Bridging the gap in genetics: a progressive model for primary to specialist care

Expanding the primary care workforce by integrating genetic counselors in multidisciplinary care teams

Collectively, rare diseases are common, affecting approximately 8% of the population in Canada and the USA. Therefore, the majority of primary care (PC) clinicians will care for patients who are affected or at risk for a genetic disease. Considering the increasing ways in which genetics is being implemented into all areas of healthcare, one way to address these needs and expand the capacity of the PC workforce is through the integration of genetic counselors (GCs) into PC multidisciplinary teams. GCs are Masters-educated allied health professionals with specialized training in molecular genetics, communication, and short-term psychotherapeutic counseling. The current models of GCs in PC mimic other multidisciplinary models. Complex tasks related to genetics, such as pre- and post-test counseling, genetic test selection, and results interpretation, are conducted by GCs, which, in turn, allows physicians, nurse practitioners, and other PC providers to work at the top of their scope of practice. Quality genetics services provided by GCs improve clinical outcomes for patients and their families; the simultaneous provision of genetic education and psychological support by a GC is associated with an increase in patient knowledge, perceived personal control, decrease in distress, and can lead to positive health behavior changes, all of which are aligned with the goals of primary healthcare. With their extensive training in clinical care, medical communication, and psychotherapeutic counseling, integrating GCs into PC care teams will improve the care patients receive and allow PC clinicians to ensure their patients are at the forefront of the personalized medicine revolution.

Genetics Navigator: protocol for a mixed methods randomized controlled trial evaluating a digital platform to deliver genomic services in Canadian pediatric and adult populations

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing is used across medical disciplines leading to unprecedented demand for genetic services. This has resulted in excessive waitlists and unsustainable pressure on the standard model of genetic healthcare. Alternative models are needed; e-health tools represent scalable and evidence-based solution. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator, an interactive patient-centred digital platform that supports the collection of medical and family history, provision of pregenetic and postgenetic counselling and return of genetic testing results across paediatric and adult settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator combined with usual care by a genetics clinician (physician or counsellor) to usual care alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and thirty participants (adults patients or parents of paediatric patients) eligible for genetic testing through standard of care will be recruited across Ontario genetics clinics. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Navigator for pretest and post-test genetic counselling and results disclosure in conjunction with their clinician. Participants randomised into the control arm will receive usual care, that is, clinician-delivered pretest and post-test genetic counselling, and results disclosure. The primary outcome is participant distress 2 weeks after test results disclosure. Secondary outcomes include knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, empowerment, quality of life, satisfaction, acceptability, digital health literacy and health resource use. Quantitative data will be analysed using statistical hypothesis tests and regression models. A subset of participants will be interviewed to explore user experience; data will be analysed using interpretive description. A cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the incremental cost of the Navigator compared with usual care per unit reduction in distress or unit improvement in quality of life from public payer and societal perspectives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario. Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06455384.

An interprofessional approach to teaching genetics in an undergraduate nursing curriculum

BACKGROUND

Precision health is rapidly becoming a means to individualized approaches to managing health and thus necessitating a nursing workforce with an understanding of genomics and genetics. However, today's nurse in has limited knowledge in precision health, impacting the ability to educate patients and families.

METHOD

To address this gap, an interprofessional PhD-prepared faculty team comprised of a nurse educator and a molecular biologist developed an undergraduate genetics course. The multiple teaching strategies include active learning modules, problem-based learning and a final debate.

RESULTS

The teaching methods were augmented multiple times based on student feedback. The debate activity replaced a poster assignment and student feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

CONCLUSION

Multiple strategies were used to deliver genomics and genetics content to nursing students that culminate in application-based activities such as case studies and the debate activity have potential to broaden student perspectives. Prospective course changes include increasing the credits for the course, adding time during the debate for rebuttal development and inviting speakers.

The urgency for a change in genetics healthcare provision: views from Portuguese medical geneticists

In the last decades, genetics has experienced significant technological advancements worldwide. However, in Portugal, serious limitations persist, compromising the functioning of healthcare in medical genetics. This study aimed to promote sharing and discussion among genetic medical professionals, to outline concrete actions to address gaps in clinical practice. Three focus groups were conducted with 19 specialists in medical genetics. The data were analyzed using the thematic analysis method to extract the main themes from the discussions. From the analysis, four conceptual themes emerged: (i) framing Portuguese genetic services in light of the European context; (ii) improvement of medical genetics education and population literacy; (iii) transforming of medical genetics services; and (iv) operationalizing the change. The results demonstrated that increasing training resources and strengthening multiprofessional teams by hiring more genetic professionals, such as clinical geneticists, molecular geneticists, and other genetic specialists, is crucial to enhancing the responsiveness of genetic services. Integrating medical genetics into all specialties and primary care, as well as updating the national network of medical genetics, are critical points for increasing equity and enabling healthcare to be provided more fairly. Including other medical genetics professionals such as genetic counsellors, nurses and psychologists also plays a significant role in providing comprehensive and quality care. This collaborative approach aims to provide effective genetic assistance and enhance the adequacy of genetic healthcare. The findings are compiled as recommendations to support the profession moving forward that can be applied to other healthcare contexts worldwide.

Laboratory Test Names Matter: A Survey on What Works and What Doesn't Work for Orders and Results

CONTEXT.—

Health care providers were surveyed to determine their ability to correctly decipher laboratory test names and their preferences for laboratory test names and result displays.

OBJECTIVE.—

To confirm principles for laboratory test nomenclature and display and to compare and contrast the abilities and preferences of different provider groups for laboratory test names.

DESIGN.—

Health care providers across different specialties and perspectives completed a survey of 38 questions, which included participant demographics, real-life examples of poorly named laboratory orders that they were asked to decipher, an assessment of vitamin D test name knowledge, their preferences for ideal names for tests, and their preferred display for test results. Participants were grouped and compared by profession, level of training, and the presence or absence of specialization in informatics and/or laboratory medicine.

RESULTS.—

Participants struggled with poorly named tests, especially with less commonly ordered tests. Participants' knowledge of vitamin D analyte names was poor and consistent with prior published studies. The most commonly selected ideal names correlated positively with the percentage of the authors' previously developed naming rules (R = 0.54, P < .001). There was strong consensus across groups for the best result display.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Poorly named laboratory tests are a significant source of provider confusion, and tests that are named according to the authors' naming rules as outlined in this article have the potential to improve test ordering and correct interpretation of results. Consensus among provider groups indicates that a single yet clear naming strategy for laboratory tests is achievable.

Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis: Common pitfalls in genetic testing

Genetic testing has the power to identify individuals with increased predisposition to disease, allowing individuals the opportunity to make informed management, treatment and reproductive decisions. As genomic medicine continues to be integrated into aspects of everyday patient care and the indications for genetic testing continue to expand, genetic services are increasingly being offered by non-genetic clinicians. The current complexities of genetic testing highlight the need to support and ensure non-genetic professionals are adequately equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide services. We describe a series of misdiagnosed/mismanaged cases, highlighting the common pitfalls in genetic testing to identify the knowledge gaps and where education and support is needed. We highlight that education focusing on differential diagnoses, test selection and result interpretation is needed. Collaboration and communication between genetic and non-genetic clinicians and integration of genetic counsellors into different medical settings are important. This will minimise the risks and maximise the benefits of genetic testing, ensuring adverse outcomes are mitigated.

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Protocolo genético en Atención Primaria para enfermedades raras: el síndrome de Wolfram como prototipo

Las enfermedades raras, pese a su baja frecuencia individual, afectan globalmente al 7% de la población, por lo que el profesional de Atención Primaria (AP) tendrá varios de estos pacientes bajo seguimiento. El 80% de estas enfermedades tienen base genética, lo que hace fundamental un asesoramiento genético adecuado. El seguimiento de pacientes con síndrome de Wolfram (SW) puede servir para diseñar un protocolo susceptible de ser utilizado en el diagnóstico y manejo de otras entidades y ser utilizado por profesionales sanitarios para dar soporte a los pacientes, contando con la participación de profesionales sanitarios e investigadores especializados en el SW, los propios pacientes y su entorno. Se desarrollan los pasos fundamentales de todo procedimiento clínico genético, en el que la AP es clave para dar soporte a estas familias y transmitir de forma comprensible la información sobre los aspectos genéticos.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

The diagnostic trajectory of infants and children with clinical features of genetic disease

We characterized US pediatric patients with clinical indicators of genetic diseases, focusing on the burden of disease, utilization of genetic testing, and cost of care. Curated lists of diagnosis, procedure, and billing codes were used to identify patients with clinical indicators of genetic disease in healthcare claims from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Database (13,076,038 unique patients). Distinct cohorts were defined to represent permissive and conservative estimates of the number of patients. Clinical phenotypes suggestive of genetic diseases were observed in up to 9.4% of pediatric patients and up to 44.7% of critically-ill infants. Compared with controls, patients with indicators of genetic diseases had higher utilization of services (e.g., mean NICU length of stay of 31.6d in a cohort defined by multiple congenital anomalies or neurological presentations compared with 10.1d for patients in the control population (P < 0.001)) and higher overall costs. Very few patients received any genetic testing (4.2-8.4% depending on cohort criteria). These results highlight the substantial proportion of the population with clinical features associated with genetic disorders and underutilization of genetic testing in these populations.

Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs.

Attracting and retaining physicians in less attractive specialties: the role of continuing medical education

BACKGROUND

Less attractive specialties in medicine are struggling to recruit and retain physicians. When properly organized and delivered, continuing medical education (CME) activities that include short courses, coaching in the workplace, and communities of practice might offer a solution to this problem. This position paper discusses how educationalists can create CME activities based on the self-determination theory that increase physicians' intrinsic motivation to work in these specialties.

MAIN CONTENT

The authors propose a set of guidelines for the design of CME activities that offer physicians meaningful training experiences within the limits of the available resources and support. First, to increase physicians' sense of professional relatedness, educationalists must conduct a learner needs assessment, evaluate CME's long-term outcomes in work-based settings, create social learning networks, and involve stakeholders in every step of the CME design and implementation process. Moreover, providing accessible, practical training formats and giving informative performance feedback that authentically connects to learners' working life situation increases physicians' competence and autonomy, so that they can confidently and independently manage the situations in their practice contexts. For each guideline, application methods and instruments are proposed, making use of relevant literature and connecting to the self-determination theory.

CONCLUSIONS

By reducing feelings of professional isolation and reinforcing feelings of competence and autonomy in physicians, CME activities show promise as a strategy to recruit and retain physicians in less attractive specialties.

Interpretation and management of genetic test results by Canadian family physicians: a multiple choice survey of performance

Family physicians (FPs) will encounter genetic concerns within community practice. To determine how FPs compare to genetic counselors (GCs), a cross-sectional survey was distributed to Canadian FPs and GCs in 2019. The survey assessed risk analysis, counseling, and management of genetic information. FPs performed less well than GCs on each survey question and scenario (p < 0.05). Average overall survey scores for FPs were lower than GCs (62% vs. 93%, p < 0.001). Additional genetic training for FPs may help avoid potential harm.

Queensland Consumers' Awareness and Understanding of Clinical Genetics Services

As genetic testing becomes increasingly utilized in health care, consumer awareness and understanding is critical. Both are reported to be low in Australia, though there are limited studies to date. A consumer survey assessed perceived knowledge, awareness and attitudes toward genetic medicine, prior to consumers’ genomics forums in Queensland in 2018 and 2019. Data was analyzed using t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests analysis to detect any associations between sociodemographic factors and familiarity or attitudes. This highly educated and experienced health consumer cohort reported they were significantly more familiar with the healthcare system generally than genetic medicine specifically (p < 0.0001). Consumers perceived that genetic testing would be significantly more important in the future than it is currently (p < 0.00001). Consumers agreed that genetic testing should be promoted (91.4%), made available (100%), better funded (94.2%), and offered to all pregnant women (81.6%). The preferred learning modality about genetics was internet sites (62.7%) followed by talks/presentations (30.8%). Benefits of genetic testing, reported in qualitative responses, included the potential for additional information to promote personal control and improve healthcare. Perceived concerns included ethical implications (including privacy and discrimination), and current limitations of science, knowledge and/or practice. This study demonstrates that even knowledgeable consumers have little familiarity with genetic medicine but are optimistic about its potential benefits. Ethical concerns, particularly concerns regarding genetic discrimination should inform legislation and policy. Consumers are supportive of online resources in increasing genomic literacy.