Healthcare's ascension to patient-centered genomic care

Genetics and primary care: where are we headed?

Since first sequencing the human genome in 2003, emerging genetic/genomic technologies have ushered in a revolutionary era of medicine that purports to bridge molecular biology and clinical care. The field of translational medicine is charged with mediating this revolution. Sequencing innovations are far outpacing guidelines intended to ease their practice-based applications, including in primary care. As a result, genomic medicine’s full integration in primary care settings especially, has been slow to materialize. Researchers and clinicians alike face substantial challenges in navigating contentious ethical issues raised in translation and implementation, namely preserving the spirit of whole-person approaches to care; maintaining respect for persons and communities; and translating genetic risk into clinical actionability. This commentary therefore explores practical barriers to, and ethical implications of, incorporating genomic technologies in the primary care sector. These ethical challenges are both philosophical and infrastructural. From a primary care perspective, the commentary further reviews the ethical, legal and social implications of the Center for Disease Control’s proposed model for assessing the validity and utility of genomic testing and family health history applications. Lastly, the authors provide recommendations for future translational initiatives that aim to maximize the capacities of genomic medicine, without compromising primary care philosophies and foundations of practice.

Impact of web-based case conferencing on cancer genetics training outcomes for community-based clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed.

RESULTS

Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.

Personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine: improving community-based healthcare through a genetically literate workforce

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of a multimodal interdisciplinary course on genetic cancer risk assessment and research collaboration for community-based clinicians. Clinicians are increasingly requested to conduct genetic cancer risk assessment, but many are inadequately prepared to provide these services.

METHODS

A prospective analysis of 131 participants (48 physicians, 41 advanced-practice nurses, and 42 genetic counselors) from community settings across the United States. The course was delivered in three phases: distance didactic learning, face-to-face training, and 12 months of web-based professional development activities to support integration of skills into practice. Cancer genetics knowledge, skills, professional self-efficacy, and practice changes were measured at baseline, immediate, and 14 months postcourse.

RESULTS

Knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy scores were significantly different between practice disciplines; however, postscores increased significantly overall and for each discipline (P < 0.001). Fourteen-month practice outcomes reflect significant increases in provision of genetic cancer risk assessment services (P = 0.018), dissemination of cancer prevention information (P = 0.005) and high-risk screening recommendations (P = 0.004) to patients, patient enrollment in research (P = 0.013), and educational outreach about genetic cancer risk assessment (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the efficacy of the multimodal course as a tool to develop a genetically literate workforce. Sustained alumni participation in web-based professional development activities has evolved into a distance-mediated community of practice in clinical cancer genetics, modeling the lifelong learning goals envisioned by leading continuing medical education stakeholders.

Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence-based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first-generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine.