Personalizing prenatal care using family health history: identifying a panel of conditions for a novel electronic genetic screening tool

Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools

Family health history (FHx) is one of the most important pieces of information available to help genetic counselors and other clinicians identify risk and prevent disease. Unfortunately, the collection of FHx from patients is often too time consuming to be done during a clinical visit. Fortunately, there are many electronic FHx tools designed to help patients gather and organize their own FHx information prior to a clinic visit. We conducted a review and analysis of electronic FHx tools to better understand what tools are available, to compare and contrast to each other, to highlight features of various tools, and to provide a foundation for future evaluation and comparisons across FHx tools. Through our analysis, we included and abstracted 17 patient-facing electronic FHx tools and explored these tools around four axes: organization information, family history collection and display, clinical data collected, and clinical workflow integration. We found a large number of differences among FHx tools, with no two the same. This paper provides a useful review for health care providers, researchers, and patient advocates interested in understanding the differences among the available patient-facing electronic FHx tools.

10 years later: assessing the impact of public health efforts on the collection of family health history

In 2004, a nationwide survey found that the majority (96.3%) of Americans believed their family health history (FHx) was important for their own health; however, only a third (29.8%) of respondents had ever actively collected this information. Over the past decade, government agencies, advocacy groups, professional societies, and healthcare provider organizations have aimed to improve the collection rates and utilization of FHx. This study assesses the current attitudes, knowledge, and practices of Americans regarding their FHx and whether the interventions over the past 10 years have led to any FHx-related changes. We conducted a nationwide survey of 5,258 respondents using the same measures used in the 2004 survey. Overall, there was little change in Americans knowledge and use of FHx information. While there was a statistically significant increase in respondents who have actively collected their FHx (36.9%), respondents know roughly the same or less about his or her FHx today. Furthermore, only a small fraction (2.6%) had ever collected their FHx using a web-based FHx tool. Several factors were identified which influence whether an individual actively collects his or her FHx. New FHx tools and approaches may be necessary to promote clinically meaningful improvement in FHx collection among patients.

Evaluation of a novel electronic genetic screening and clinical decision support tool in prenatal clinical settings

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile" (PHP) is a free prenatal genetic screening and clinical decision support (CDS) software tool for prenatal providers. PHP collects family health history (FHH) during intake and provides point-of-care risk assessment for providers and education for patients. This pilot study evaluated patient and provider responses to PHP and effects of using PHP in practice. PHP was implemented in four clinics. Surveys assessed provider confidence and knowledge and patient and provider satisfaction with PHP. Data on the implementation process were obtained through semi-structured interviews with administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Chi square test, Fisher's exact test, paired t tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Of the 83% (513/618) of patients that provided feedback, 97% felt PHP was easy to use and 98% easy to understand. Thirty percent (21/71) of participating physicians completed both pre- and post-implementation feedback surveys [13 obstetricians (OBs) and 8 family medicine physicians (FPs)]. Confidence in managing genetic risks significantly improved for OBs on 2/6 measures (p values ≤0.001) but not for FPs. Physician knowledge did not significantly change. Providers reported value in added patient engagement and reported mixed feedback about the CDS report. We identified key steps, resources, and staff support required to implement PHP in a clinical setting. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on the integration of patient-completed, electronically captured and CDS-enabled FHH software into primary prenatal practice. PHP is acceptable to patients and providers. Key to successful implementation in the future will be customization options and interoperability with electronic health records.

Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile," (PHP) is a free genetic risk assessment software tool for primary prenatal providers that collects patient-entered family (FHH), personal, and obstetrical health history, performs risk assessment, and presents the provider with clinical decision support during the prenatal encounter. The tool is freely available for download at www.hughesriskapps.net. We evaluated the implementation of PHP in four geographically diverse clinical sites. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients seen prior to the study period and for patients who used the PHP to collect data on documentation of FHH, discussion of cystic fibrosis (CF) and hemoglobinopathy (HB) carrier screening, and CF and HB interventions (tests, referrals). Five hundred pre-implementation phase and 618 implementation phase charts were reviewed. Documentation of a 3-generation FHH or pedigree improved at three sites; patient race/ethnicity at three sites, father of the baby (FOB) race/ethnicity at all sites, and ancestry for the patient and FOB at three sites (P < 0.001-0001). CF counseling improved for implementation phase patients at one site (8% vs. 48%, P < 0.0001) and CF screening/referrals at two (2% vs. 14%, P < 0.0001; 6% vs. 14%; P = 0.05). Counseling and intervention rates did not increase for HB. This preliminary study suggests that the PHP can improve documentation of FHH, race, and ancestry, as well as the compliance with current CF counseling and intervention guidelines in some prenatal clinics. Future evaluation of the PHP should include testing in a larger number of clinical environments, assessment of additional performance measures, and evaluation of the system's overall clinical utility.