Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial

The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, eHealth has received much attention as an opportunity to increase efficiency within healthcare organizations. Adoption of eHealth might consequently help to solve perceived health workforce challenges, including labor shortages and increasing workloads among primary care professionals, who serve as the first point of contact for healthcare in many countries. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of general eHealth use and specific eHealth services use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era.

METHODS

The databases of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Medline ALL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched, using combinations of keywords including 'eHealth', 'workload', and 'general practice'. Data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies were independently performed by at least two reviewers. Publications were included for the period 2010 - 2020, before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

In total, 208 studies describing the impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload were identified. We found that two eHealth services were mainly investigated within this context, namely electronic health records and digital communication services, and that the largest share of the included studies used a qualitative study design. Overall, a small majority of the studies found that eHealth led to an increase in general practice workload. However, results differed between the various types of eHealth services, as a large share of the studies also reported a reduction or no change in workload.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of eHealth services use on general practice workload is ambiguous. While a small majority of the effects indicated that eHealth increased workload in general practice, a large share of the effects also showed that eHealth use reduced workload or had no impact. These results do not imply a definitive conclusion, which underscores the need for further explanatory research. Various factors, including the study setting, system design, and the phase of implementation, may influence this impact and should be taken into account when general practices adopt new eHealth services.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020199897; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=199897 .

A Predefined Rule-Based Multi-Factor Risk Stratification Is Associated With Improved Outcomes at a Rural Primary Care Practice

This study built a predefined rule-based risk stratification paradigm using 19 factors in a primary care setting that works with rural communities. The factors include medical and nonmedical variables. The nonmedical variables represent 3 demographic attributes and one other factor represents transportation availability. Medical variables represent major clinical variables such as blood pressure and BMI. Many risk stratification models are found in the literature but few integrate medical and nonmedical variables, and to our knowledge, no such model is designed specifically for rural communities. The data used in this study contain the associated variables of all medical visits in 2021. Data from 2022 were used to evaluate the model. After our risk stratification model and several interventions were adopted in 2022, the percentage of patients with high or medium risk of deteriorating health outcomes dropped from 34.9% to 24.4%, which is a reduction of 30%. The medium-complex patient population size, which had been 29% of all patients, decreased by about 4% to 5.7%. According to the analysis, the total risk score showed a strong correlation with 3 risk factors: dual diagnoses, the number of seen providers, and PHQ9 (0.63, 0.54, and 0.45 correlation coefficients, respectively).

Genetics providers' perspectives on the use of digital tools in clinical practice

PURPOSE

Digital tools are increasingly incorporated into genetics practice to address challenges with the current model of care. Yet, genetics providers' perspectives on digital tool use are not well characterized.

METHODS

Genetics providers across Canada were recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted to ascertain their perspectives on digital tool use and the clinical practice factors that might inform digital tool integration. A qualitative interpretive description approach was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three genetics providers across 5 provinces were interviewed. Participants had favorable attitudes toward digital tool use. They were open to using digital tools in the pretest phase of the genetic testing pathway and for some posttest tasks or in a hybrid model of care. Participants expressed that digital tools could enhance efficiency and allow providers to spend more time practicing at the top of scope. Providers also described the need for careful consideration of the potential impact of digitalization on the clinician-patient dynamic, access to and equity of care, and unintended digital burden on providers.

CONCLUSION

Genetics providers considered digital tools to represent a viable solution for improving access, efficiency, and quality of care in genetics practice. Successful use of digital tools in practice will require careful consideration of their potential unintended impacts.

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient care using genetics presents complex challenges. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or recommendations at the point of care. This systematic review evaluated the literature on CDS systems which have been implemented to support genetically guided precision medicine (GPM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, encompassing January 1, 2011-March 14, 2023. The review included primary English peer-reviewed research articles studying humans, focused on the use of computers to guide clinical decision-making and delivering genetically guided, patient-specific assessments, and/or recommendations to healthcare providers and/or patients.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3832 unique articles. After screening, 41 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Alerts and reminders were the most common form of CDS used. About 27 systems were integrated with the electronic health record; 2 of those used standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer. Three studies used a framework to analyze the implementation strategy.

DISCUSSION

Findings include limited use of standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer, system evaluations that do not employ formal frameworks, and inconsistencies in the methodologies used to assess genetic CDS systems and their impact on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research on CDS system implementation for genetically GPM should focus on implementing more CDS systems, utilization of standards-based approaches, user-centered design, exploration of alternative forms of CDS interventions, and use of formal frameworks to systematically evaluate genetic CDS systems and their effects on patient care.

Exploring key components and factors that influence the use of clinical decision- support tools for prescribing to older patients with kidney disease: the perspective of healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision-support (CDS) tools are systems that provide healthcare providers (HCPs) with recommendations based on knowledge and patient-specific factors to facilitate informed decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the key components of a CDS tool that are most important to HCPs in caring for older adults with kidney disease, and to understand the facilitators and barriers toward using CDS tools in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Design: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian HCPs was undertaken.

DATA COLLECTION

Participants affiliated with a provincial college, nephrology organization, or advocacy body were contacted. The survey was conducted between August and October 2021.

INSTRUMENT

A 59-item questionnaire was developed and divided into five main domains/themes. Analysis was done descriptively.

RESULTS

Sixty-three participants completed the questionnaire. Physicians (60%) and pharmacists (22%) comprised the majority of the participants. Most of the participants were specialized in nephrology (65%). The most important components in a CDS tool for prescribing to older patients with kidney disease were the safety and efficacy of the medication (89%), the goal of therapy (89%), and patient's quality of life (87%). 90% were willing to use CDS tools and 57% were already using some CDS tools for prescribing. The majority of the participants selected the validation of CDS tools (95%), accompanying the recommendations by the supporting evidence (84%), and the affiliation of the tools with known organizations (84%), as factors that facilitate the use of CDS tools.

CONCLUSION

CDS tools are being used and are accepted by HCPs and have value in their assistance in engaging patients in making well-informed decisions.

Web-based tool for cancer family history collection: A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1% of individuals have a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, however, the majority are not aware. Collecting a cancer family history (CFH) can triage patients to receive genetic testing. To rigorously assess different methods of CFH collection, we compared a web-based tool (WBT) to usual care (clinician collects CFH) in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients (seen 9/2019-9/2021) were randomized to one of three arms in a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: 1) usual care clinician CFH collection, 2) WBT completed at home, or 3) WBT completed in office. The WBT generated a cancer-focused pedigree and scores on eight validated cancer risk models. The primary outcome was collection of an adequate CFH (based on established guidelines) with usual care versus the WBT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 participants (usual care - 110; WBT home - 105; WBT office - 35 [closed early due to COVID-19]). Within WBT arms, 109 (78%) participants completed the tool, with higher completion for office versus home (33 [94%] vs. 76 [72%], P = 0.008). Among participants completing the WBT, 63 (58%) had an adequate CFH versus 5 (5%) for usual care (P < 0.001). Participants completing the WBT were significantly more likely to complete genetic counseling (34 [31%] vs. 15 [14%], P = 0.002) and genetic testing (20 [18%] vs. 9 [8%], P = 0.029). Participant and provider WBT experience was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

WBTs for CFH collection are a promising application of health information technology, resulting in more comprehensive CFH and a significantly greater percentage of participants completing genetic counseling and testing.

Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

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.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Melanoma risk assessment and management: a qualitative study among Australian general practitioners

Background

Preventive guidelines for melanoma recommend that patients at high risk of melanoma receive targeted screening; however, this requires careful selection of those at high risk. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no previous research into how all physicians approach the selection and management of high-risk individuals. Melanoma risk-prediction models are available to assist in the identification of high-risk patients but are not routinely used clinically.

Aim

To examine how GPs assessed and managed melanoma risk, and the opportunities for using melanoma risk-prediction models in primary care.

Design and setting

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 Australian GPs.

Method

GPs who had completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study on melanoma risk were purposively sampled and recruited. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Australian GPs between 9 July and 10 September 2019. Interviews were audiorecorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory.

Results

Melanoma risk assessment and its management can be understood as a linear workflow consisting of five clinical process domains with patient selection as the entry point. There was variation between GPs on the identification of melanoma risk factors, melanoma risk estimation, management, and patient education because of intuitive and analytical processes guiding risk assessment, and the influence of patient factors. GPs were largely receptive towards melanoma risk-prediction models, sharing facilitators for and barriers to their potential implementation.

Conclusion

Further primary care interventions sensitive to existing workflow arrangements may be required to standardise melanoma risk-assessment and management processes.

Web-Based Tool (FH Family Share) to Increase Uptake of Cascade Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Development and Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Familial hypercholesterolemia, a prevalent genetic disorder, remains significantly underdiagnosed in the United States. Cascade testing, wherein individuals diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia- probands-contact their family members to inform them of their risk for familial hypercholesterolemia, has low uptake in the United States. Digital tools are needed to facilitate communication between familial hypercholesterolemia probands and their family members and to promote sharing of familial hypercholesterolemia-related risk information.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to create and evaluate a web-based tool designed to enhance familial communication and promote cascade testing for familial hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

A hybrid type 1 implementation science framework and a user-centered design process were used to develop an interactive web-based tool-FH Family Share-that enables familial hypercholesterolemia probands to communicate information about their familial hypercholesterolemia diagnosis with at-risk relatives. Probands can also use the tool to draw a family pedigree and learn more about familial hypercholesterolemia through education modules and curated knowledge resources. Usability guidelines and standards were taken into account during the design and development of the tool. The initial prototype underwent a cognitive walkthrough, which was followed by usability testing with key stakeholders including genetic counselors and patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Participants navigated the prototype using the think-aloud technique, and their feedback was used to refine features of the tool.

RESULTS

Key themes that emerged from the cognitive walkthrough were design, format, navigation, terminology, instructions, and learnability. Expert feedback from the cognitive walkthrough resulted in a rebuild of the web-based tool to align it with institutional standards. Usability testing with genetic counselors and patients with familial hypercholesterolemia provided insights on user experience, satisfaction and interface design and highlighted specific modifications that were made to refine the features of FH Family Share. Genetic counselors and patients with familial hypercholesterolemia suggested inclusion of the following features in the web-based tool: (1) a letter-to-family-member email template, (2) education modules, and (3) knowledge resources. Surveys revealed that 6 of 9 (67%) genetic counselors found information within FH Family Share very easy to find, and 5 of 9 (56%) genetic counselors found information very easy to understand; 5 of 9 (56%) patients found information very easy to find within the website, and 7 of 9 (78%) patients found information very easy to understand. All genetic counselors and patients indicated that FH Family Share was a resource worth returning to.

CONCLUSIONS

FH Family Share facilitates communication between probands and their relatives. Once informed, at-risk family members have the option to seek testing and treatment for familial hypercholesterolemia.

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.

Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data

Objective

To identify needs in a clinical decision support tool development by exploring how primary care providers currently collect and use family health history (FHH).

Design

Survey questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were administered to a mix of primary and specialty care clinicians within the University of Utah Health system (40 surveys, 12 interviews).

Results

Three key themes emerged regarding providers' collection and use of FHH: (1) Strategies for collecting FHH vary by level of effort; (2) Documentation practices extend beyond the electronic health record's dedicated FHH module; and (3) Providers desire feedback from genetic services consultation and are uncertain how to refer patients to genetic services.

Conclusion

Study findings highlight the varying degrees of engagement that providers have with collecting FHH. Improving the integration of FHH into workflow, and providing decision support, as well as links and tools to help providers better utilize genetic counseling may improve patient care.

Mapping Users' Experience of a Family History and Genetic Risk Algorithm Tool in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

The development of a family history (FH) questionnaire (FHQ) provides an insight into a patient's familiarity of a trait and helps to identify individuals at increased risk of disease. A critical aspect of developing a new tool is exploring users' experience.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine users' experience, obstacles and challenges, and their views and concerns in the applicability of a new tool for determining genetic risk in Slovenia's primary care.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach. The participants completed a risk assessment software questionnaire that calculates users' likelihood of developing familial diseases. Audio-taped semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted to evaluate their experience. There were 21 participants, and analyses using the constant comparative method were employed.

RESULTS

We identified 3 main themes: obstacles/key issues, suggestions for improvements, and coping. The participants were poorly satisfied with the clarity of instructions, technical usability problems, and issues with the entry of relatives' data. They expressed satisfaction with some of the characteristics of the FHQ (e.g., straightforward and friendly format, easy entry, and comprehension). They suggested simpler language, that the disease risk should be targeted toward the disease, that the FHQ should include patient-specific recommendations, and that it should be part of the electronic medical records. When discussing what would they do with the results of the FHQ, the participants used different coping strategies: active (e.g., seeking information) or passive (e.g., avoidance).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

User experience was shown to be a synthesis of obstacles, overcoming them with suggestions for improvements, and exploration of various coping mechanisms that may emerge from dealing with the stressor of "being at risk."

Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Collection of family cancer histories (FCHs) can identify individuals at risk for familial cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on existing strategies whereby providers use information technology to assemble FCH.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase) between 1980 and 2020 was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed through the chi-square test (ie, Cochrane Q test) and the inconsistency statistic (I2). A random-effects analysis was used to calculate the pooled proportions and means.

RESULTS

The comprehensive search produced 4,005 publications. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven information technology tools were evaluated. Eighteen out of 28 studies were electronic surveys administered before visits (18, 64.3%). Five studies administered tablet surveys in offices (5, 17.8%). Four studies collected electronic survey via kiosk before visits (4, 14.3%), and one study used animated virtual counselor during visits (1, 3.6%). Among the studies that use an FCH tool, the pooled estimate of the overall completion rate was 86% (CI, 72% to 96%), 84% (CI, 65% to 97%) for electronic surveys before visits, 89% (CI, 0.74 to 0.98) for tablet surveys, and 85% (CI, 0.66 to 0.98) for surveys via kiosk. Mean time required for completion was 31.0 minutes (CI, 26.1 to 35.9), and the pooled estimate of proportions of participants referred to genetic testing was 12% (CI, 4% to 23%).

CONCLUSION

Our review found that electronic FCH collection can be completed successfully by patients in a time-efficient manner with high rates of satisfaction.

Modernizing family health history: achievable strategies to reduce implementation gaps

Family health history (FHH) is a valuable yet underused healthcare tool for assessing health risks for both prevalent disorders like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, and for rare, monogenic disorders. Full implementation of FHH collection and analysis in healthcare could improve both primary and secondary disease prevention for individuals and, through cascade testing, make at risk family members eligible for pre-symptomatic testing and preventative interventions. In addition to risk assessment in the clinic, FHH is increasingly important for interpreting clinical genetic testing results and for research connecting health risks to genomic variation. Despite this value, diverse implementation gaps in clinical settings undermine its potential clinical value and limit the quality of connected health and genomic data. The NHGRI Family Health History Group, an open-membership, US-based group with international members, believes that integrating FHH in healthcare and research is more important than ever, and that achievable implementation advances, including education, are urgently needed to boost the pace of translational utility in genomic medicine. An inventory of implementation gaps and proposed achievable strategies to address them, representing a consensus developed in meetings from 2019-2020, is presented here. The proposed measures are diverse, interdisciplinary, and are guided by experience and ongoing implementation and research efforts.

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool

BACKGROUND

The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services.

METHODS

This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %).

CONCLUSIONS

65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Patient experience with family history tool: analysis of patients' experience sharing their family health history through patient-computer dialogue in a patient portal

OBJECTIVE

The collection and use of a family health history are important for assessing the patient's risk of disease, but history taking is often impeded by practical barriers in the office. Provision for patient-computer dialogue, linked with the electronic health record, may enable patients to contribute their history while bypassing these barriers. We sought to assess the patient experience using such a tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We linked the family history module of a computer-based medical history to the patient portal of a large academic health system. The interview consisted of 39 primary questions with a predetermined high test-retest reliability. Patients' results were structured and summarized, and available within their electronic health record. Patients optionally completed a survey about their experience. We inductively analyzed free-text responses collected between 2014 and 2016.

RESULTS

Among 97 781 patient portal users, 9562 patients accessed and 4223 patients completed the family medical history interview. Of these patients, 1451 completed our survey. Main themes that were identified included (1) patient empowerment, (2) anticipated value, (3) validity concerns, (4) privacy concerns, and (5) reflections on patient-computer dialogue. Patients also provided suggestions for the improvement of future family history tools.

DISCUSSION

Patients providing their family health information is an example of collaborative electronic work with clinicians and was seen as valuable by those who participated. Concerns related to contextual information and uncertainty need to be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-computer dialogue to collect family medical history empowered patients and added perceived value and efficiency to the patient experience of care.

The enduring importance of family health history in the era of genomic medicine and risk assessment

Improving disease risk prediction and tailoring preventive interventions to patient risk factors is one of the primary goals of precision medicine. Family health history is the traditional approach to quickly gather genetic and environmental data relevant to the patient. While the utility of family health history is well-documented, its utilization is variable, in part due to lack of patient and provider knowledge and incomplete or inaccurate data. With the advances and reduced costs of sequencing technologies, comprehensive sequencing tests can be performed as a risk assessment tool. We provide an overview of each of these risk assessment approaches, the benefits and limitations and implementation challenges.

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.

Health Risk Assessments in Michigan's Medicaid Expansion: Early Experiences in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Michigan is one of 3 states that have implemented health risk assessments for enrollees as a feature of its Medicaid expansion, the Healthy Michigan Plan. This study describes primary care providers' early experiences with completing health risk assessments with enrollees and examines provider- and practice-level factors that affect health risk assessment completion.

METHODS

All primary care providers caring for ≥12 Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees (n=4,322) were surveyed from June to November 2015, with 2,104 respondents (55.5%). Analyses in 2016-2017 described provider knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with the health risk assessment early in Healthy Michigan Plan implementation; multivariable analyses examined relationships of provider- and practice-level characteristics with health risk assessment completion, as recorded in state data.

RESULTS

Of the primary care provider respondents, 73% found health risk assessments very or somewhat useful for identifying and discussing health risks, although less than half (47.2%) found them very or somewhat useful for getting patients to change health behaviors. Most primary care provider respondents (65.3%) were unaware of financial incentives for their practices to complete health risk assessments. Nearly all primary care providers had completed at least 1 health risk assessment. The mean health risk assessment completion rate (completed health risk assessments/number of Healthy Michigan Plan enrollees assigned to that primary care provider) was 19.6%; those who lacked familiarity with the health risk assessment had lower completion rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Early in program implementation, health risk assessment completion rates by primary care providers were low and awareness of financial incentives limited. Most primary care provider respondents perceived health risk assessments to be very or somewhat useful in identifying health risks, and about half of primary care providers viewed health risk assessments as very or somewhat useful in helping patients to change health behaviors.

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.

The CRISP-P study: feasibility of a self-completed colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk.

METHODS

Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial.

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.

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.

Obtaining a Genetic Family History Using Computer-Based Tools

Family health history has long been known to be a powerful predictor of individual disease risk. It can be obtained prior to DNA sequencing in order to examine inheritance patterns, to be used as a proxy for genetic information, or as a tool to guide decision-making on the utility of diagnostic genetic testing. Increasingly, it is also being obtained retrospectively from sequenced individuals to examine familial disease penetrance and to identify at-risk relatives for cascade testing. The collection of adequate family history information to screen patients for disease risk and guide decision-making is a time-consuming process that is difficult to accomplish exclusively through discussion between patients and their providers. Engaging individuals and families in data collection and data entry has the potential to improve data accuracy through re-iterative review with family members and health care providers, and to empower patients in their healthcare. In addition, electronic datasets can be shared amongst relatives and stored in electronic health records or personal files, enabling portability of family history information. The U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and others have developed tools for electronic family history collection to help families and providers obtain this useful information in an efficient manner. This unit describes the utility of the web-based My Family Health Portrait (https://familyhistory.hhs.gov) as the prototype for patient-entered family history. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

New guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for women and their clinician in consideration of breast cancer screening, particularly for women ages 35-50 where guidelines for routine mammography are controversial. A number of models offer general guidelines for SDM across clinical practice, yet they do not offer specific guidance about conducting SDM in mammography. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify the key elements of breast cancer screening SDM and synthesize these key elements for utilization by primary care clinicians.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus); PsycInfo, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and SocIndex databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were original studies from peer-reviewed publications (from 2009 or later) reporting breast cancer screening (mammography), medical decision-making, and patient-centered care. Study populations needed to include female patients 18+ years of age facing a real-life breast cancer screening decision. Article findings were specific to shared decision-making and/or use of a decision aid. Data extracted includes study design, population, setting, intervention, and critical findings related to breast cancer screening SDM elements. Scoping analysis includes descriptive analysis of study features and content analysis to identify the SDM key elements.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were retained. Three thematic categories of key elements emerged from the extracted elements: information delivery/patient education (specific content and delivery modes), interpersonal clinician-patient communication (aspects of interpersonal relationship impacting SDM), and framework of the decision (sociocultural factors beyond direct SDM deliberation). A number of specific breast cancer screening SDM elements relevant to primary care clinical practice are delineated.

DISCUSSION

The findings underscore the importance of the relationship between the patient and clinician and the necessity of spelling out each step in the SDM process. The clinician needs to be explicit in telling a woman that she has a choice about whether to get a mammogram and the benefits and harms of screening mammography. Finally, clinicians need to be aware of sociocultural factors that can influence their relationships and their patients' decision-making processes and attempt to identify and address these factors.

What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review

Background

Many tools have been developed for the standardized collection of cancer family history (fh). However, it remains unclear which tools have the potential to help health professionals overcome traditional barriers to collecting such histories. In this review, we describe the characteristics, validation process, and performance of existing tools and appraise the extent to which those tools can support health professionals in identifying and managing at-risk individuals.

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of the medline, embase, and Cochrane central databases from October 2015 to September 2016. Articles were included if they described a cancer fh collection tool, its use, and its validation process.

Results

Based on seventy-nine articles published between February 1978 and September 2016, 62 tools were identified. Most of the tools were paper-based and designed to be self-administered by lay individuals. One quarter of the tools could automatically produce pedigrees, provide cancer-risk assessment, and deliver evidence-based recommendations. One third of the tools were validated against a standard reference for collected fh quality and cancer-risk assessment. Only 3 tools were integrated into an electronic health records system.

Conclusions

In the present review, we found no tool with characteristics that might make it an efficient clinical support for health care providers in cancer-risk identification and management. Adequately validated tools that are connected to electronic health records are needed to encourage the systematic identification of individuals at increased risk of cancer.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in men worldwide and the second most common in women. The purpose of this study was to determine both barriers established by primary health care providers (PHCPs) and barriers perceived by them and to produce solutions for achieving the desired results. A four-part questionnaire was administered to family physicians (FPs) and family health personnels (FHPs) in Samsun, Turkey on 01-15 May, 2016. Sixty-six percent of PHCPs were contacted. Data were evaluated as numbers and percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed using the Chi square and t tests. 478 PHCPs participated; 49.4 % were FPs and 50.6 % FHPs. Of the participants, 86.6 % stated that they performed CRC screening on patients. The level of participants knowing that screening should start at age 50 and conclude at age 70 was 49.7 %. The level of subjects requesting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) at the correct intervals was 29.7 %, but only 6.9 % recommended colonoscopy at the correct intervals. Additionally, 18.2 % of subjects knew that the test used is immunochemical FOBT, and 60.5 % reported not using reminders. PHCPs' low levels of knowledge, awareness and advice compatible with guidelines concerning CRC screening may represent an obstacle to such screening. Barriers perceived by PHCPs include patients' inability to access definite medical information, deficiencies in the reminder system and patients' lack of interest in CRC screening. Additions to the screening program will be useful in overcoming barriers.

Family Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward Colorectal Cancer Screening

The purpose of this study was to assess family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The population in this cross-sectional study consisted of 290 family physicians working in Samsun, Turkey, contacted between 15 June and 15 July 2015 and agreeing to participate. A questionnaire prepared by the authors on the basis of the relevant literature was applied at face-to-face interviews. The first part of the questionnaire inquired into sociodemographic information, while the second contained questions evaluating family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward CRC screening. Physicians completed the questionnaire in approximately 10 min. 65.9 % of the family physicians in the study were men. Mean age of the participants was 43.40 ± 6.54 years, and mean number of years in service was 18.43 ± 6.42. The average number of patients seen by physicians on a daily basis was 51-99. CRC screening was performed by 83.1 % of physicians. The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) was recommended at the correct frequency by 30.7 % of physicians and colonoscopy by 11.7 %. A further 68.6 % of physicians followed no CRC guideline. Only 3.8 % of those reporting using a guideline were able to name it. The great majority of physicians in this study apply CRC screening. However, family physicians lack sufficient information concerning the ages at which screening tests should be started and concluded and how frequently they should be performed. They also do not attach sufficient importance to CRC guidelines. This results in excessive demand for screening tests.

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Selection of the method to appraise and compare health systems using risk stratification: the ASSEHS approach

To face the challenge of active and healthy ageing, European Health Systems and services should move towards proactive, anticipatory and integrated care. The comparison of methods to combine results across studies and to determine an overall effect was undertaken by the EU project ASSEHS (Activation of Stratification Strategies and Results of the interventions on frail patients of Healthcare Services, EU project (No. 2013 12 04). The questions raised in ASSEHS are broad and involve a complex body of literature. Thus, systematic reviews are not appropriate. The most appropriate method appears to be scoping studies. In this paper, an updated method of scoping studies has been used to determine the questions needed to appraise the health systems and services for frailty in the ageing population. Three objectives were set (i) to detect a relevant number of risk stratification tools for frailty and identify the best-in-class, (ii) to understand the feasibility of introducing stratification tools and identify the difficulties of the process and (iii) to find evidence on the impact of risk stratification in Health Services. This novel approach may provide greater clarity about scoping study methodology and help enhance the methodological rigor with which authors undertake and report scoping studies.

Implementation Science: Buzzword or Game Changer?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this supplement article is to provide a resource of pertinent information concerning implementation science for immediate research application in communication sciences and disorders.

METHOD

Key terminology related to implementation science is reviewed. Practical suggestions for the application of implementation science theories and methodologies are provided, including an overview of hybrid research designs that simultaneously investigate clinical effectiveness and implementation as well as an introduction to approaches for engaging stakeholders in the research process. A detailed example from education is shared to show how implementation science was utilized to move an intervention program for autism into routine practice in the public school system. In particular, the example highlights the value of strong partnership among researchers, policy makers, and frontline practitioners in implementing and sustaining new evidence-based practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation science is not just a buzzword. This is a new field of study that can make a substantive contribution in communication sciences and disorders by informing research agendas, reducing health and education disparities, improving accountability and quality control, increasing clinician satisfaction and competence, and improving client outcomes.

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

Social determinants of family health history collection

Family health history (FHH) is the most basic form of genomic information. Although public health efforts have been made to promote FHH collection, empirical data on the extent to which community residents in rural areas actively collect FHH is limited. Therefore, we examined rates of FHH collection in a community-based sample of South Carolina residents. We conducted a structured telephone survey in a random sample of black and white South Carolina residents. Respondents were asked if they had ever actively collected FHH from relatives using an item developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall, 42 % of respondents reported that they had actively collected their FHH. Blacks were significantly more likely than whites to have collected their FHH in bivariate analysis, but race did not have a significant association with FHH collection in the multivariate model (OR = 1.36, 95 % CI = 0.79, 2.35, p = 0.26). The likelihood of collecting FHH was increased among respondents whose last medical visit occurred in the past year compared to those whose last medical visit was more than 1 year ago (OR = 2.00, 95 % CI = 1.12, 3.56, p = 0.02). In addition, older respondents had a reduced likelihood of collecting their FHH (OR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.53, 0.90, p = .01). Lastly, women were about twice as likely as men to have collected their FHH (OR = 1.83, 95 % CI = 1.12, 2.99, p = 0.02). Greater efforts are needed to increase the collection of FHH information; these efforts may need to target men, the elderly, and individuals who have not had a recent medical visit.

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.

Factors Underlying Quality Problems with Alcohol Screening Prompted by a Clinical Reminder in Primary Care: A Multi-site Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening.

DESIGN

This was an observational, qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S.

APPROACH

Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes.

KEY RESULTS

We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.

A Framework for Usable and Effective Clinical Decision Support: Experience from the iCPR Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The promise of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) has always been to transform patient care and improve patient outcomes through the delivery of timely and appropriate recommendations that are patient specific and, more often than not, are appropriately actionable. However, the users of CDS-providers-are frequently bombarded with inappropriate and inapplicable CDS that often are not informational, not integrated into the workflow, not patient specific, and that may present out of date and irrelevant recommendations.

METHODS

The integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) project was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) conducted to determine if a novel form of CDS, i.e., clinical prediction rules (CPRs), could be efficiently integrated into workflow and result in changes in outcomes (e.g., antibiotic ordering) when embedded within a commercial electronic health record (EHR). We use the lessons learned from the iCPR project to illustrate a framework for constructing usable, useful, and effective actionable CDS while employing off-the-shelf functionality in a production system. Innovations that make up the framework combine the following: (1) active and actionable decision support, (2) multiple rounds of usability testing with iterative development for user acceptance, (3) numerous context sensitive triggers, (4) dedicated training and support for users of the CDS tool for user adoption, and (5) support from clinical and administrative leadership. We define "context sensitive triggers" as being workflow events (i.e., context) that result in a CDS intervention.

DISCUSSION

Success of the framework can be measured by CDS adoption (i.e., intervention is being used), acceptance (compliance with recommendations), and clinical outcomes (where appropriate). This framework may have broader implications for the deployment of Health Information Technology (HIT).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

iCPR was well adopted(57.4% of users) and accepted (42.7% of users). Usability testing identified and fixed many issues before the iCPR RCT. The level of leadership support and clinical guidance for iCPR was key in establishing a culture of acceptance for both the tool and its recommendations contributing to adoption and acceptance. The dedicated training and support lead to the majority of the residents reporting a high level of comfort with both iCPR tools strep pharyngitis (64.4 percent) and pneumonia (62.7 percent) as well as a high likelihood of using the tools in the future. A surprising framework addition resulted from usability testing: context sensitive triggers.

A qualitative study on clinicians' perceptions about the implementation of a population risk stratification tool in primary care practice of the Basque health service

BACKGROUND

A prospective Population Risk Stratification (PRS) tool was first introduced in the public Basque Health Service in 2011, at the level of its several Primary Care (PC) practices. This paper aims at exploring the new tool's implementation process, as experienced by its potential adopters/users, ie. PC clinicians (doctors and nurses). Findings could help guide future PRS implementation strategies.

METHODS

Three focus groups exploring clinicians' opinions and experiences related to the PRS tool and its implementation in their daily practice were conducted. A purposive sample of 12 General Practitioners and 11 PC nurses participated in the groups. Discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis based on Graham et al.'s Knowledge Translation Theory.

RESULTS

Exploring PC clinicians' experience with the new PRS tool, allowed us to identify certain elements working as barriers and facilitators in its implementation process. This series of closely interrelated elements, which emerged as relevant in building up the complex implementation process of the new tool, as experienced by the clinicians, can be grouped into four domains: 1) clinicians' characteristics as potential adopters, 2) clinicians' perceptions of their practice settings where PRS is to implemented, 3) clinicians' perceptions of the tool, and 4) the implementation strategy used by the PRS promoter.

CONCLUSIONS

Lessons from the implementation process under study point at the need to frame the implementation of a new PRS tool within a wider strategy encouraging PC clinicians to orientate their daily practice towards a population health approach. The PRS tool could also improve the perceived utility by its potential adopters, by bringing it closer to the clinicians' needs and practice, and allowing it to become context-sensitive. This would require clinicians being involved from the earliest phases of conceptualisation, design and implementation of the new tool, and mounting efforts to improve communication between clinicians and tool promoters.Graham et al.'s Knowledge Translation Theory proved a suitable framework to explore the implementation process of a new PRS tool in the public Basque Health Service's PC practice, and hence to identify implementation barriers and facilitators as experienced by the clinicians.

Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Patients with Hereditary Cancer Risk within the United States

Recognizing the importance of identifying patients at high risk for inherited cancer predisposition, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has outlined specific family history patterns associated with an increased risk for BRCA mutations. However, national data indicate a need to facilitate the ability of primary care providers to appropriately identify high risk patients. Once a patient is identified as high risk, it is necessary for the patient to undergo a detailed genetics evaluation to generate a differential diagnosis, determine a cost-effective genetic testing strategy, and interpret results of testing. With identification of inherited predisposition, risk management strategies in line with national guidelines can be implemented to improve patient outcomes through cancer risk reduction and early detection. As use of genetic testing increasingly impacts patient outcomes, the role of primary care providers in the identification and care of individuals at high risk for hereditary cancer becomes even more important. Nevertheless it should be acknowledged that primary care providers face many competing demands and challenges to identify high risk patients. Therefore initiatives which promote multidisciplinary and coordinated care, potentially through academic-community partnerships, may provide an opportunity to enhance care of these patients.