1
|
Donohue KE, Gooch C, Katz A, Wakelee J, Slavotinek A, Korf BR. Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results. Clin Genet 2021; 99:638-649. [PMID: 33818754 DOI: 10.1111/cge.13917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 01/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine E Donohue
- Institute for Genomic Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Catherine Gooch
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.,Pediatrics, Division of Genetics and Genomic Medicine, Washington University at St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Alexander Katz
- Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Jessica Wakelee
- Center for the Study of Community Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Anne Slavotinek
- Division of Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Bruce R Korf
- Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chou AF, Duncan AR, Hallford G, Kelley DM, Dean LW. Barriers and strategies to integrate medical genetics and primary care in underserved populations: a scoping review. J Community Genet 2021; 12:291-309. [PMID: 33523369 PMCID: PMC7849219 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00508-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2021] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann F Chou
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (OUHSC), 900 NE 10th St., Oklahoma City, OK, 73151, USA.
| | | | - Gene Hallford
- Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, OUHSC, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | - David M Kelley
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (OUHSC), 900 NE 10th St., Oklahoma City, OK, 73151, USA
| | - Lori Williamson Dean
- Department of Genetic Counseling, College of Health Professions, The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hoskins C, Gaff C, McEwen A, Macciocca I, Pearn A, Shalhoub C, Salvemini H, Berkman J, Riley KE, Williams R, Milward M, Young MA. Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2020; 30:361-369. [PMID: 33151605 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Revised: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
As a result of the ongoing global expansion of genetic counseling, the need to formalize a system of professional regulation for genetic counselors was identified in Australasia. In June 2017, under the auspices of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), a working party was convened. The purpose of the working party was to provide strategic leadership for the profession of Australasian genetic counselors with a goal to formalize a national regulatory framework for genetic counselors across both Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. This was ultimately achieved in Australia through full membership with the National Alliance of Self-Regulating Health Professions (NASRHP) while the profession of genetic counseling in New Zealand is utilizing this framework to establish their regulation pathway. Regulation has a number of implications for genetic counselors, their employers, and the wider community, with the primary purpose of regulation being protection of the public from harm. This paper details the process of formalizing self-regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia, by defining professional regulation; outlining the purpose of regulation and the status of regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia and internationally, as well as health professionals more broadly; exploring the challenges of establishing regulation in Australasia; and the next steps for regulation in Australasia. Through detailing this process, the intention is to provide a framework to support genetic counseling colleagues internationally as well as other health professions in Australasia to explore and achieve regulation through their respective jurisdiction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cass Hoskins
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre and Genomic Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Alison McEwen
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ivan Macciocca
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Amy Pearn
- The Gene Council, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Carolyn Shalhoub
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hayley Salvemini
- Paediatric and Reproductive Genetics Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, SA, Australia
| | - Jennifer Berkman
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Kate E Riley
- Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Western Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Rachel Williams
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Prince of Wales Hereditary Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Michael Milward
- Tasmanian Clinical Genetics Service, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|