants in these genes can undertake surveillance and prevention measures that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, under current strategies, the vast majority of women carriers remain undetected until they become affected. In this review, we show that universal testing, particularly of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, fulfills classical disease screening criteria. This is especially true for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Ashkenazi Jews but is translatable to all populations and may include additional genes. Utilizing genetic information for large-scale precision prevention requires a paradigmatic shift in health-care delivery. To address this need, we propose a direct-to-patient model, which is increasingly pertinent for fulfilling the promise of utilizing personal genomic information for disease prevention.

Integration of genetic counsellors in genomic testing triage: Outcomes of a genomic consultation service in British Columbia, Canada

PURPOSE

Clinical diagnostic genome-wide (exome or genome) sequencing (GWS) in British Columbia requires funding approval by a provincial agency on a case-by-case basis. The CAUSES Clinic was a pediatric translational trio-based GWS study at BC Children's and Women's Hospitals. Referrals to the CAUSES Clinic were made through a Genomic Consultation Service (GCS), a multidisciplinary team led by genetic counsellors that provided advice regarding genomic testing for physicians considering GWS for their patients. Here we review the outcomes of the GCS, focusing on patients not recommended for the CAUSES Study.

METHODS

Demographic, clinical, and testing data were abstracted from patient charts. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore associations between demographic and clinical variables and two outcomes: the type of recommendation and referring physicians' decisions to follow the recommendation.

RESULTS

Of 972 GCS referrals, 248 patients were not referred to the CAUSES Study. GWS (vs. a targeted test; e.g. multi-gene panel) was more likely to be recommended to physicians of patients with ID than physicians of patients without ID (OR = 2.98; 95% CI = 1.46 to 6.27; n = 149). In total, 40% of physicians who were recommended to pursue clinical genomic testing submitted an application for funding approval; 71% of applications were approved for funding. Among approved tests, 50% resulted in a diagnosis, including 33% of targeted tests and 82% of GWS tests (χ² (1) = 5.0, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

The GCS provided an effective model in which physicians can interface with genetic specialists, including genetic counsellors, to facilitate appropriate genomic test selection.

Integrating Germline Genetics Into Precision Oncology Practice in the Veterans Health Administration: Challenges and Opportunities

OBJECTIVES

The advent of germline testing as a standard-of-care practice for certain tumor types and patients presents unique opportunities and challenges for the field of precision oncology. This article describes strategies to address workforce capacity, organizational structure, and genetics education needs within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the expectation that these approaches may be applicable to other health care systems.

OBSERVATIONS

Germline information can have health, reproductive, and psychosocial implications for veterans and their family members, which can pose challenges when delivering germline information in the setting of cancer care. Additional challenges include the complexity inherent in the interpretation of germline information, the national shortage of genetics professionals, limited awareness and knowledge about genetic principles among many clinicians, and organizational barriers, such as the inability to order genetic tests and receive results in the electronic health record. These challenges demand thoughtful implementation planning at the health care system level to develop sustainable strategies for the delivery of high-quality genetic services in precision oncology practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The VA is uniquely positioned to address the integration of germline genetic testing into precision oncology practice due to its outsized role in treating veterans with cancer, training the health care workforce, and developing, testing, and implementing innovative models of clinical care.

Genetic services diffusion in the precision medicine ecosystem

Purpose

Genetic knowledge is advancing steadily while at the same time DNA sequencing prices are dropping fast, but the diffusion of genetic services (GS) has been slow. The purpose of this paper is to identify GS diffusion drivers in the precision medicine (PM) ecosystem.

Design/methodology/approach

After reviewing the literature on innovation diffusion, particularly on GS diffusion, the PM ecosystem actors are interviewed to obtain their perspective. Using content analysis, the interviewees’ visions were interplayed with the literature to achieve driver conceptualization, which posteriorly originated broad themes.

Findings

The results indicate that GS diffusion depends on satisfying aspects from three broad themes and respective drivers: technology (evidence strength and credibility, customization, knowledge, data and information, tech evolution speed and cost), human (ethics, privacy and security and user power) and business (prevention, holistic view of the individual, public policy and regulation, business model and management).

Practical implications

The main management implications refer to considering health care in a multidisciplinary way, investing in the propagation of genetic knowledge, standardizing medical records and interpreting data.

Originality/value

This study, to the best of authors’ knowledge, is the first attempt to understand GS diffusion from a broad perspective, taking into account the PM stakeholders’ view. The 13 drivers offer a comprehensive understanding of how GS could spread in health care and they can assist researchers and practitioners to discuss and set strategies based on an initial structured map.

Parent perceptions, beliefs, and fears around genetic treatments and cures for children with Angelman syndrome

Genetic therapies have shown recent promise in alleviating some of the cognitive issues associated with some genetic disorders; however, these therapies may come with significant health and socio-ethical concerns, particularly when they involve child participants. Little is known about what parents of children with genetic disorders think about genetic therapies, or about their knowledge of how genetic-based therapy might treat their child's symptoms. Forty-two parents of children with Angelman syndrome (AS) and 27 parents of a mixed etiology comparison group completed an online survey reporting on their perceptions of, and priorities for, genetic therapy. Almost all parents of children with AS (95%) and the comparison group (89%) agreed that treatments aiming to reduce symptoms associated with their child's syndrome were positive. However, significantly more parents of children with AS (95%) than the comparison group (56%) felt that genetic treatment trials aiming to "cure" their child should be a research priority. AS parent priorities for the focus of clinical trials were neurology/seizures, communication skills, and motor skills/mobility. For the comparison group, the priorities were IQ, immune response, and expressive speech. Parents of both groups did not want treatments to change their child's personality or their happiness. Global assumptions cannot be made about targets for therapy between syndromes, about parental understanding of genetics, or about research evidence across syndromes. This study highlights the need for true family and patient engagement in all stages of the research design and treatment evaluation.

Returning genomic results in a Federally Qualified Health Center: the intersection of precision medicine and social determinants of health

Purpose:

This report describes the return of sequencing results to low-income Latino participants recruited through a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). We describe challenges in returning research results secondary to social determinants of health and present lessons learned to guide future genomic medicine implementation studies in low resource settings.

Methods:

500 Latino adults (76% women) consented to research sequencing for a predetermined panel of actionable genes. Providers and staff from the FQHC were engaged to align processes with the practice and a Community Advisory Board grounded the project in the local community.

Results:

A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was present in 10 participants (2%). Challenges in return of results included the time lag (582±53 days) between enrollment and returning actionable results, difficulty reaching participants, missed appointments, low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and reconciling results with limited information on family history. Return of one actionable result was deferred due to acute emotional distress secondary to recent traumatic life events.

Conclusion:

The social determinants of health influence the implementation of genomic medicine in low-income populations in low-resource settings. Considering non-biological factors that contribute to disparities will be necessary to better appreciate how genomic medicine may fit within the context of health equity.

Participatory Genomic Testing Can Effectively Disseminate Cardiovascular Pharmacogenomics Concepts within Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Feasibility Study

Objective

We assessed feasibility of an educational program designed to enhance stakeholder knowledge and perceptions of pharmacogenomics at a federally qualified health center (FQHC).

Design

FQHCs have a rich history of providing care to the underserved, but often are not represented by studies evaluating cutting-edge concepts. We used a novel educational platform to provide participatory genomic testing and classroom education. We assessed participant knowledge and perceptions using questionnaires between May and July 2018.

Setting

We partnered with a FQHC affiliated with an academic medical center in Chicago.

Participants

Using convenience sampling, we recruited 20 providers and 10 community members for a feasibility study. Providers included physicians, physician extenders, community health workers, and patient health navigators. Community members were patients, supporters, and/or FQHC advisory board members.

Intervention

Participants had the option to undergo personal genomic testing. Online educational modules included basic genetics, cardiovascular pharmacogenomics, and personalized medicine. Education concluded in a 2-hour live course with case-based discussions.

Main Outcome Measures

Our main outcome was testing pilot feasibility. Baseline knowledge and perceptions were compared with post-intervention assessments using descriptive statistics, t tests (or Wilcoxon rank-sum) for continuous variables and chi-squared (or Fisher's exact) for categorical variables.

Results

We found that attitudes toward the intervention were positive and remained so after intervention. Our intervention was both feasible and acceptable. Genomics knowledge increased for nearly all participants.

Conclusions

We have determined that a pharmacogenomics educational program tailored for an underrepresented community is feasible and acceptable. Outcomes will advise methodology for larger implementation studies.

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners

Genomic technologies are having an increasing impact across medicine, including primary care. To enable their wider adoption and realize their potential, education of primary health-care practitioners will be required. To enable the development of such resources, understanding where GPs currently access genomic information is needed. One-hundred fifty-nine UK GPs completed the survey in response to an open invitation, between September 2017 and September 2018. Questions were in response to 4 clinical genomic scenarios, with further questions exploring resources used for rare disease patients, direct-to-consumer genetic testing and collecting a family history. Respondents were most commonly GP principals (independent GPs who own their clinic) (64.8%), aged 35-49 years (54%), worked as a GP for more than 15 years (44%) and practiced within suburban locations (typically wealthier) (50.3%). The most popular 'just in time' education source for all clinical genomic scenarios were online primary care focussed resources with general Internet search engines also popular. For genomic continuous medical education, over 70% of respondents preferred online learning. Considering specific scenarios, local guidelines were a popular resource for the familial breast cancer scenario. A large proportion (41%) had not heard of Genomics England's 100,000 genome project. Few respondents (4%) would access rare disease specific Internet resources (Orphanet, OMIM). Twenty-five percent of respondents were unsure how to respond to a direct-to-consumer commercial genetic test query, with 41% forwarding such queries to local genetic services. GPs require concise, relevant, primary care focussed resources in trusted and familiar online repositories of information. Inadequate genetic education of GPs could increase burden on local genetic services.

From Genetics to Genomics: Facing the Liability Implications in Clinical Care

Health care is transitioning from genetics to genomics, in which single-gene testing for diagnosis is being replaced by multi-gene panels, genome-wide sequencing, and other multi-genic tests for disease diagnosis, prediction, prognosis, and treatment. This health care transition is spurring a new set of increased or novel liability risks for health care providers and test laboratories. This article describes this transition in both medical care and liability, and addresses 11 areas of potential increased or novel liability risk, offering recommendations to both health care and legal actors to address and manage those liability risks.

Reexamining the Ethics of Human Germline Editing in the Wake of Scandal

In November 2018, the announcement that genetically edited human embryos had been used for reproductive purposes caused international uproar; many observers argued that editing the human germline was unethical, particularly given the early stage of the science and the absence of appropriate oversight. We provide an overview of the implications of these events, focusing on the relevant ethical considerations for physicians addressing patient questions and concerns. The editing of the human germline for reproductive purposes should be understood against an historic backdrop of clinical research in assisted reproduction, as well as other exemplars of translational investigation. An important question raised by our growing capacity to genetically alter human embryos is how to understand the implicit social contract between science and society. To ensure that translational research continues to enjoy the historic trust placed in scientists and research organizations, it is critical that scientific and health care institutions proactively engage governments, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public in the formation of policies that guide gene editing.

Facing the challenge of genetic counselors' need for rapid continuing education about genomic technologies

The last couple of decades have seen the rapid advancement of genomic technologies (GT) and their equally rapid adoption into clinical testing. Regardless of specialty, all genetic counselors are unified by the fundamental goal to aid in diagnosing patient's genetic disease underscoring the importance for genetic counselors to maintain an in-depth understanding of GT. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) GT Special Interest Group conducted an online survey of NSGC members to assess current genomic technologies knowledge gaps. A total of 171 individuals from a variety of primary work settings completed the survey sufficiently to be included in the analysis. The majority of respondents received their degree in genetic counseling in more recent years (2000-2015). On average across all technologies, >70% of respondents deemed knowledge of GTs as important for successful job performance, 55% responded that additional job training in GTs is needed to successfully perform job functions, and only 28% responded that graduate training in GTs was good. Overall, the data show that participating genetic counselors perceive that their knowledge of GTs is inadequate while it is a key component of their jobs. These results have implications both for training programs and for continuing education efforts. These data can be used as a starting point for additional research into GT educational needs of genetic counselors.

Knowledge Translation in Oncology: The Bumpy Ride From Bench to Bedside

OBJECTIVES

Knowledge translation (KT) is the dynamic process of mobilizing best-practice evidence to guide health care decisions.

METHODS

Using a PubMed search, challenges were identified and milestones defined.

RESULTS

Substantial challenges exist in integrating discoveries into patient care, including technical limitations related to genomic testing like turnaround time, standardization, reproducibility, and results interpretation. Other challenges include lack of proper training in genetic counseling for health care providers, clarity of scientific evidence, and ethical, legal and social considerations. In addition, most health care systems lack accessibility to genetic testing services. Moving forward, KT should be addressed at three main frontiers. The first is patients centered for proper understanding and decision making; the second is directed toward health care professionals, including clinical decision support and clarity of roles; and the third addresses resources of health care systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing KT requires developing strategies to enhance awareness and promote behavioral changes congruent with research evidence, designing a systematic approach by health care providers and stakeholders to achieve patient-centered care.