Education and Training of Non-Genetics Providers on the Return of Genome Sequencing Results in a NICU Setting

Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on genetic counseling and genetic diagnosis in vascular anomalies

Genomic technologies are now utilized for the genetic diagnosis of vascular anomalies. This provides the opportunity for genetic counselors to make a significant contribution to patient care for this complex disease. The aim of this study was to explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on the relatively recent integration of molecular diagnostic testing for vascular anomalies, with or without genetic counseling support. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian healthcare professionals involved in the provision of care for individuals with vascular anomalies. Thematic analysis identified six themes: (1) Molecular diagnosis is beneficial; (2) psychosocial needs can motivate families to pursue a molecular diagnosis; (3) molecular genetic testing for vascular anomalies is complex; (4) genetic service provision is not a one size fits all; (5) a client-centered approach for genetic service provision can go a long way; and (6) the value of genetic counselors. Based on our findings, implementation of a vascular anomalies genetic diagnostic program inclusive of genetic counseling may be challenging, yet such programs are likely to benefit both patients and their families, as well as healthcare professionals. As this paradigm shift unfolds, genetic counselors have an opportunity to contribute to the vascular anomaly field by educating healthcare professionals and patients, by participating in multidisciplinary clinics to support complex cases and by raising awareness regarding their practice and potential contributions.

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Implementation of rapid genomic sequencing in safety-net neonatal intensive care units: protocol for the VIrtual GenOme CenteR (VIGOR) proof-of-concept study

INTRODUCTION

Rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) in critically ill infants with suspected genetic disorders has high diagnostic and clinical utility. However, rGS has primarily been available at large referral centres with the resources and expertise to offer state-of-the-art genomic care. Critically ill infants from racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations disproportionately receive care in safety-net and/or community settings lacking access to state-of-the-art genomic care, contributing to unacceptable health equity gaps. VIrtual GenOme CenteR is a 'proof-of-concept' implementation science study of an innovative delivery model for genomic care in safety-net neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We developed a virtual genome centre at a referral centre to remotely support safety-net NICU sites predominantly serving racial and ethnic minority and/or low-income populations and have limited to no access to rGS. Neonatal providers at each site receive basic education about genomic medicine from the study team and identify eligible infants. The study team enrols eligible infants (goal n of 250) and their parents and follows families for 12 months. Enrolled infants receive rGS, the study team creates clinical interpretive reports to guide neonatal providers on interpreting results, and neonatal providers return results to families. Data is collected via (1) medical record abstraction, (2) surveys, interviews and focus groups with neonatal providers and (3) surveys and interviews with families. We aim to examine comprehensive implementation outcomes based on the Proctor Implementation Framework using a mixed methods approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the institutional review board of Boston Children's Hospital (IRB-P00040496) and participating sites. Participating families are required to provide electronic written informed consent and neonatal provider consent is implied through the completion of surveys. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and data will be made accessible per National Institutes of Health (NIH) policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05205356/clinicaltrials.gov.

A team-based approach to cardiogenomic education

While many genetic professionals are involved in the education of lay and professional audiences, most do not have formal training in education theory and program design. Partnerships with adult education experts can provide additional resources and improve the level of instruction, thereby increasing the impact of an educational intervention. This report discusses the experience of a multidisciplinary team of educators, clinicians, and researchers partnering to develop evidence-based education for cardiology practitioners. It includes practical advice for how clinicians and educators can develop more effective education through collaboration, needs assessment, instructional design, and iterative content development.

A cross-professional competency framework for communicating genomic results

To ensure genomic medicine is delivered safely and effectively, it is crucial that healthcare professionals are able to understand and communicate genomic results. This Education Innovation describes a nationally agreed, cross-professional competency framework outlining the knowledge, skills and behaviors required to communicate genomic results. Using principles of the nominal group technique, consensus meetings with clinical, scientific and educational experts identified six stages in the return of results process, drafted and iterated competencies. Competencies were then mapped across three levels to acknowledge different degrees of experiences and scopes of practice. The framework was open for consultation with healthcare professionals and patient communities before being published. The finalized framework includes six core competency statements required to communicate genomic results. This framework is designed to be a guide for best practice and a developmental tool to support individuals and organizations. It can be used by healthcare professionals, such as genetic counselors, to identify individual learning needs or to structure the development of training for other healthcare professionals who are increasingly involved in requesting and returning results for genomic tests.

Exploring collaboration models between geneticists and intensivists for implementing rapid genome sequencing in critical care settings

The availability of rapid genome sequencing (rGS) for children in a critical-care setting is increasing. This study explored the perspectives of geneticists and intensivists on optimal collaboration and division of roles when implementing rGS in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). We conducted an explanatory mixed methods study involving a survey embedded within an interview with 13 genetics and intensive care providers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Geneticists endorsed higher confidence in performing a physical exam and interpreting/communicating positive results. Intensivists endorsed highest confidence in determining whether genetic testing was appropriate, communicating negative results, and consenting. Major qualitative themes that emerged were: (1) concerns with both "genetics-led" and "intensivist-led" models with workflows and sustainability (2) shift the role of determining rGS eligibility to ICU medical professionals, (3) continued role of geneticists to assess phenotype, and (4) include genetic counselors (GCs) and neonatal nurse practitioners to enhance workflow and care. All geneticists supported shifting decisions regarding eligibility for rGS to the ICU team to minimize time cost for the genetics workforce. Exploring models of geneticist-led phenotyping, intensivist-led phenotyping for some indications, and/or inclusion of a dedicated inpatient GC may help offset the time burden of consenting and other tasks associated with rGS.

Role of genomic medicine and implementing equitable access for critically ill infants in neonatal intensive care units

Genetic disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units. This population has immense potential to benefit from genomic medicine, as early precision diagnosis is critical to early personalized management. However, the implementation of genomic medicine in neonatology thus far has arguably worsened health inequities, and strategies are urgently needed to achieve equitable access to genomics in neonatal care. In this perspective, we demonstrate the utility of genomic sequencing in critically ill infants and highlight three key recommendations to advance equitable access: recruitment of underrepresented populations, education of non-genetics providers to empower practice of genomic medicine, and development of innovative infrastructure to implement genomic medicine across diverse settings.

Are Graduate Medical Trainees Prepared for the Personalized Genomic Medicine Revolution? Trainee Perspectives at One Institution

Although the use of genomics to inform clinical care is increasing, clinicians feel underprepared to integrate personalized medicine (PM) into care decisions. The educational needs of physician residents and fellows, also known as graduate medical trainees (GMTs), have been overlooked. We administered an anonymous, web-based survey to all GMTs participating in training programs affiliated with our institution to evaluate their knowledge, skills, and attitudes toward PM. Of the 1190 GMTs contacted, 319 (26.8%) returned surveys. Most (88.4%) respondents reported receiving PM education in the past. Although the respondents agreed that knowledge of disease genetics (80.9%) or pharmacogenetics (87.1%) would likely lead to improved clinical outcomes, only 33.2% of the respondents felt sufficiently informed about PM. The respondents who had received PM education in residency and/or fellowship had significantly higher self-reported knowledge, ability, awareness, and adoption of PM than those who had not received this education (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.01, respectively). Targeted training is needed to improve GMTs' confidence in interpreting and explaining genetic test results. The ideal timing for this education appears to be in residency and/or fellowship rather than in medical school.

Parents' Perspectives on the Utility of Genomic Sequencing in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

It is critical to understand the wide-ranging clinical and non-clinical effects of genome sequencing (GS) for parents in the NICU context. We assessed parents' experiences with GS as a first-line diagnostic tool for infants with suspected genetic conditions in the NICU.

METHODS

Parents of newborns (N = 62) suspected of having a genetic condition were recruited across five hospitals in the southeast United States as part of the SouthSeq study. Semi-structured interviews (N = 78) were conducted after parents received their child's sequencing result (positive, negative, or variants of unknown significance). Thematic analysis was performed on all interviews.

RESULTS

Key themes included that (1) GS in infancy is important for reproductive decision making, preparing for the child's future care, ending the diagnostic odyssey, and sharing results with care providers; (2) the timing of disclosure was acceptable for most parents, although many reported the NICU environment was overwhelming; and (3) parents deny that receiving GS results during infancy exacerbated parent-infant bonding, and reported variable impact on their feelings of guilt.

CONCLUSION

Parents reported that GS during the neonatal period was useful because it provided a "backbone" for their child's care. Parents did not consistently endorse negative impacts like interference with parent-infant bonding.

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.

Genetics follow up after rapid genomic sequencing in intensive care: current practices and recommendations for service delivery

The delivery of rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) to critically unwell children in intensive care occurs at a time of immense pressure and stress for parents. Contact with families after result disclosure, particularly after hospital discharge, presents an opportunity to meet their psychological, medical and information needs as they evolve. This study explores the preferences and perspectives of health professionals and parents of genetics follow up after rGS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 parents, seven genetic counsellors (GCs) and four intensive care physicians with experience in rGS. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Current practices surrounding genetics follow up after rGS were highly variable, resulting in some families not receiving the ongoing care they needed. Reasons identified by families for wanting follow-up care represented only a subset of those identified by health professionals. While GCs routinely provided their details to allow parents to initiate further contact, this was not always sufficient for follow-up care. Health professionals identified both organisational and psychosocial barriers to conducting follow up. As rGS transforms the diagnostic pathway in rare disease, there is a need for a co-designed, standardised but flexible model for follow-up care with genetics professionals so that families' evolving needs are met.