Implementing family health history risk stratification in primary care: Impact of guideline criteria on populations and resource demand

Predicting personal cardiovascular disease risk based on family health history: Development of expert-based family criteria for the general population

In inherited and familial cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), relatives without current symptoms can still be at risk for early and preventable cardiovascular events. One way to help people evaluate their potential risk of CVD is through a risk-assessment tool based on family health history. However, family criteria including inherited CVD risk to be used by laypersons are non-existent. In this project, we employed a qualitative study design to develop expert-based family criteria for use in individual risk assessment. In the first phase of the project, we identified potential family criteria through an online focus group with physicians with expertise in monogenic and/or multifactorial CVDs. The family criteria from phase one were then used as input for a three-round Delphi procedure carried out in a larger group of expert physicians to reach consensus on appropriate criteria. This led to consensus on five family criteria that focus on cardiovascular events at young age (i.e., sudden death, any CVD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, aortic aneurysm) and/or an inherited CVD in one or more close relatives. We then applied these family criteria to a high-risk cohort from a clinical genetics department and demonstrated that they have substantial diagnostic accuracy. After further evaluation in a general population cohort, we decided to only use the family criteria for first-degree relatives. We plan to incorporate these family criteria into a digital tool for easy risk assessment by the public and, based on expert advice, will develop supporting information for general practitioners to act upon potential risks identified by the tool. Results from an expert focus group, a Delphi method in a larger group of experts, and evaluation in two cohorts were used to develop family criteria for assessing cardiovascular disease risk based on family health history for a digital risk-prediction tool for use by the general population. CVD Cardiovascular disease, ICD Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, TAA Thoracic aortic aneurysm, AAA Abdominal aortic aneurysm.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk.

DESIGN

Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk.

INTERVENTIONS

Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later.

MAIN MEASURES

McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively.

KEY RESULTS

Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed.

CONCLUSIONS

FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Implementing digital systems to facilitate genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: An observational study of 4 clinical workflows

PURPOSE

National efforts have prioritized the identification of effective methods for increasing case ascertainment and delivery of evidence-based health care for individuals at elevated risk for hereditary cancers.

METHODS

This study examined the uptake of genetic counseling and testing following the use of a digital cancer genetic risk assessment program implemented at 27 health care sites in 10 states using 1 of 4 clinical workflows: (1) traditional referral, (2) point-of-care scheduling, (3) point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and (4) point-of-care testing.

RESULTS

In 2019, 102,542 patients were screened and 33,113 (32%) were identified as at high risk and meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, or both. Among those identified at high risk, 5147 (16%) proceeded with genetic testing. Genetic counseling uptake was 11% among the sites with workflows that included seeing a genetic counselor before testing, with 88% of patients proceeding with genetic testing after counseling. Uptake of genetic testing across sites varied significantly by clinical workflow (6% referral, 10% point-of-care scheduling, 14% point-of-care counseling/telegenetics, and 35% point-of-care testing, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Study findings highlight the potential heterogeneity of effectiveness attributable to different care delivery approaches for implementing digital hereditary cancer risk screening programs.

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities

BACKGROUND

Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations.

METHODS

Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture.

SETTING

19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems.

PARTICIPANTS

any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic.

METHODS

A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter.

OUTCOMES

provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations.

MEASURES

patient and provider surveys and EMR data.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

Molecular Pathology Education: A Suggested Framework for Primary Care Resident Training in Genomic Medicine: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee

Developments in genomics are profoundly influencing medical practice. With increasing use of genetic and genomic testing across every aspect of the health care continuum, patients and their families are increasingly turning to primary care physicians (PCPs) for discussion and advice regarding tests, implications, and results. Yet, with the rapid growth of information, technology, and applications, PCPs are finding it challenging to fill the gaps in knowledge and support the growing needs of their patients. A critical component in expanding PCP genomic literacy lies in the education of physicians in training and in practice. Although a framework for developing physician competencies in genomics has already been developed, the Association for Molecular Pathology is uniquely situated to actively utilize the skills of its members to engage and support PCPs in this effort. This report provides an overview and a suggested basic teaching framework, which can be used by molecular professionals in their individual institutions as a starting point for educational outreach.

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE

In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

RESULTS

After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

Experience and Perceptions of a Family Health History Risk Assessment Tool among Multi-Ethnic Asian Breast Cancer Patients

A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

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.

Family history assessment significantly enhances delivery of precision medicine in the genomics era

BACKGROUND

Family history has traditionally been an essential part of clinical care to assess health risks. However, declining sequencing costs have precipitated a shift towards genomics-first approaches in population screening programs rendering the value of family history unknown. We evaluated the utility of incorporating family history information for genomic sequencing selection.

METHODS

To ascertain the relationship between family histories on such population-level initiatives, we analysed whole genome sequences of 1750 research participants with no known pre-existing conditions, of which half received comprehensive family history assessment of up to four generations, focusing on 95 cancer genes.

RESULTS

Amongst the 1750 participants, 866 (49.5%) had high-quality standardised family history available. Within this group, 73 (8.4%) participants had an increased family history risk of cancer (increased FH risk cohort) and 1 in 7 participants (n = 10/73) carried a clinically actionable variant inferring a sixfold increase compared with 1 in 47 participants (n = 17/793) assessed at average family history cancer risk (average FH risk cohort) (p = 0.00001) and a sevenfold increase compared to 1 in 52 participants (n = 17/884) where family history was not available (FH not available cohort) (p = 0.00001). The enrichment was further pronounced (up to 18-fold) when assessing only the 25 cancer genes in the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Secondary Findings (SF) genes. Furthermore, 63 (7.3%) participants had an increased family history cancer risk in the absence of an apparent clinically actionable variant.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that the collection and analysis of comprehensive family history and genomic data are complementary and in combination can prioritise individuals for genomic analysis. Thus, family history remains a critical component of health risk assessment, providing important actionable data when implementing genomics screening programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02791152 . Retrospectively registered on May 31, 2016.

Evaluation of family health history collection methods impact on data and risk assessment outcomes

Information technology applications for patient-collection of family health history (FHH) increase identification of elevated-risk individuals compared to usual care. It is unknown if the method of collection impacts data collected or if simply going directly to the patient is what makes the difference. The objective of this study was to examine differences in data detail and risk identification rates between FHH collection directly from individuals using paper-based forms and an interactive web-based platform. This is a non-randomized epidemiologic study in Singaporean population from 2016 to 2018. Intervention was paper-based versus web-based interactive platform for FHH collection. Participant demographics, FHH detail, and risk assessment results were analyzed. 882 participants enrolled in the study, 481 in the paper-based group and 401 in the web-based group with mean (SD) age of 45.4 (12.98) years and 47.5% male. Web-based FHH collection participants had an increased number of conditions per relative (p-value <0.001), greater frequency of reporting age of onset (p-value <0.001), and greater odds of receiving ≥1 risk recommendation both overall (OR: 3.99 (2.41, 6.59)) and within subcategories of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer syndromes (p-value = 0.041) and screening and prevention for breast (p-value = 0.002) and colon cancer (p-value = 0.005). This has significant implications for clinical care and research efforts where FHH is being assessed. Using interactive information technology platforms to collect FHH can improve the completeness of the data collected and result in increased rates of risk identification. Methods of data collection to maximize benefit should be taken into account in future studies and clinical care.

Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record-integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment

Family health history (FHH) screening plays a key role in disease risk identification and tailored disease prevention strategies. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are in a frontline position to provide personalized medicine recommendations identified through FHH screening; however, adoption of FHH screening tools has been slow and inconsistent in practice. Information is also lacking on PCP facilitators and barriers of utilizing family history tools with clinical decision support (CDS) embedded in the electronic health record (EHR). This study reports on PCPs' initial experiences with the Genetic and Wellness Assessment (GWA), a patient-administered FHH screening tool utilizing the EHR and CDS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 PCPs who use the GWA in a network of community-based practices. Four main themes regarding GWA implementation emerged: benefits to clinical care, challenges in practice, CDS-specific issues, and physician-recommended improvements. Sub-themes included value in improving patient access to genetic services, inadequate time to discuss GWA recommendations, lack of patient follow-through with recommendations, and alert fatigue. While PCPs valued the GWA's clinical utility, a number of challenges were identified in the administration and use of the GWA in practice. Based on participants' recommendations, iterative changes have been made to the GWA and workflow to increase efficiency, upgrade the CDS process, and provide additional education to PCPs and patients. Future studies are needed to assess a diverse sample of physicians' and patients' perspectives on the utility of FHH screening utilizing EHR-based genomics recommendations.

Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to identify and manage patients with familial risk of breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancer in primary care to improve clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched from January 1980 to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Primary outcomes were cancer incidence, cancer-related clinical outcomes or the identification of cancer predisposition; secondary outcomes were the appropriateness of referral, uptake of preventive strategies and cognitive and psychological effect. From 11,842 abstracts, 111 full texts were reviewed and three eligible studies (nine articles) identified. Two were cluster RCTs and one NRSI; all used risk assessment software. No studies identified our primary outcomes, with no consistent outcome across the three studies. In one RCT, intervention improved the proportion of genetic referrals meeting referral guidelines for breast cancer (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.1). In the other RCT, there was no difference in screening adherence between the intervention and control group. However, there was borderline increased risk perception (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.59) in the subgroup that under-estimated their colon cancer risk. In the NRSI, there was no change in psychological distress in patients at increased familial breast cancer risk, but population risk patients had reduced anxiety after intervention (state anxiety mean change - 3, 95% CI - 5 to - 2). Future studies should have better-defined comparator groups and longer follow-up and assess outcomes using validated tools.

Informing Integration of Genomic Medicine Into Primary Care: An Assessment of Current Practice, Attitudes, and Desired Resources

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers’ perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians’ (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required.

Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012.

Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs’ current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website.

Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.

Awareness of family health history in a predominantly young adult population

Family health history (FHH) is a key predictor of health risk and is universally important in preventive care. However, patients may not be aware of the importance of FHH, and thus, may fail to accurately or completely share FHH with health providers, thereby limiting its utility. In this study, we conducted an online survey of 294 young adults and employees based at a US university setting regarding their knowledge, sharing behaviors, and perceived importance of FHH, and use of electronic clinical tools to document and update FHH. We also evaluated two educational interventions (written and video) to promote knowledge about FHH and its importance to health. We found that 93% of respondents were highly aware of their FHH, though only 39% reported collecting it and 4% using an online FHH tool. Seventy-three percent of respondents, particularly women, had shared FHH with their doctor when prompted, and fewer had shared it with family members. Participants in the video group were significantly more likely to understand the benefits of FHH than those in the written group (p = 0.02). In summary, educational resources, either video or written, will be helpful to promote FHH collection, sharing, and use of online FHH tools.

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3–10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.

Methods

In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers’ experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.

Discussion

This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336. Registered on 25 September 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3659-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment

Family health history (FHH) is the most useful means of assessing risk for common chronic diseases. The odds ratio for risk of developing disease with a positive FHH is frequently greater than 2, and actions can be taken to mitigate risk by adhering to screening guidelines, genetic counselling, genetic risk testing, and other screening methods. Challenges to the routine acquisition of FHH include constraints on provider time to collect data and the difficulty in accessing risk calculators. Disease-specific and broader risk assessment software platforms have been developed, many with clinical decision support and informatics interoperability, but few access patient information directly. Software that allows integration of FHH with the electronic medical record and clinical decision support capabilities has provided solutions to many of these challenges. Patient facing, electronic medical record, and web-enabled FHH platforms have been developed, and can provide greater identification of risk compared with conventional FHH ascertainment in primary care. FHH, along with cascade screening, can be an important component of population health management approaches to overall reduction of risk.

Current Genetic Service Delivery Models for the Provision of Genetic Testing in Europe: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background: The provision of genetic services, along with research in the fields of genomics and genetics, has evolved in recent years to meet the increasing demand of consumers interested in prediction of genetic diseases and various inherited traits. The aim of this study is to evaluate genetic services in order to identify and classify delivery models for the provision of genetic testing in European and in extra-European countries. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using five electronic resources. Inclusion criteria were that studies be published in English or Italian during the period 2000-2015 and carried out in European or extra-European countries (Canada, USA, Australia, or New Zealand). Results: 148 genetic programs were identified in 117 articles and were delivered mostly in the UK (59, 40%), USA (35, 24%) or Australia (16, 11%). The programs were available nationally (66; 45%), regionally (49; 33%) or in urban areas (21, 14%). Ninety-six (64%) of the programs were integrated into healthcare systems, 48 (32.21%) were pilot programs and five (3%) were direct-to-consumer genetic services. The genetic tests offered were mainly for BRCA1/2 (59, 40%), Lynch syndrome (23, 16%), and newborn screening (18, 12%). Healthcare professionals with different backgrounds are increasingly engaged in the provision of genetic services. Based on which healthcare professionals have prominent roles in the respective patient care pathways, genetic programs were classified into five models: (i) the geneticists model; (ii) the primary care model; (iii) the medical specialist model; (iv) the population screening programs model; and (v) the direct-to-consumer model. Conclusions: New models of genetic service delivery are currently under development worldwide to address the increasing demand for accessible and affordable services. These models require the integration of genetics into all medical specialties, collaboration among different healthcare professionals, and the redistribution of professional roles. An appropriate model for genetic service provision in a specific setting should ideally be defined according to the type of healthcare system, the genetic test provided within a genetic program, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Only applications with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness should be implemented in healthcare systems and made available to all citizens.

Implementation of genomics in medical practice to deliver precision medicine for an Asian population

Whilst the underlying principles of precision medicine are comparable across the globe, genomic references, health practices, costs and discrimination policies differ in Asian settings compared to the reported initiatives involving European-derived populations. We have addressed these variables by developing an evolving reference base of genomic and phenotypic data and a framework to return medically significant variants to consenting research participants applicable for the Asian context. Targeting 10,000 participants, over 2000 Singaporeans, with no known pre-existing health conditions, have consented to an extensive clinical health screen, family health history collection, genome sequencing and ongoing follow-up. Genomic variants in a subset of genes associated with Mendelian disorders and drug responses are analysed using an in-house bioinformatics pipeline. A multidisciplinary team reviews the classification of variants and a research report is generated. Medically significant variants are returned to consenting participants through a bespoke return-of-result genomics clinic. Variant validation and subsequent clinical referral are advised as appropriate. The design and implementation of this flexible learning framework enables a cohort of detailed phenotyping and genotyping of healthy Singaporeans to be established and the frequency of disease-causing variants in this population to be determined. Our findings will contribute to international precision medicine initiatives, bridging gaps with ethnic-specific data and insights from this understudied population.

Effect of Sociodemographic Factors on Uptake of a Patient-Facing Information Technology Family Health History Risk Assessment Platform

OBJECTIVE

Investigate sociodemographic differences in the use of a patient-facing family health history (FHH)-based risk assessment platform.

METHODS

In this large multisite trial with a diverse patient population, we evaluated the relationship between sociodemographic factors and FHH health risk assessment uptake using an information technology (IT) platform. The entire study was administered online, including consent, baseline survey, and risk assessment completion. We used multivariate logistic regression to model effect of sociodemographic factors on study progression. Quality of FHH data entered as defined as relatives: (1) with age of onset reported on relevant conditions; (2) if deceased, with cause of death and (3) age of death reported; and (4) percentage of relatives with medical history marked as unknown was analyzed using grouped logistic fixed effect regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2,514 participants consented with a mean age of 57 and 10.4% minority. Multivariate modeling showed that progression through study stages was more likely for younger (p-value = 0.005), more educated (p-value = 0.004), non-Asian (p-value = 0.009), and female (p-value = 0.005) participants. Those with lower health literacy or information-seeking confidence were also less likely to complete the study. Most significant drop-out occurred during the risk assessment completion phase. Overall, quality of FHH data entered was high with condition's age of onset reported 87.85%, relative's cause of death 85.55% and age of death 93.76%, and relative's medical history marked as unknown 19.75% of the time.

CONCLUSION

A demographically diverse population was able to complete an IT-based risk assessment but there were differences in attrition by sociodemographic factors. More attention should be given to ensure end-user functionality of health IT and leverage electronic medical records to lessen patient burden.

Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

A growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained.

AIM

To review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017.

METHOD

The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast-ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP's role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out.

CONCLUSION

GPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice.

A model for patient-direct screening and referral for familial cancer risk

Patients at increased familial risk of cancer are sub-optimally identified and referred for genetic counseling. We describe a systematic model for information collection, screening and referral for hereditary cancer risk. Individuals from three different clinical and research populations were screened for hereditary cancer risk using a two-tier process: a 7-item screener followed by review of family history by a genetic counselor and application of published criteria. A total of 869 subjects participated in the study; 769 in this high risk population had increased familial cancer risk based on the screening questionnaire. Of these eligible participants, 500 (65.0 %) provided family histories and 332 (66.4 %) of these were found to be at high risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome, 102 (20.4 %) at moderate familial cancer risk, and 66 (13.2 %) at average risk. Three months following receipt of the risk result letter, nearly all respondents found the process at least somewhat helpful (98.4 %). All participants identified as high-risk were mailed a letter recommending genetic counseling and were provided appointment tools. After 1 year, only 13 (7.3 %) of 179 high risk respondents reported pursuit of recommended genetic counseling. Participants were willing to provide family history information for the purposes of risk assessment; however, few patients pursued recommended genetic services. This suggests that cancer family history registries are feasible and viable but that further research is needed to increase the uptake of genetic counseling.

Osteogenesis imperfecta

Skeletal deformity and bone fragility are the hallmarks of the brittle bone dysplasia osteogenesis imperfecta. The diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta usually depends on family history and clinical presentation characterized by a fracture (or fractures) during the prenatal period, at birth or in early childhood; genetic tests can confirm diagnosis. Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by dominant autosomal mutations in the type I collagen coding genes (COL1A1 and COL1A2) in about 85% of individuals, affecting collagen quantity or structure. In the past decade, (mostly) recessive, dominant and X-linked defects in a wide variety of genes encoding proteins involved in type I collagen synthesis, processing, secretion and post-translational modification, as well as in proteins that regulate the differentiation and activity of bone-forming cells have been shown to cause osteogenesis imperfecta. The large number of causative genes has complicated the classic classification of the disease, and although a new genetic classification system is widely used, it is still debated. Phenotypic manifestations in many organs, in addition to bone, are reported, such as abnormalities in the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, skin fragility, muscle weakness, hearing loss and dentinogenesis imperfecta. Management involves surgical and medical treatment of skeletal abnormalities, and treatment of other complications. More innovative approaches based on gene and cell therapy, and signalling pathway alterations, are under investigation.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Personal risk for multiple conditions should be assessed in primary care. This study evaluated whether collection of risk factors to generate electronic health record (EHR)-linked health risk appraisal (HRA) for coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer was associated with improved patient-provider communication, risk assessment, and plans for breast cancer screening.

METHODS

This pragmatic trial recruited adults with upcoming visits to 11 primary care practices during 2013-2014 (N=3,703). Pre-visit, intervention patients completed a risk factor and perception assessment and received an HRA; coded risk factor data were sent to the EHR. Post-visit, intervention patients reported risk perception. Pre-visit, control patients only completed the risk perception assessment; post-visit they also completed the risk factor assessment and received the HRA. No data were sent to the EHR for controls. Accuracy/improvement of self-perceived risk was assessed by comparing self-perceived to calculated risk.

RESULTS

The intervention was associated with improvement of patient-provider communication of changes to improve health (78.5% vs 74.1%, AOR=1.67, 99% CI=1.07, 2.60). There was a similar trend for discussion of risk (54.1% vs 45.5%, AOR=1.34, 95% CI=0.97, 1.85). The intervention was associated with greater improvement in accuracy of self-perceived risk for diabetes (16.0% vs 12.6%, p=0.006) and colorectal cancer (27.9% vs 17.2%, p<0.001) with a similar trend for coronary heart disease and breast cancer. There were no changes in plans for breast cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported risk factors and EHR-linked multi-condition HRAs in primary care can modestly improve communication and promote accuracy of self-perceived risk.

Improving Utilization of the Family History in the Electronic Health Record

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of Family History in the Electronic Health Record and to identify opportunities to advance the contributions of nurses in obtaining, updating and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals and populations.

ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT

The article presents an overview of the obstacles to charting Family History within the Electronic Health Record and recommendations for using specific Family History tools and core Family History data sets.

METHODS

Opportunities to advance nursing contributions in obtaining, updating, and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals were identified. These opportunities are focused within the area of promoting the importance of communication within families and between healthcare providers to obtain, document, and update family histories.

FINDINGS

Nurses can increase awareness of existing resources that can guide collection of a comprehensive and accurate family history and facilitate family discussions. In this paper, opportunities to advance nursing contributions in obtaining, updating, and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligned with the clinical preparation of nurses, family health should be used routinely by nurses for risk assessment and to help inform patient and family members on screening, health promotion, and disease prevention. The quality of family health information is critical in order to leverage the use of genomic healthcare information and derive new knowledge about disease biology, treatment efficacy, and drug safety. These actionable steps need to be performed in the context of promoting evidence-based applications of family history that will be essential for implementing personalized genomic healthcare approaches and disease prevention efforts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Family health history is one of the most important tools for identifying the risk of developing rare and chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and represents an integration of disease risk from genetic, environmental, and behavioral/lifestyle factors. In fact, family history has long been recognized as a strong independent risk factor for disease and is the current best practice used in clinical practice to guide risk assessment.

Family health history: an essential starting point for personalized risk assessment and disease prevention

Family health history (FHH) information is well established as a basis for assessing a patient's personal disease risk, but is underutilized for diagnosis and making medical recommendations. Epidemiological and genetic information have heightened the value of FHH to an individual's health. This has motivated the development of new FHH collection tools and strategies for family members, but will require greater awareness and knowledge by both patients and practitioners. FHH will be increasingly important as genomic data become a mainstay of medical diagnostics, since in many cases, a medically important FHH results from lineage-specific genetic variants. The impact of complementary FHH and genomic information will drive the pursuit of personalized and precise targeting of treatments and interventions aimed at maintaining patient health.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study

Background

Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study’s protocol.

Methods/design

MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff.

Discussion

This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness.

Trial registration

NCT01956773

Implementation of health risk assessments with family health history: barriers and benefits

Health risk assessments provide an opportunity to emphasise health promotion and disease prevention for individuals and populations at large. A key component of health risk assessments is the detailed collection of family health history information. This information is helpful in determining risk both for common chronic conditions and more rare diseases as well. While the concept of health risk assessments has been around since the Framingham Heart Study was launched in the 1950s, and such assessments are commonly performed in the workplace today, the US healthcare system has been slow to embrace them and the emphasis on prevention that they represent. Before wider implementation of health risk assessments within healthcare can be seen, several concerns must be addressed: (1) provider impact, (2) patient impact, (3) validity of patient-entered data and (4) health outcomes effect. Here, we describe recent developments in health risk assessment design that are helping to address these issues.

Multi-source development of an integrated model for family health history

OBJECTIVE

To integrate data elements from multiple sources for informing comprehensive and standardized collection of family health history (FHH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three types of sources were analyzed to identify data elements associated with the collection of FHH. First, clinical notes from multiple resources were annotated for FHH information. Second, questions and responses for family members in patient-facing FHH tools were examined. Lastly, elements defined in FHH-related specifications were extracted for several standards development and related organizations. Data elements identified from the notes, tools, and specifications were subsequently combined and compared.

RESULTS

In total, 891 notes from three resources, eight tools, and seven specifications associated with four organizations were analyzed. The resulting Integrated FHH Model consisted of 44 data elements for describing source of information, family members, observations, and general statements about family history. Of these elements, 16 were common to all three source types, 17 were common to two, and 11 were unique. Intra-source comparisons also revealed common and unique elements across the different notes, tools, and specifications.

DISCUSSION

Through examination of multiple sources, a representative and complementary set of FHH data elements was identified. Further work is needed to create formal representations of the Integrated FHH Model, standardize values associated with each element, and inform context-specific implementations.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been increased emphasis on the importance of FHH for supporting personalized medicine, biomedical research, and population health. Multi-source development of an integrated model could contribute to improving the standardized collection and use of FHH information in disparate systems.

Clinically relevant lessons from Family HealthLink: a cancer and coronary heart disease familial risk assessment tool

PURPOSE

A descriptive retrospective study was performed using two separate user cohorts to determine the effectiveness of Family HealthLink as a clinical triage tool.

METHODS

Cohort 1 consisted of 2,502 users who accessed the public website. Cohort 2 consisted of 194 new patients in a Comprehensive Breast Center setting. For patient users, we assessed documentation of family history and genetics referral. For all users seen in a genetics clinic, the Family HealthLink assessment was compared with that performed by genetic counselors and genetic testing outcomes.

RESULTS

For general public users, the percentage meeting high-risk criteria were: for cancer only, 22.2%; for coronary heart disease only, 24.3%; and for both diseases, 10.4%. These risk stratification percentages were similar for the patient users. For the patient users, there often was documentation of family history of certain cancer types by oncology professionals, but age of onset and coronary heart disease family history were less complete. Of 142 with high-risk assignments seen in a genetics clinic, 130 (91.5%) of these assignments were corroborated. Forty-two underwent genetic testing and 17 (40.5%) had new molecular diagnoses established.

CONCLUSION

A significant percentage of individuals are at high familial risk and may require more intensive screening and referral. Interactive family history triage tools can aid this process.Genet Med 17 6, 493-500.

Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile," (PHP) is a free genetic risk assessment software tool for primary prenatal providers that collects patient-entered family (FHH), personal, and obstetrical health history, performs risk assessment, and presents the provider with clinical decision support during the prenatal encounter. The tool is freely available for download at www.hughesriskapps.net. We evaluated the implementation of PHP in four geographically diverse clinical sites. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients seen prior to the study period and for patients who used the PHP to collect data on documentation of FHH, discussion of cystic fibrosis (CF) and hemoglobinopathy (HB) carrier screening, and CF and HB interventions (tests, referrals). Five hundred pre-implementation phase and 618 implementation phase charts were reviewed. Documentation of a 3-generation FHH or pedigree improved at three sites; patient race/ethnicity at three sites, father of the baby (FOB) race/ethnicity at all sites, and ancestry for the patient and FOB at three sites (P < 0.001-0001). CF counseling improved for implementation phase patients at one site (8% vs. 48%, P < 0.0001) and CF screening/referrals at two (2% vs. 14%, P < 0.0001; 6% vs. 14%; P = 0.05). Counseling and intervention rates did not increase for HB. This preliminary study suggests that the PHP can improve documentation of FHH, race, and ancestry, as well as the compliance with current CF counseling and intervention guidelines in some prenatal clinics. Future evaluation of the PHP should include testing in a larger number of clinical environments, assessment of additional performance measures, and evaluation of the system's overall clinical utility.