A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens

Optimising the mainstreaming of renal genomics: Complementing empirical and theoretical strategies for implementation

To identify and develop complementary implementation strategies that support nephrologists in mainstreaming renal genomic testing. Interviews were conducted with individuals nominated as 'genomics champions' and 'embedded genomics experts' as part of a mainstreaming project to identify initial barriers and investigate empirical strategies for delivering the project at initial stage. Data were mapped onto implementation science framework to identify complementary theoretical strategies. Interviews with 14 genomics champions and embedded genomics experts (genetic counsellors, nephrologists, renal nurses), identified 34 barriers to incorporating genomic testing into routine care, e.g., lack of long-term multidisciplinary team support and role clarity. In total, 25 empirical implementation strategies were identified such as creating new clinical teams. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, 10 complementary theoretical implementation strategies were identified. Our study presents a novel approach complementing empirical strategies with theoretical strategies to support nephrologists in incorporating genomic testing into routine practice. Complementary strategies can potentially address barriers and inform future studies when mainstreaming renal genomics. This process underscored the need for integrating collaborative efforts among health professionals, patients, implementation scientists and the health system to overcome identified challenges to mainstream genomic testing. Future research should explore the applicability of these strategies to support mainstreaming genomic testing in different clinical settings.

Equitable Access to Genomic Molecular Testing for Australian Cancer Patients: Insights from the Victorian Precision Oncology Summit

The Victorian Precision Oncology Summit, convened in 2023, was a joint initiative between the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance (VCCC Alliance) and the Monash Partners Comprehensive Cancer Consortium (MPCCC) and was proposed to guide a coordinated state-wide conversation about how the oncology sector can overcome some of the current obstacles in achieving equity of access to clinical cancer genomics for Victorian patients. Themes that emerged from discussion groups at the Summit include standardisation, centralisation, funding, education and communication and insights across those themes are outlined in this manuscript. The event served as a large consultation piece for the development of a broader precision oncology roadmap, which explores equitable access to molecular testing for Victorian patients, currently in development by the VCCC Alliance and MPCCC in collaboration with other key Victorian and national stakeholders. While this symposium was a Victorian initiative, it is felt that the insights garnered from this consultation piece will be of interest to consumer groups, clinicians, researchers, educators, policy makers and other key stakeholders in other states of Australia as well as in other countries implementing comprehensive genomic profiling within complex health systems.

Determining priority indicators of utility for genomic testing in rare disease: A Delphi study

PURPOSE

Determining the value of genomic tests in rare disease necessitates a broader conceptualization of genomic utility beyond diagnostic yield. Despite widespread discussion, consensus toward which aspects of value to consider is lacking. This study aimed to use expert opinion to identify and refine priority indicators of utility in rare disease genomic testing.

METHODS

We used 2 survey rounds following Delphi methodology to obtain consensus on indicators of utility among experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify, define, and determine priority indicators.

RESULTS

Twenty-five experts completed round 1 and 18 completed both rounds. Twenty indicators reached consensus as a priority in value assessment, including those relating to prognostic information, timeliness of results, practical and health care outcomes, clinical accreditation, and diagnostic yield. Whereas indicators pertaining to discovery research, disutility, and factors secondary to primary reason for testing were considered less of a priority and were removed.

CONCLUSION

This study obtained expert consensus on different utility indicators that are considered a priority in determining the value of genomic testing in rare disease in Australia. Indicators may inform a standardized approach to evidence generation and assessment to guide future research, decision making, and implementation efforts.

Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia

There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients' privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.

Reanalysis of genomic data, how do we do it now and what if we automate it? A qualitative study

Automating reanalysis of genomic data for undiagnosed rare disease patients presents a paradigm shift in how clinical genomics is delivered. We aimed to map the current manual and proposed automated approach to reanalysis and identify possible implementation strategies to address clinical and laboratory staff's perceived challenges to automation. Fourteen semi-structured interviews guided by a simplified process map were conducted with clinical and laboratory staff across Australia. Individual process maps were integrated into an overview of the current process, noting variation in service delivery. Participants then mapped an automated approach and were invited to discuss perceived challenges and possible supports to automation. Responses were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, linking to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework to identify theory-informed implementation strategies. Process mapping demonstrates how automation streamlines processes with eleven steps reduced to seven. Although participants welcomed automation, challenges were raised at six of the steps. Strategies to overcome challenges include embedding project champions, developing education materials, facilitating clinical innovation and quality monitoring tools, and altering reimbursement structures. Future work can build on these findings to develop context specific implementation strategies to guide translation of an automated approach to reanalysis to improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

Genomic multidisciplinary teams: A model for navigating genetic mainstreaming and precision medicine

AIM

Recent rapid advances in genomics are revolutionising patient diagnosis and management of genetic conditions. However, this has led to many challenges in service provision, education and upskilling requirements for non-genetics health-care professionals and remuneration for genomic testing. In Australia, Medicare funding with a Paediatric genomic testing item for patients with intellectual disability or syndromic features has attempted to address this latter issue. The Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Westmead (SCHN-W) Clinical Genetics Department established Paediatric and Neurology genomic multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to address the Medicare-specified requirement for discussion with clinical genetics, and increasing genomic testing advice requests.

METHODS

This SCHN-W genomic MDT was evaluated with two implementation science frameworks - the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and GMIR - Genomic Medicine Integrative Research frameworks. Data from June 2020 to July 2022 were synthesised and evaluated, as well as process mapping of the MDT service.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients were discussed in 34 MDT meetings, facilitating 148 genomic tests, of which 73 were Medicare eligible. This was equivalent to 26% of SCHN-W genetics outpatient activity, and 13% of all Medicare-funded paediatric genomic testing in NSW. 39% of patients received a genetic diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The genomic MDT facilitated increased genomic testing at a tertiary paediatric centre and is an effective model for mainstreaming and facilitating precision medicine. However, significant implementation issues were identified including cost and sustainability, as well as the high level of resourcing that will be required to scale up this approach to other areas of medicine.

What is the power of a genomic multidisciplinary team approach? A systematic review of implementation and sustainability

Due to the increasing complexity of genomic data interpretation, and need for close collaboration with clinical, laboratory, and research expertise, genomics often requires a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. This systematic review aims to establish the evidence for effectiveness of the genomic multidisciplinary team, and the implementation components of this model that can inform precision care. MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched in 2022 and 2023. We included qualitative and quantitative studies of the genomic MDT, including observational and cohort studies, for diagnosis and management, and implementation outcomes of effectiveness, adoption, efficiency, safety, and acceptability. A narrative synthesis was mapped against the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework. 1530 studies were screened, and 17 papers met selection criteria. All studies pointed towards the effectiveness of the genomic MDT approach, with 10-78% diagnostic yield depending on clinical context, and an increased yield of 6-25% attributed to the MDT. The genomic MDT was found to be highly efficient in interpretation of variants of uncertain significance, timeliness for a rapid result, made a significant impact on management, and was acceptable for adoption by a wide variety of subspecialists. Only one study utilized an implementation science based approach. The genomic MDT approach appears to be highly effective and efficient, facilitating higher diagnostic rates and improved patient management. However, key gaps remain in health systems readiness for this collaborative model, and there is a lack of implementation science based research especially addressing the cost, sustainability, scale up, and equity of access.

Application of complexity theory in health and social care research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Complexity theory has been chosen by many authors as a suitable lens through which to examine health and social care. Despite its potential value, many empirical investigations apply the theory in a tokenistic manner without engaging with its underlying concepts and underpinnings.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review is to synthesise the literature on empirical studies that have centred on the application of complexity theory to understand health and social care provision.

METHODS

This scoping review considered primary research using complexity theory-informed approaches, published in English between 2012 and 2021. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PSYCHINFO, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched. In addition, a manual search of the reference lists of relevant articles was conducted. Data extraction was conducted using Covidence software and a data extraction form was created to produce a descriptive summary of the results, addressing the objectives and research question. The review used the revised Arksey and O'Malley framework and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

2021 studies were initially identified with a total of 61 articles included for extraction. Complexity theory in health and social care research is poorly defined and described and was most commonly applied as a theoretical and analytical framework. The full breadth of the health and social care continuum was not represented in the identified articles, with the majority being healthcare focused.

DISCUSSION

Complexity theory is being increasingly embraced in health and care research. The heterogeneity of the literature regarding the application of complexity theory made synthesis challenging. However, this scoping review has synthesised the most recent evidence and contributes to translational systems research by providing guidance for future studies.

CONCLUSION

The study of complex health and care systems necessitates methods of interpreting dynamic prcesses which requires qualitative and longitudinal studies with abductive reasoning. The authors provide guidance on conducting complexity-informed primary research that seeks to promote rigor and transparency in the area.

REGISTRATION

The scoping review protocol was registered at Open Science Framework, and the review protocol was published at BMJ Open (https://bit.ly/3Ex1Inu).

The implementation of large-scale genomic screening or diagnostic programmes: A rapid evidence review

Genomic healthcare programmes, both in a research and clinical context, have demonstrated a pivotal opportunity to prevent, diagnose, and treat rare diseases. However, implementation factors could increase overall costs and affect uptake. As well, uncertainties remain regarding effective training, guidelines and legislation. The purpose of this rapid evidence review was to draw together the available global evidence on the implementation of genomic testing programmes, particularly on population-based screening and diagnostic programmes implemented at the national level, to understand the range of factors influencing implementation. This review involved a search of terms related to genomics, implementation and health care. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published between 2017-2022 and found in five databases. The review included thirty articles drawing on sixteen countries. A wide range of factors was cited as critical to the successful implementation of genomics programmes. These included having policy frameworks, regulations, guidelines; clinical decision support tools; access to genetic counselling; and education and training for healthcare staff. The high costs of implementing and integrating genomics into healthcare were also often barriers to stakeholders. National genomics programmes are complex and require the generation of evidence and addressing implementation challenges. The findings from this review highlight that there is a strong emphasis on addressing genomic education and engagement among varied stakeholders, including the general public, policymakers, and governments. Articles also emphasised the development of appropriate policies and regulatory frameworks to govern genomic healthcare, with a focus on legislation that regulates the collection, storage, and sharing of personal genomic data.