Informing Integration of Genomic Medicine Into Primary Care: An Assessment of Current Practice, Attitudes, and Desired Resources

Genomic testing for differences of sex development: Practices and perceptions of clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the approach taken by clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with Differences of Sex Development (DSD), particularly with regard to genomic testing, and identify perceived gaps/strengths/barriers in current practice.

DESIGN AND METHODS

An anonymous online survey was developed, with questions exploring demographics, perceptions of genomic testing, availability of genetics services and opinions on the role and utility of genomic testing in DSD. All responses were anonymous. Clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with DSD were recruited from relevant societies and departments across Australia and New Zealand.

RESULTS

79 eligible clinicians commenced the survey, with 63 completing it and 16 providing a partial response. The perceived benefit of having a genetic diagnosis for DSD was almost unanimous (97%). Almost half (48%) of respondents reported barriers in genomic testing. 81% of respondents reported they order genomic tests currently. Approaches to genomic testing when faced with four different clinical scenarios varied across respondents. Clinicians perceived genomic testing to be underutilised (median 36 on sliding scale from 0 to 100).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite 97% of respondents reporting benefit of a genetic diagnosis for individuals with DSD, this was not reflected throughout the survey with regard to clinical implementation. When faced with clinical scenarios, the recommendations for genomic testing from respondents was much lower, indicating the discrepancy between perception and clinical practice. Genomic testing in the context of DSD is seen as both beneficial and desired, yet there are multiple barriers impacting its integration into standard clinical care.

Improving prescribing: a feasibility study of pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support in primary healthcare in Singapore

BACKGROUND

The study of genetic variation as a factor influencing drug safety, efficacy, and effectiveness has brought about significant breakthroughs in understanding the clinical application of gene-drug interactions to better manage drug therapy.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the feasibility of collecting buccal samples by general practitioners (GPs) at private practices in Singapore within a usual consultation, incorporating use of a pharmacogenetics-based medical decision support system to guide subsequent drug dosing.

METHODS

We used a prospective cohort study design, with GPs recruiting 189 patients between October 2020 and March 2021. The genotypes of 51 biallelic SNPs were determined using Illumina Infinium Global Screening Array.

RESULTS

Seven GPs from 6 private practices recruited and obtained buccal samples from a total of 189 patients. All patients had at least one actionable variant. The prevalence of patients having 2, 3, or 4 variants was 37.0%, 32.8%, and 12.7%, respectively. Potential alterations to medications were identified using the Clinical Decision Support System. Patients were accepting and the GPs were enthusiastic about the potential of pharmacogenetics to personalize medicine for their patients.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in Singapore to demonstrate the feasibility of pharmacogenetic testing in primary care. The high prevalence of genetic variants underscores the potential use of pharmacogenetics in this setting.

Genetic counselors outside of the genetics clinic: Roles, practices, and ethico-legal implications in light of lagging legal recognition across Canada

Advances in medical genetics have led to a significant increase in demand for genetic services and expertise across almost all medical specialties. Genetic counselors (GCs) in Canada play key roles in genetic services both within and outside of the Genetics Clinic, while not being regulated or legally recognized as healthcare professionals (HCPs) in most provinces. Understanding whether GCs outside of the "traditional" Genetics Clinic influence patient care, their level of professional autonomy and supervisory structure is, therefore, important. In this study, we explore the current landscape of GC practice outside of the Genetics Clinic by describing positions, determining the professional scope of practice, as defined by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors (CAGC) and Canadian Board of Genetic Counseling (CBGC) core competencies, and by elucidating associated ethico-legal implications. An online survey was developed and distributed to GCs working with patient-related data in Canada in positions outside of the Genetics Clinic through the CAGC ListServ and accessed between March 5 and April 9, 2021. Thirty GCs were included in the study, with 16/30 in public healthcare system positions. Most respondents held roles with direct (11/30) and indirect (14/30) impact on patient care and management, and the majority reported performing their primary roles with minimal supervision (56%) or complete independence (36%). Most roles (22/25) elicited by respondents were considered to be within the GC scope of practice, except for administrative tasks and special projects. GCs were the only genetics-trained professional(s) in 8/30 of respondents' workplaces. The results of the current study support the value of GCs translatable skillset in positions beyond the Genetics Clinic, and outline ethico-legal implications for GCs, regulated HCPs, patients, and health institutions in the absence of legal recognition, including medical-legal liability and title protection. This study provides evidence in support of regulation of GCs as HCPs.

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.

Integrating genomics into Canadian oncology nursing policy: Insights from a comparative policy analysis

AIM

To learn from two jurisdictions with mature genomics-informed nursing policy infrastructure-the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK)-to inform policy development for genomics-informed oncology nursing practice and education in Canada.

DESIGN

Comparative document and policy analysis drawing on the 3i + E framework.

METHODS

We drew on the principles of a rapid review and identified academic literature, grey literature and nursing policy documents through a systematic search of two databases, a website search of national genomics nursing and oncology nursing organizations in the US and UK, and recommendations from subject matter experts on an international advisory committee. A total of 94 documents informed our analysis.

RESULTS

We found several types of policy documents guiding genomics-informed nursing practice and education in the US and UK. These included position statements, policy advocacy briefs, competencies, scope and standards of practice and education and curriculum frameworks. Examples of drivers that influenced policy development included nurses' values in aligning with evidence and meeting public expectations, strong nurse leaders, policy networks and shifting healthcare and policy landscapes.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of nursing policy infrastructure in the US and UK provides a framework to guide policy recommendations to accelerate the integration of genomics into Canadian oncology nursing practice and education.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION

Findings can assist Canadian oncology nurses in developing nursing policy infrastructure that supports full participation in safe and equitable genomics-informed oncology nursing practice and education within an interprofessional context.

IMPACT

This study informs Canadian policy development for genomics-informed oncology nursing education and practice. The experiences of other countries demonstrate that change is incremental, and investment from strong advocates and collaborators can accelerate the integration of genomics into nursing. Though this research focuses on oncology nursing, it may also inform other nursing practice contexts influenced by genomics.

Growth in perceived clinical genetics competency among primary care providers participating in genomic population health screening

Limited competency in genetics among primary care providers (PCPs) is a barrier to use of genetic information in healthcare. Formal genetics lessons require time and interest, and knowledge wanes. We hypothesized another path to competency: participation in our PCP-centered adult clinical genomic population health screening program. We asked participating Family Medicine PCPs about their perceptions of growth in their genetics competency. An anonymous, voluntary, cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed to PCPs offering the screening. Results were compiled after 3 weeks. PCPs rated several program resources for value and provided open-ended feedback. Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed that genetics is important to their practice. Eighty-seven percent felt that their knowledge of clinical genetics topics had grown. Eighty-seven percent perceived increased confidence in offering genetic testing and in discussing common genetic results with patients. Respondents gained appreciation for the scope of clinical utility that genetic information offers patients. Each education resource rated at least 3.75 out of 5 for contributing to genetics knowledge. The case-specific Genomic Medicine Action Plan rated highest in educational value, 4.5 out of 5. Most responding PCPs offering genomic population health screening perceived growth in their genetic competency and found hands-on, case-based resources most useful.

Primary Care Provider Receptivity to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Use in Cancer Screening

Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) are blood-based tests that detect biomarkers released or induced by cancer cells. If MCED tests are shown to be safe and effective in cancer screening, they are likely to be ordered and managed in primary care. To understand primary care providers' support for and concerns about the implementation and management of MCED testing, the research team developed a cross-sectional survey that was sent to 939 primary care providers (physicians, residents/fellows, and advanced practice providers) in a large academic health system in the greater Philadelphia area. The survey included standard items used to assess provider background characteristics and to measure provider awareness of challenges related to MCED test use (7 items), perceived competence in MCED testing (5 items), and receptivity to MCED test use in the future (4 items). A total of 351 (37.4%) primary care providers completed the survey. Among respondents, the awareness of challenges in MCED testing (mean = 3.95, sd = 0.64), perceived competence (3.67, sd = 0.85), and receptivity to MCED use in practice (mean = 3.62, 0.75) were moderately high. Multiple regression was performed to identify factors associated with receptivity to MCED testing. We found that provider number of years in practice (DATA), awareness of challenges related to MCED testing (DATA), and perceived competence in MCED test use (DATA) were positively and significantly associated with receptivity to MCED test use in practice. An exploratory factor analysis extracted two components: receptivity to MCEDs and awareness of challenges. Surprisingly, these factors had a positive correlation (r = 0.124, p = 0.024). Providers' perceived competence in using MCED tests and providers' experience level were significantly associated with receptivity to MCED testing. While there was strong agreement with potential challenges to implementing MCEDs, PCPs were generally receptive to using MCEDs in cancer screening. Keeping PCPs updated on the evolving knowledge of MCEDs is likely critical to building receptivity to MCED testing.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions

Non-invasive prenatal testing was first discovered in 1988; it was primarily thought to be able to detect common aneuploidies, such as Patau syndrome (T13), Edward Syndrome (T18), and Down syndrome (T21). It comprises a simple technique involving the analysis of cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) obtained through maternal serum, using advances in next-generation sequencing. NIPT has shown promise as a simple and low-risk screening test, leading various governments and private organizations worldwide to dedicate significant resources towards its integration into national healthcare initiatives as well as the formation of consortia and research studies aimed at standardizing its implementation. This article aims to review the reliability of NIPT while discussing the current challenges prevalent among different communities worldwide.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Attitudes

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A ‘personalised breast cancer risk assessment’ combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners’ (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs’: (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July–August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training—preferably using online learning formats—was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

The practice of genomic medicine: A delineation of the process and its governing principles

Genomic medicine, an emerging medical discipline, applies the principles of evolution, developmental biology, functional genomics, and structural genomics within clinical care. Enabling widespread adoption and integration of genomic medicine into clinical practice is key to achieving precision medicine. We delineate a biological framework defining diagnostic utility of genomic testing and map the process of genomic medicine to inform integration into clinical practice. This process leverages collaboration and collective cognition of patients, principal care providers, clinical genomic specialists, laboratory geneticists, and payers. We detail considerations for referral, triage, patient intake, phenotyping, testing eligibility, variant analysis and interpretation, counseling, and management within the utilitarian limitations of health care systems. To reduce barriers for clinician engagement in genomic medicine, we provide several decision-making frameworks and tools and describe the implementation of the proposed workflow in a prototyped electronic platform that facilitates genomic care. Finally, we discuss a vision for the future of genomic medicine and comment on areas for continued efforts.

Scope of coverage of medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine: A curriculum analysis

We appraised the scope of medical genetics and genomics concepts covered in the pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine through an analysis of course objectives. All course objectives linked to medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine were compiled. From this, the fraction of objectives dedicated to medical genetics and genomics was calculated. Course objectives were also categorized according to a curriculum and a competency classification. Of the 17 Canadian faculties of medicine, the complete set of course syllabi (5 faculties) or the listing of learning objectives (4 faculties) were obtained and reviewed. The fraction of learning objectives dedicated to medical genetics and genomics varied between 0.65% and 5.05%. From the objectives classification, "foundational knowledge" was most frequently covered (64% of the compiled objectives), while topics such as: "ethics and professionalism," "communicate genetics information," and "obtain specialist help" were covered by less than 5%. Coverage of medical genetics and genomics in pre-clerkship programs of Canadian faculties of medicine appears to be low. Genetics and genomics are playing a rapidly expanding role in healthcare and clinical practice and educational programs should consider this new reality.

A personalized genomic results e-booklet, co-designed and pilot-tested by families

Objective

To develop and evaluate a personalizable genomic results e-booklet that helps families understand their genomic testing results and navigate available resources.

Methods

The need for the Genomics Results e-Booklet was identified by families, after which this tool was developed by a team of clinical researchers and three parent-advisors. We customized the genomic results e-booklet for 50 families participating in a genomic sequencing research study. We conducted an assessment using a 19-question survey and semi-structured interviews to elicit feedback and iteratively improve the tool.

Results

25 users provided feedback via questionnaires and seven respondents were interviewed. Genomic Results e-Booklet recipients responded favorably: 96% of participants stated that it helped them remember information shared during their results appointment, 80% said it had or would help them communicate their results with other healthcare providers, 68% felt that it helped to identify and guide their next steps, and 72% anticipated that the e-booklet would have future utility.

Conclusion

The Genomic Results e-Booklet is a patient and family-oriented resource that complements post-test genetic counselling.

Innovation

Compared to traditional laboratory reports and clinical letters, the Genomics Results e-Booklet is patient-conceived and patient-centered, and allows clinicians to efficiently personalize content and prioritize patient understanding and support.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is becoming increasingly widespread. The aim of this research was to systematically review the literature published on healthcare professionals' knowledge and views about DTC-GT, as an update to a 2012 systematic review. The secondary aim was to assess the knowledge and views of healthcare professionals on the ethical and legal issues pertaining to DTC-GT. A systematic search was performed to identify all relevant studies that have been conducted since 2012. Studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria if they were primary research papers conducted on healthcare professionals about their knowledge and views on health-related DTC-GT. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Medline databases were searched from 2012 to May 2021. Title and abstract were screened, and full texts were reviewed by two study authors independently. New papers included were appraised and data were extracted on study characteristics, knowledge and views on DTC-GT, and ethical and legal issues. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Nineteen new papers were included, along with eight papers from the previous review. There was considerable variation in study participants with differing views, awareness levels, and levels of knowledge about DTC-GT. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists generally had more concerns, experience, and knowledge regarding DTC-GT. Ten ethical concerns and four legal concerns were identified. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and experience of DTC-GT, including awareness of DTC-GT ethical and legal concerns, have only minimally improved since the previous review. This emphasises the need for further medical learning opportunities to improve the gaps in knowledge amongst healthcare professionals about DTC-GT.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Polygenic risk scores and risk-stratified breast cancer screening: Familiarity and perspectives of health care professionals

PURPOSE

Health care professionals are expected to take on an active role in the implementation of risk-based cancer prevention strategies. This study aimed to explore health care professionals' (1) self-reported familiarity with the concept of polygenic risk score (PRS), (2) perceived level of knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer (BC) screening, and (3) preferences for continuing professional development.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a bilingual-English/French-online questionnaire disseminated by health care professional associations across Canada between November 2020 and May 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 593 professionals completed more than 2 items and 453 responded to all questions. A total of 432 (94%) participants were female, 103 (22%) were physicians, and 323 (70%) were nurses. Participants reported to be unfamiliar with (20%), very unfamiliar (32%) with, or did not know (41%) the concept of PRS. Most participants reported not having enough knowledge about risk-stratified BC screening (61%) and that they would require more training (77%). Online courses and webinar conferences were the preferred continuing professional development modalities.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that health care professionals are currently not familiar with the concept of PRS or a risk-stratified approach for BC screening. Online information and training seem to be an essential knowledge transfer modality.

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.

Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports

Understanding and communicating genomic results can be challenging for families and health professionals without genetic specialty training. Unlike modifying existing laboratory reports, plain language genomic test reports provide an opportunity for patient/family-centered approaches. However, emerging examples generally lack co-design and/or evaluation in real-world settings. Through co-design involving patient groups, plain language experts, educators, and genetic health professionals, plain language genomic test report templates were produced for common test outcomes in rare diseases. Eight plain language genomic test report templates were developed. These reports were piloted and evaluated as part of a national pediatric ultra-rapid genomic testing program. Family and genetic health professional experiences with report layout, content, and use were explored using surveys. Of 154 families and 107 genetic health professionals issued with reports, 51 families and 57 clinicians responded (RR = 33% and 53%, respectively). Most families (82%) found their report helpful in understanding the result. Reports were shared by 63% of families, predominantly with family members (72%), or health professionals (68%). Clinicians (15%) adapted the reports for other settings. Through co-design, plain language genomic test reports implemented in a real-world setting can facilitate patient/family and caregiver understanding and communication of genomic test purpose, outcome, and potential clinical implications.

Educational considerations based on medical student use of polygenic risk information and apparent race in a simulated consultation

PURPOSE

To craft evidence-based educational approaches related to polygenic risk score (PRS) implementation, it is crucial to forecast issues and biases that may arise when PRS are introduced in clinical care.

METHODS

Medical students (N = 84) were randomized to a simulated primary care encounter with a Black or White virtual reality-based patient and received either a direct-to-consumer-style PRS report for 5 common complex conditions or control information. The virtual patient inquired about 2 health concerns and her genetic report in the encounter. Data sources included participants' verbalizations in the simulation, care plan recommendations, and self-report outcomes.

RESULTS

When medical students received PRSs, they rated the patient as less healthy and requiring more strict advice. Patterns suggest that PRSs influenced specific medical recommendations related to the patient's concerns, despite student reports that participants did not use it for that purpose. We observed complex patterns regarding the effect of patient race on recommendations and behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Educational approaches should consider potential unintentional influences of PRSs on decision-making and evaluate ways that they may be applied inconsistently across patients from different racial groups.

Development and Validation of the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPL)

Ensuring that patients have an adequate understanding of pharmacogenomic (PGx) test results is a critical component of implementing precision medicine into clinical care. However, no PGx-specific validated literacy assessment has yet been developed. To address this need, we developed and validated the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPLTM). Foundational work included a scoping review of patient and general public attitudes and experiences with pharmacogenomic testing, three focus groups, readability assessments, and review by experts and members of the general public. This resulted in a 15-item assessment designed to assess knowledge in four domains: underlying concepts, limitations, benefits, and privacy. For validation, 646 participants completed the MAPL as a part of a larger survey about pharmacogenomic research and statewide PGx implementation. Two items were deemed to be “too easy” and dropped. The remaining 13 items were retained in the final MAPL with good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). Confirmatory factor analysis validated the four-domain construct of MAPL and suggested good model performance and high internal validity. The estimated coefficient loadings across 13 questions on the corresponding domains are all positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05). The MAPL covers multiple knowledge domains of specific relevance to PGx and is a useful tool for clinical and research settings where quantitative assessment of PGx literacy is of value.

Clinicians' Perceptions towards Precision Medicine Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification in South Africa

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in South Africa. Risk stratification is the preferred approach to disease prevention, but identifying patients at high risk for CVD remains challenging. Assessing genetic risk could improve stratification and inform a clinically relevant precision medicine (PM) approach. Clinicians are critical to PM adoption, thus, this study explores practicing clinicians’ perceptions of PM-based CVD risk stratification in South Africa’s public health setting. Practicing clinicians (n = 109) at four teaching hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa, completed an electronic self-administered survey. The effect of demographic and professional characteristics on PM-based CVD risk stratification perceptions was assessed. Fewer than 25% of respondents used clinical genetic testing, and 14% had formal genetics training. 78% had a low mean knowledge score, with higher scores associated with genetic training (p < 0.0005) and research involvement (p < 0.05). Despite limited knowledge and resources, 84% perceived PM approaches positively. 57% felt confident in applying the PM-based approach, with those already undertaking CVD risk stratification more confident (p < 0.001). High cost and limited access to genetics services are key barriers. Integrating genetic information into established clinical tools will likely increase confidence in using PM approaches. Addressing the genetics training gap and investment into the country’s genomics capacity is needed to advance PM in South Africa.

Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system

Background: An alternative to population-based genetic testing, automated cascade genetic testing facilitated by sharing of family health history, has been conceptualized as a more efficient and cost-effective approach to identify hereditary genetic conditions. However, existing software and applications programming interfaces (API) for the practical implementation of this approach in health care settings have not been described.

Methods: We reviewed API available for facilitating cascade genetic testing in electronic health records (EHRs). We emphasize any information regarding informed consent as provided for each tool. Using semi-structured key informant interviews, we investigated uptake of and barriers to integrating automated family cascade genetic testing into the EHR.

Results: We summarized the functionalities of six tools related to utilizing family health history to facilitate cascade genetic testing. No tools were explicitly capable of facilitating family cascade genetic testing, but few enterprise EHRs supported family health history linkage. We conducted five key informant interviews with four main considerations that emerged including: 1) incentives for interoperability, 2) HIPAA and regulations, 3) mobile-app and alternatives to EHR deployment, 4) fundamental changes to conceptualizing EHRs.

Discussion: Despite the capabilities of existing technology, limited bioinformatic support has been developed to automate processes needed for family cascade genetic testing and the main barriers for implementation are nontechnical, including an understanding of regulations, consent, and workflow. As the trade-off between cost and efficiency for population-based and family cascade genetic testing shifts, the additional tools necessary for their implementation should be considered.

Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: A multimethod study

PURPOSE

Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care.

METHODS

PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out.

RESULTS

In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies.

CONCLUSION

eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice.

The stepwise process of integrating a genetic counsellor into primary care

Genetic services have historically been housed in tertiary care, requiring referral, which can present access barriers. While integrating genetics into primary care could facilitate access, many primary care physicians lack genomics expertise. Integrating genetic counsellors (GCs) into primary care could theoretically address these issues, but little is known about how to do this effectively. To understand and describe the process of integrating a GC into a multidisciplinary primary care setting, we qualitatively explored the perceptions, attitudes and reactions of existing team members prior to, and after the introduction of a GC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted immediately prior to (T1), and 9 months after (T2), the GC joining the clinic. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed concurrently with data collection using interpretive description. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 17 participants (13 at T1, 11 at T2). Participants described several distinct, progressive stages of interaction with the GC: Disinterest or Resistance, Pre-Collaboration, Initial Collaboration, and Effective Collaboration/Integration of the GC into the team. At each stage, specific needs had to be met in order to advance to the next stage of collaboration. A variety of barriers and facilitators attended movement between different stages of the model. The Stepwise Process of Integration Model describes the process through which primary care staff and clinicians integrate a GC into their practice. The insight provided by this model could be used to facilitate more effective integration of GCs into other primary care settings.

Molecular Pathology Education: A Suggested Framework for Primary Care Resident Training in Genomic Medicine: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee

Developments in genomics are profoundly influencing medical practice. With increasing use of genetic and genomic testing across every aspect of the health care continuum, patients and their families are increasingly turning to primary care physicians (PCPs) for discussion and advice regarding tests, implications, and results. Yet, with the rapid growth of information, technology, and applications, PCPs are finding it challenging to fill the gaps in knowledge and support the growing needs of their patients. A critical component in expanding PCP genomic literacy lies in the education of physicians in training and in practice. Although a framework for developing physician competencies in genomics has already been developed, the Association for Molecular Pathology is uniquely situated to actively utilize the skills of its members to engage and support PCPs in this effort. This report provides an overview and a suggested basic teaching framework, which can be used by molecular professionals in their individual institutions as a starting point for educational outreach.

Genetic counseling access for parents of newborns who screen positive for cystic fibrosis: Consensus guidelines

INTRODUCTION

A risk associated with cystic fibrosis newborn screening (CFNBS) is parental misunderstanding of genetic information generated by the over 6600 positive screens reported annually in the United States. CFNBS algorithms incorporating DNA analysis can generate genetic information that requires clinical interpretation and has significance for the newborn, parents, and other relatives. Engagement between CF care centers and trained genetic counseling providers, such as licensed and/or certified genetic counselors (GCs), is variable and limited in providing information to CFNBS positive (CFNBS+) families.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi process, a workgroup of CFNBS experts developed recommendation statements for engagement of genetic counseling services in CF care centers where CFNBS + diagnostic evaluations are performed. Statements were assessed over three rounds of surveys, one face-to-face meeting, and through public feedback.

RESULTS

Seventeen statements achieved >80% consensus (range: 82%-100%). The workgroup affirmed prior CFF policy statements recommending genetic counseling for parents of infants with CFNBS+. The remaining statements addressed infrastructure and logistics of genetic counseling services, including defining appropriate training for genetic counseling providers and counseling content, establishing a path to equal access to genetic counseling providers across CF care centers, and setting a standard for client-centered CFNBS genetic counseling that is respectful of diverse patient needs and autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of client-centered genetic counseling for CFNBS+ families in CF care centers by providers with expertise in both CF and genetic counseling will require efforts to further define core concepts, enhance the education of providers, and develop opportunities for access via telemedicine.

Limited Genomics Training Among Physicians Remains a Barrier to Genomics-Based Implementation of Precision Medicine

The field of precision medicine has undergone significant growth over the past 10 years. Despite increasing applications of clinical genetic and genomic testing, studies consistently report limited knowledge of genetics and genomics among healthcare providers. This study explored barriers to the implementation of precision medicine by surveying physicians working in a large academic medical center. We assessed prior training in genetics, use of genetic testing in the clinic, desire for additional resources in genetics and genomic medicine and perceived barriers to successful integration of precision medicine. Only 20% of respondents reported moderate or extensive training in genetics. Physicians with limited or no training in genetics were less likely to have ordered a genetic test for any purpose. Furthermore, 41% of physicians responded that their lack of training identifying appropriate genetic tests and how to interpret genetic testing results was the most significant barrier to ordering genetic testing for their patients. These findings suggest that future efforts to realize the promise of precision medicine should focus on the integration of training programs for non-genetics trained healthcare providers.

Current state and future directions of genomic medicine in aortic dissection: A path to prevention and personalized care

Aortic dissection confers high mortality and morbidity rates despite advances in treatment, impacts quality of life, and contributes immense burden to the healthcare system globally. Efforts to prevent aortic dissection through screening and management of modifiable risk factors and early detection of aneurysms should incorporate genomic information, as it is integral to stratifying risk. However, effective integration of genomic-guided risk assessment into clinical practice will require addressing implementation barriers that currently permeate our healthcare systems. The Aortic Dissection Collaborative was established to define aortic dissection research priorities through patient engagement. Using a collaborative patient-centered feedback model, our Genomic Medicine Working Group identified related research priorities that could be investigated by pragmatic interventional studies aimed at aortic dissection prevention, utilization of genomic information to improve patient outcomes, and access to genomic medicine services. Further research is also needed to identify the genomic, lifestyle, and environmental risk factors that contribute to aortic dissection so these data can be incorporated into future comparative effectiveness studies to prevent aortic dissection.

Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain's framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains - knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Furthermore, policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

Challenges and practical solutions for managing secondary genomic findings in primary care

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings.

Evaluating Primary Care Providers' Readiness for Delivering Genetic and Genomic Services to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Increased genomics knowledge and access are advancing precision medicine and care delivery. With the translation of precision medicine across health care, genetics and genomics will play a greater role in primary care services. Health disparities and inadequate representation of racial and ethnically diverse groups threaten equitable access for those historically underserved. Health provider awareness, knowledge, and perceived importance are important determinants of the utilization of genomic applications.

METHODS

We evaluated the readiness of primary care providers at a Federally Qualified Health Center, the Community Health Center, Inc. (CHCI) for delivering genetic and genomic testing to underserved populations. Online survey questions focused on providers' education and training in basic and clinical genetics, familiarity with current genetic tests, and needs for incorporating genetics and genomics into their current practice.

RESULTS

Fifty of 77 (65%) primary care providers responded to the survey. Less than half received any training in basic or clinical genetics (40%), were familiar with specific genetic tests (36%), or felt confident with collecting family health history (44%), and 70% believed patients would benefit from genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Despite knowledge gaps, respondents recognized the value and need to bring these services to their patients, though would like more education on applying genetics and genomics into their practice, and more training about discussing risk factors associated with race or ethnicity. We provide further evidence of the need for educational resources and standardized guidelines for providers caring for underserved populations to optimize appropriate use and referral of genetic and genomic services and to reduce disparities in care.

Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine development is driven by the possibilities of next generation sequencing, information technology and artificial intelligence and thus, raises a number of ethical questions. Empirical studies have investigated such issues from the perspectives of health care professionals, researchers and patients. We synthesize the results from these studies in this review.

METHODS

We used a systematic strategy to search, screen and assess the literature for eligibility related to our research question. The initial search for empirical studies in five data bases provided 665 different records and we selected 92 of these publications for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and categorized into different topics representing the views on ethical issues in precision medicine.

RESULTS

Many patients and professionals expect high benefits from precision medicine and have a positive attitude towards it. However, patients and professionals also perceive some risks. Commonly perceived risks include: lack of evidence for accuracy of tests and efficacy of treatments; limited knowledge of patients, which makes informed consent more difficult; possible unavailability of access to precision medicine for underprivileged people and ethnic minorities; misuse of data by insurance companies and employers, potential of racial stigmatization due to genetic information; unwanted communication of incidental findings; changes in doctor-patient-relationship through focusing on data; and the problem that patients could feel under pressure to optimize their health.

CONCLUSIONS

National legislation and guidelines already minimize many risks associated with precision medicine. However, from our perspective some problems require more attention. Should hopes for precision medicine's benefits be fulfilled, then the ethical principle of justice would require an unlimited access to precision medicine for all people. The potential for autonomous patients' decisions must be greatly enhanced by improvements in patient education. Harm from test results must be avoided in any case by the highest possible data security level and communication guidelines. Changes in the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of precision medicine on the quality of life should be further investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine should be further examined, in order to avoid malinvestment.

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.

Preparing genomic revolution: Attitudes, clinical practice, and training needs in delivering genetic counseling in primary care in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice concerning medical genetics, genetic testing, and counseling among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China.

METHODS

The University of Hong Kong (HKU), HKU-Shenzhen Hospital, and Shenzhen Health Capacity Building and Continuing Education Center invited PCPs from Hong Kong and Shenzhen to participate in an online survey.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 151 PCPs and 258 PCPs from Hong Kong and Shenzhen, respectively. The majority agreed it was important to keep current with genetics (91%) and that personalized medicine was the future of healthcare (86%), yet only 10% reported that they had postgraduate training in genomic medicine. Seventeen percent of Hong Kong and 40% of Shenzhen's PCPs encountered genetic-related cases in the past 6 months, and they identified insufficient knowledge, few training opportunities, and self-rated low confidence in their skillsets as main barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey shows that Hong Kong and Shenzhen's PCPs are not yet fully utilizing potential benefits of genomic medicine in their clinical practice, which could be addressed with a combination of easily accessible educational resources, clear referral pathways and guidelines on genetic diseases, and cross-specialty collaboration between healthcare systems and professional bodies.

Application of a framework to guide genetic testing communication across clinical indications

Background

Genetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients.

Methods

The Clinical Genome Resource’s (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus.

Results

Communication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing).

Conclusions

The CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-021-00887-x.

Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results

The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.

Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources.

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.

Barriers and strategies to integrate medical genetics and primary care in underserved populations: a scoping review

Despite clinical and technological advances, serious gaps remain in delivering genetic services due to disparities in workforce distribution and lack of coverage for genetic testing and counseling. Genetic services delivery, particularly in medically underserved populations, may rely heavily on primary care providers (PCPs). This study aims to identify barriers to integrating genetic services and primary care, and strategies to support integration, by conducting a scoping review. Literature synthesis found barriers most frequently cited by PCPs including insufficient knowledge about genetics and risk assessment, lack of access to geneticists, and insufficient time to address these challenges. Telegenetics, patient-centered care, and learning communities are strategies to overcome these barriers. Telegenetics supplements face-to-face clinics by providing remote access to genetic services. It may also be used for physician consultations and education. Patient-centered care allows providers, families, and patients to coordinate services and resources. Access to expert information provides a critical resource for PCPs. Learning communities may represent a mechanism that facilitates information exchange and knowledge sharing among different providers. As PCPs often play a crucial role caring for patients with genetic disorders in underserved areas, barriers to primary care-medical genetics integration must be addressed to improve access. Strategies, such as telegenetics, promotion of evidence-based guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored education in genetics-related topics, and other system-level strategies, will facilitate better genetics and primary care integration, which in turn, may improve genetic service delivery to patients residing in underserved communities.

Ethical Considerations on Pediatric Genetic Testing Results in Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and access to expanded genetic testing have resulted in more children and adolescents receiving genetic testing for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. With increased adoption of the electronic health record (EHR), genetic testing is increasingly resulted in the EHR. However, this leads to challenges in both storage and disclosure of genetic results, particularly when parental results are combined with child genetic results.

PRIVACY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Accidental disclosure and erroneous documentation of genetic results can occur due to the nature of their presentation in the EHR and documentation processes by clinicians. Genetic information is both sensitive and identifying, and requires a considered approach to both timing and extent of disclosure to families and access to clinicians.

METHODS

This article uses an interdisciplinary approach to explore ethical issues surrounding privacy, confidentiality of genetic data, and access to genetic results by health care providers and family members, and provides suggestions in a stakeholder format for best practices on this topic for clinicians and informaticians. Suggestions are made for clinicians on documenting and accessing genetic information in the EHR, and on collaborating with genetics specialists and disclosure of genetic results to families. Additional considerations for families including ethics around results of adolescents and special scenarios for blended families and foster minors are also provided. Finally, administrators and informaticians are provided best practices on both institutional processes and EHR architecture, including security and access control, with emphasis on the minimum necessary paradigm and parent/patient engagement and control of the use and disclosure of data.

CONCLUSION

The authors hope that these best practices energize specialty societies to craft practice guidelines on genetic information management in the EHR with interdisciplinary input that addresses all stakeholder needs.

Sickle cell trait newborn screen results: disclosure and management

This study aims to evaluate the notification process of sickle cell trait (SCT) identified by newborn screening in Alberta. On April 1, 2019, Alberta began newborn screening for sickle cell disease (SCD) and elected to report sickle cell trait (SCT). For 1 year, healthcare providers (HCPs) were sent a questionnaire which addressed the perceived importance of disclosing the SCT results, whether HCPs felt competent in disclosing the result, knowledge of available resources, and comfort with coordinating and interpreting testing for the newborn's parents. As a control, we collected data from HCPs receiving positive cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screen results. A total of 107 out of 203 SCT questionnaires were returned and 41 of 66 CF questionnaires were returned. Respondents felt it was important that the results be shared with families (98% and 100%, respectively). Most respondents felt competent (SCT: 95%; CF: 85%), and willing to disclose the result to the family (SCT: 92%; CF: 88%). Fewer respondents were comfortable interpreting the results (SCT: 70%; CF: 51%)), and willing to arrange parental testing (SCT: 61%; CF: 59%). Family practitioners were significantly more willing to arrange SCT parental testing (88%) compared to pediatricians (40%) (OR = 5.3; CI 1.9, 15.4; p < 0.001). HCP comments revealed two themes: referral to another HCP for follow-up and identification of the primary HCP. Results support this disclosure process, and HCPs felt comfortable following up with SCT newborn screen results. The study identified challenges such as pediatricians being less comfortable ordering parental testing and the ordering HCP not always being the primary care provider.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

Development of an Evidence-Based, Theory-Informed National Survey of Physician Preparedness for Genomic Medicine and Preferences for Genomics Continuing Education

Despite some early implementation of genomic medicine globally, there is a lack of rigorous, large-scale assessments of medical specialists' current practice and continuing education needs. As a first step to addressing this gap, we describe the development of a robust, expert-reviewed, survey using a mixed-methods sequential study design. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 education providers and 86 non-genetic medical specialists about current genomic medicine practice and need for continuing education. Key concepts were identified and used as an initial framework for the survey. These were: personal characteristics (medical specialty, years of practice); current practice of genomics in clinical and research settings; perception of how proximal genomic medicine is to practice; perception of preparedness (competence and confidence); and, preferences for future roles and models of care in genomic medicine and for continuing education. Potential survey questions that related to at least one of these concepts were identified from the literature or were created if no suitable question existed. Using a modified, reactive Delphi approach, questions were reviewed by a panel of 22 experts. Experts were selected purposefully representing four areas of expertise: non-genetic medical specialties; clinical genetics; genetic/genomic education and evaluation; and implementation science. Three Delphi rounds assessed relevance, clarity and importance of each question. The questions were also mapped to the behaviour change wheel theoretical framework which encompasses capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B). The survey (included as supplementary material) was then tested with a small group of non-genetic medical specialists and feedback was written or verbal in 'talk-aloud', cognitive interviews. The final survey was then piloted with a further 29 specialists. We describe the methodology to create a robust, data- and theory-informed survey. The final survey captures not only levels of experience, practice of genomics and preferences for education but also the challenges around engaging with education. Survey data will provide evidence for education providers to inform development of education which meets learner needs and contributes to a medical workforce that is literate in genomics and more confident to competently practice genomic medicine.