Primary care physicians’ understanding and utilization of pediatric exome sequencing results

Lack of consensus among healthcare professionals at a large academic medical center on the use of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis

Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) is increasingly used for prenatal diagnosis because emerging data indicate it has incremental diagnostic benefit in pregnancies with fetal anomalies without identified genetic abnormalities by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the medical community's attitude toward the clinical utility and use of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis and to address differences in attitudes and responses by type of practitioner, level of training, and years passed since last full-time training. We analyzed the answers of 109 trainees and professionals in the fields of genetic counseling, laboratory science, and medicine to an online survey addressing these topics. Multiple-choice questions asked participants about their awareness of prenatal ES and what genetic test they would choose to order in certain scenarios. Likert-scale questions assessed participants' opinions of statements asserting when prenatal ES should be used for diagnostic testing. Attitude toward the use of prenatal ES statistically differed (p < 0.05) by type of participant and level of training. Practicing genetic counselors and physicians were more selective in their recommendations for prenatal ES than laboratory scientists. Genetic counseling students and practicing genetic counselors felt similarly about indications for the use of prenatal ES, whereas medical students were more liberal in their recommendations for prenatal ES than practicing physicians. This study shows a lack of consensus among the medical community regarding the clinical utility and indications for prenatal ES.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program

This paper describes one healthcare system’s approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Evaluation of Exome Sequencing Criteria for Hospital Stewardship and Insurance Authorization at a Pediatric Hospital

Context.—

Genomic molecular testing practices in a pediatric tertiary care institution can vary in utility by patient indication.

Objective.—

To evaluate exome sequencing (ES) ordering practices and the effects of applying criteria to support ES stewardship. Exome sequencing can provide molecular diagnostic information for patients with known or suspected genetic diseases, but it is relatively expensive, and the cost is often borne by patients, institutions, and payers.

Design.—

We examined ordering patterns of ES approved by board-certified geneticists at our tertiary pediatric care center, as well as preauthorization outcomes for ES requests. We compared positivity rates among patients by patient phenotype, composite insurance coverage criteria, and insurance preauthorization outcome.

Results.—

Patients who met composite coverage criteria were more likely to receive a positive result from ES compared to patients who did not meet composite coverage criteria, though this trend was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in ES results between patients who were denied or not denied preauthorization by insurance payers.

Conclusions.—

Insurance payers should consider implementing and/or expanding coverage criteria for ES, and institutions should implement stewardship programs to support appropriate ES practices.

Challenges in genetic testing: clinician variant interpretation processes and the impact on clinical care

PURPOSE

Efforts have been made to standardize laboratory variant interpretation, but clinicians are ultimately tasked with clinical correlation and application of genetic test results in patient care. This study aimed to explore processes clinicians utilize when reviewing and returning genetic test results, and how they impact patient care.

METHODS

Medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and nongenetics clinicians from two Midwestern states completed surveys (n = 98) and in-depth interviews (n = 29) on practices of reviewing and returning genetic test results. Retrospective chart review (n = 130) examined discordant interpretations and the impact on care.

RESULTS

Participants reported variable behaviors in both reviewing and returning results based on factors such as confidence, view of role, practice setting, and relationship with the lab. Providers did not report requesting changes to variant classifications from laboratories, but indicated relaying conflicting classifications to patients in some cases. Chart reviews revealed medically impactful differences in interpretation between laboratories and clinicians in 18 (13.8%) records.

CONCLUSION

Clinician practices for reviewing and integrating genetic test results into patient care vary within and between specialties and impact patient care. Strategies to better incorporate both laboratory and clinician expertise into interpretation of genetic results could result in improved care across providers and settings.