Dying to see you? Deaths on a clinical genetics waiting list in the Republic of Ireland; what are the consequences?

Addressing Diagnostic Gaps and Priorities of the Global Rare Diseases Community: Recommendations from the IRDiRC Diagnostics Scientific Committee

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) Diagnostic Scientific Committee (DSC) is charged with discussion and contribution to progress on diagnostic aspects of the IRDiRC core mission. Specifically, IRDiRC goals include timely diagnosis, use of globally coordinated diagnostic pipelines, and assessing the impact of rare diseases on affected individuals. As part of this mission, the DSC endeavored to create a list of research priorities to achieve these goals. We present a discussion of those priorities along with aspects of current, global rare disease needs and opportunities that support our prioritization. In support of this discussion, we also provide clinical vignettes illustrating real-world examples of diagnostic challenges.

A survey of genetic and palliative care health professionals' views of integrating genetics into palliative care

Genetic counselling and testing have utility for people with palliative care needs and their families. However, genetic and palliative care health professionals have described difficulties initiating palliative-genetic discussions. Between March and July 2022, we received n = 73 surveys (6% response rate) from genetic and palliative care health professionals in Australia and New Zealand that assessed and compared barriers and facilitators. The main perceived barrier to both groups was palliative care health professionals' lack of genetic knowledge (44%). Most palliative care health professionals were 'not at all confident' performing several activities, including discussing DNA banking (52%) and knowing their legal responsibilities when sharing genetic information (58%). The most frequently selected facilitator for genetic health professionals was fostering close relationships with palliative care health professionals (52%), while palliative care health professionals indicated a genetic referral template (51%) would be of assistance. Almost all participants agreed genetic discussions do not undermine the central ethos of palliative care (87%). Fewer palliative care health professionals considered themselves well situated to have genetic discussions with a palliative patient's family compared to genetic health professionals (p = 0.014). Our results suggest that genetic and palliative care health professionals support integrating genetics into palliative care, although refinement of the palliative care health professionals' role in this process is required. We have identified intervention targets to overcome barriers related to knowledge and confidence, which ought to be integrated into future interventions designed to support health professionals deliver the benefits of genetic information to people with palliative care needs and their families.

Genetic services survey-experience of people with rare diseases and their families accessing genetic services in the Irish Republic

Irish Health Service objectives state that patients with rare diseases should have timely access to genomic diagnostics with appropriate pre and post-test counselling. However, waiting times for clinical genetics outpatient appointments, during the study period, were up to two years as staffing levels remain low. A targeted public online survey was conducted in January 2022 to capture the experiences of Rare Disease families trying to access genetic testing and clinical genetic clinics in the Irish Republic. Irish patients experience significant waiting times to access clinical genetic services and self-report anxiety and stress, related to delayed access to diagnosis, clarity around recurrence risk and follow-up management. This negatively impacts personal decisions around family planning, education and employment and has a significant impact on family members seeking clarity on their own risk. Mainstream genetic testing activity is significant. Families report concern over the competency of health care professionals arranging and delivering genetic results and delays in accessing clinical genetics expertise to take them through the clinical implications. Timely access to clinical genetics expertise is important to ensure families with rare diseases have an appropriate understanding of the medical and reproductive implications of a genetic diagnosis and access to relevant care pathways. A national framework to develop competency in genomic literacy for health-care professionals including a national genetic test directory may be beneficial. Clinical genetics teams require ongoing support and investment to ensure the delivery of a safe and effective service for Irish families with rare diseases.

Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider

A significant challenge limiting the comprehensive utilization of genomic medicine is the lack of timely access to genetics specialists. Although neurologists see patients for whom genetic testing should be considered, the knowledge regarding the choice of the optimal genetic test for each case and the management of the test results are out of the scope of their everyday practice. In this review, we provide a step-by-step guide for non-geneticist physicians through the decision-making process when ordering diagnostic genetic testing for monogenic neurological diseases and when dealing with their results.

A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.

A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis into the experiences of being identified with a BRCA1/2 gene alteration: "So many little, little traumas could have been avoided"

Background

BRCA1/2 alterations increase females’ lifetime breast cancer risk to 40 – 90%, ovarian cancer to 10 – 60%, and males’ lifetime prostate cancer risk to ~ 10 – 25%. Psychosocial issues such as heightened distress can, therefore, occur in this population. This study aimed to explore the subjective experiences and needs of the BRCA1/2 alteration population in navigating cancer risk reduction measures.

Method

This study aimed to explore the experiences and identify the needs of 18 BRCA1/2 alteration carriers, recruited through strategic sampling. A public and patient panel (N = 6) collaborated on study development. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Two themes were identified: (i) Healthcare Services as a Burden to Navigate, and (ii) Burden Experienced Through Interactions with Healthcare Professionals. Results indicated uncertainty regarding care pathways, alongside a lack of relevant information. Participants felt unsupported by healthcare professionals, and as though healthcare professionals often perceive them as a burden.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the quality of interactions in healthcare systems are of relevance to the BRCA1/2 alteration population, and that uncertainty surrounding access to services and information is prevalent. The establishment of specialist hereditary cancer clinics could reduce such burden.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08372-w.

Duplication of referral, a tsunami of paper: how much does it cost the Irish health services?

Background

Prolonged waiting lists increase costs as medical problems may become more expensive to fix. There are also hidden financial costs. Irish Clinical Genetic services have long out-patient waiting times. We noticed duplicate referrals (patients on the waiting list) being re-referred because the patient still had not been seen. These re-referrals waste consultant and administrative time, pose a clinical risk by distracting clinician time, and are costly to our health service.

Methods

We prospectively collected duplicate referral data over a 3-month period (1 October 2020–31 January 2021) in order to estimate costs. We costed (1) referring consultant and administrative time; (2) stationary, postage, and storage cost; and (3) receiving consultant and administrative time processing these referrals.

Results

We noted 82/986 (8%) referrals to our service over the trial period were duplicate. The mean length of time between first and duplicate referral was 306 days. In 35/82 (42.68%), a duplicate referral had already been received (e.g. 3rd or more referral for same patient). In total, we received 132 re-referral letters for 82 patients. Duplicate referrals changed triage outcome in 7/82 (8.54%) cases.

Conclusion

National Treatment Purchase Fund data suggests that 271,560 patients are waiting > 12 months for both in- and out-patient public appointments on 1 January 2021. Assuming duplicate referrals are occurring across the Irish health system with equal frequency after 12 months of waiting (8% of total appointments), then we estimate a conservative cost of 757,392 € per quarter to the health service and an annual cost to the HSE of 3,029,568 €.