Confidential genetic testing and electronic health records: A survey of current practices among Huntington disease testing centers

Genetic Testing in Parkinson's Disease

Genetic testing for persons with Parkinson's disease is becoming increasingly common. Significant gains have been made regarding genetic testing methods, and testing is becoming more readily available in clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer settings. Although the potential utility of clinical testing is expanding, there are currently no proven gene-targeted therapies, but clinical trials are underway. Furthermore, genetic testing practices vary widely, as do knowledge and attitudes of relevant stakeholders. The specter of testing mandates financial, ethical, and physician engagement, and there is a need for guidelines to help navigate the myriad of challenges. However, to develop guidelines, gaps and controversies need to be clearly identified and analyzed. To this end, we first reviewed recent literature and subsequently identified gaps and controversies, some of which were partially addressed in the literature, but many of which are not well delineated or researched. Key gaps and controversies include: (1) Is genetic testing appropriate in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals without medical actionability? (2) How, if at all, should testing vary based on ethnicity? (3) What are the long-term outcomes of consumer- and research-based genetic testing in presymptomatic PD? (4) What resources are needed for clinical genetic testing, and how is this impacted by models of care and cost-benefit considerations? Addressing these issues will help facilitate the development of consensus and guidelines regarding the approach and access to genetic testing and counseling. This is also needed to guide a multidisciplinary approach that accounts for cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors in developing testing guidelines. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Genetic Data Governance in Japanese Hospitals

The storage and access of genetic testing results have unique considerations for medical records. Initially, genetic testing was limited to patients with single gene diseases. Genetic medicine and testing have expanded, as have concerns about appropriately handling genetic information. In this study, we surveyed the management of genetic information in general hospitals in Japan using a questionnaire on access restrictions. Our questions included whether any other medical information was managed in a unique way. We identified 1037 hospitals designated for clinical training located throughout Japan and received responses from 258 hospitals, and 191 reported that they handle genetic information and results of genetic tests. Of the 191 hospitals that handle genetic information, 112 hospitals implement access restrictions to genetic information. Seventy-one hospitals, one of which uses paper medical records rather than electrical medical records, do not enforce access restrictions. For eight hospitals, it was not known whether access restrictions were enforced or not. The responses from these hospitals indicated that access restrictions and storage methods varied across institution type (e.g., general vs. university hospitals), institution size, and the presence of a clinical genetics department. Other information, such as infectious disease diagnosis, psychological counseling records, abuse, and criminal history, was also subject to access restriction in 42 hospitals. The disparity in how medical facilities handle sensitive genetic information demonstrates a need for discussion between medical professionals and the general public on the storage of sensitive records, including genetic information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00242-9.

Moving beyond disclosure: Stages of care in preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker testing

Alzheimer's disease (AD) begins with an asymptomatic "preclinical" phase, in which abnormal biomarkers indicate risk for developing cognitive impairment. Biomarker information is increasingly being disclosed in research settings, and is moving toward clinical settings with the development of cheaper and non-invasive testing. Limited research has focused on the safety and psychological effects of disclosing biomarker results to cognitively unimpaired adults. However, less is known about how to ensure equitable access and robust counseling for decision-making before testing, and how to effectively provide long-term follow-up and risk management after testing. Using the framework of Huntington's disease, which is based on extensive experience with disclosing and managing risk for a progressive neurodegenerative condition, this article proposes a conceptual model of pre-disclosure, disclosure, and post-disclosure phases for AD biomarker testing. Addressing research questions in each phase will facilitate the transition of biomarker testing into clinical practice.

Genetic counseling and testing practices for late-onset neurodegenerative disease: a systematic review

Objective

To understand contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for late-onset neurodegenerative diseases (LONDs), and identify whether practices address the internationally accepted goals of genetic counseling: interpretation, counseling, education, and support.

Methods

Four databases were systematically searched for articles published from 2009 to 2020. Peer-reviewed research articles in English that reported research and clinical genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe different practices and map genetic counseling activities to the goals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Qualsyst tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019121421).

Results

Sixty-one studies from 68 papers were included. Most papers focused on predictive testing (58/68) and Huntington’s disease (41/68). There was variation between papers in study design, study population, outcomes, interventions, and settings. Although there were commonalities, novel and inconsistent genetic counseling practices were identified. Eighteen papers addressed all four goals of genetic counseling.

Conclusion

Contemporary genetic counseling and testing practices for LONDs are varied and informed by regional differences and the presence of different health providers. A flexible, multidisciplinary, client- and family-centered care continues to emerge. As genetic testing becomes a routine part of care for patients (and their relatives), health providers must balance their limited time and resources with ensuring clients are safely and effectively counseled, and all four genetic counseling goals are addressed. Areas of further research include diagnostic and reproductive genetic counseling/testing practices, evaluations of novel approaches to care, and the role and use of different health providers in practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10461-5.

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.

Confidential genetic testing and electronic health records: A survey of current practices among Huntington disease testing centers

Background

Clinical care teams providing presymptomatic genetic testing often employ advanced confidentiality practices for documentation and result storage. However, patient requests for increased confidentiality may be in conflict with the legal obligations of medical providers to document patient care activities in the electronic health record (EHR). Huntington disease presents a representative case study for investigating the ways centers currently balance the requirements of EHRs with the privacy demands of patients seeking presymptomatic genetic testing.

Methods

We surveyed 23 HD centers (53% response rate) regarding their use of the EHR for presymptomatic HD testing.

Results

Our survey revealed that clinical care teams and laboratories have each developed their own practices, which are cumbersome and often include EHR avoidance. We found that a majority of HD care teams record appointments in the EHR (91%), often using vague notes. Approximately half of the care teams (52%) keep presymptomatic results of out of the EHR.

Conclusion

As genetic knowledge grows, linking more genes to late‐onset conditions, institutions will benefit from having professional recommendations to guide development of policies for EHR documentation of presymptomatic genetic results. Policies must be sensitive to the ethical differences and patient demands for presymptomatic genetic testing compared to those undergoing confirmatory genetic testing.