Dataset Information

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Genomics will play an increasingly prominent role in clinical medicine. OBJECTIVE:To describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and make clinical recommendations about genome sequencing results. DESIGN:Qualitative analysis. PARTICIPANTS:PCPs and their generally healthy patients undergoing genome sequencing. APPROACH:Patients received clinical genome reports that included four categories of results: monogenic disease risk variants (if present), carrier status, five pharmacogenetics results, and polygenic risk estimates for eight cardiometabolic traits. Patients' office visits with their PCPs were audio-recorded, and summative content analysis was used to describe how PCPs discussed genomic results. KEY RESULTS:For each genomic result discussed in 48 PCP-patient visits, we identified a "take-home" message (recommendation), categorized as continuing current management, further treatment, further evaluation, behavior change, remembering for future care, or sharing with family members. We analyzed how PCPs came to each recommendation by identifying 1) how they described the risk or importance of the given result and 2) the rationale they gave for translating that risk into a specific recommendation. Quantitative analysis showed that continuing current management was the most commonly coded recommendation across results overall (492/749, 66%) and for each individual result type except monogenic disease risk results. Pharmacogenetics was the most common result type to prompt a recommendation to remember for future care (94/119, 79%); carrier status was the most common type prompting a recommendation to share with family members (45/54, 83%); and polygenic results were the most common type prompting a behavior change recommendation (55/58, 95%). One-fifth of recommendation codes associated with monogenic results were for further evaluation (6/24, 25%). Rationales for these recommendations included patient context, family context, and scientific/clinical limitations of sequencing. CONCLUSIONS:PCPs distinguish substantive differences among categories of genome sequencing results and use clinical judgment to justify continuing current management in generally healthy patients with genomic results.

SUBMITTER: Vassy JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5975138 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Vassy Jason L JL Davis J Kelly JK Kirby Christine C Richardson Ian J IJ Green Robert C RC McGuire Amy L AL Ubel Peter A PA

Journal of general internal medicine 20180126 6

<h4>Background</h4>Genomics will play an increasingly prominent role in clinical medicine.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe how primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and make clinical recommendations about genome sequencing results.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative analysis.<h4>Participants</h4>PCPs and their generally healthy patients undergoing genome sequencing.<h4>Approach</h4>Patients received clinical genome reports that included four categories of results: monogenic disease risk variants (if presen ...[more]

PMID: 29374360

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine.MethodsWe conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists.ConclusionsResults of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers' willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.

Project description:IntroductionAdapting clinical care decisions for patient-reported social risks is essential to social health integration and patient-centered care. Most research in this area focuses on awareness and assistance (social-needs-targeted care), such as screening and referral to food, financial, and other resources. Limited evidence for adjustment strategies (social risk-informed care) or adapting care for social risks made it difficult for Kaiser Permanente to implement new initiatives. This article describes a codesign process to build a novel, adjustment-focused continuing medical education course.MethodsThe authors codeveloped the online continuing medical education course with patients and clinicians using user-centered design. Transcripts from codesign activities were coded and analyzed by thematic analysis to identify major themes, including perceptions of social risk-informed care and barriers to care adjustment.ResultsPractical hurdles for implementing social risk-informed care emerged, including clinicians' concerns about the ethics of adjustment as substandard care, particularly without robust assistance activities. However, patients expressed a desire for their care to be adapted to their social circumstances, to allow for more realistic care plans.DiscussionImplementation barriers identified from the codesign were addressed through an interactive, case-study approach. Existing evidence on contextualized care and shared decision making informed a general framework for primary care providers to engage in awareness and adjustment activities, paired with 3 interactive case studies based on real-world, clinician-supplied scenarios.ConclusionThe authors recommend that multiple stakeholder perspectives be incorporated during the development of social health integration initiatives, particularly adjustment. Education complemented by active, nuanced, flexible implementation strategies may be necessary for the successful uptake of care-delivery-based social health integration activities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Economically disadvantaged families receive care in both clinical and community settings, but this care is rarely coordinated and can result in conflicting educational messaging. WEE Baby Care is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial evaluating a patient-centered responsive parenting (RP) intervention that uses health information technology (HIT) strategies to coordinate care between pediatric primary care providers (PCPs) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant and Children (WIC) community nutritionists to prevent rapid weight gain from birth to 6 months. It is hypothesized that data integration and coordination will improve consistency in RP messaging and parent self-efficacy, promoting shared decision making and infant self-regulation, to reduce infant rapid weight gain from birth to 6 months. METHODS/DESIGN:Two hundred and ninety mothers and their full-term newborns will be recruited and randomized to the "RP intervention" or "standard care control" groups. The RP intervention includes: 1) parenting and nutrition education developed using the American Academy of Pediatrics Healthy Active Living for Families curriculum in conjunction with portions of a previously tested RP curriculum delivered by trained pediatric PCPs and WIC nutritionists during regularly scheduled appointments; 2) parent-reported data using the Early Healthy Lifestyles (EHL) risk assessment tool; and 3) data integration into child's electronic health records with display and documentation features to inform counseling and coordinate care between pediatric PCPs and WIC nutritionists. The primary study outcome is rapid infant weight gain from birth to 6 months derived from sex-specific World Health Organization adjusted weight-for-age z-scores. Additional outcomes include care coordination, messaging consistency, parenting behaviors (e.g., food to soothe), self-efficacy, and infant sleep health. Infant temperament and parent depression will be explored as moderators of RP effects on infant outcomes. DISCUSSION:This pragmatic patient-centered RP intervention integrates and coordinates care across clinical and community sectors, potentially offering a fundamental change in the delivery of pediatric care for prevention and health promotion. Findings from this trial can inform large scale dissemination of obesity prevention programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Restrospective Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03482908 . Registered March 29, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundProviding equal access to health care is an important objective in most health care systems. It is especially pertinent in systems like the Swedish primary care market, where private providers are free to establish themselves in any part of the country. To improve equity in access to care, 15 out 21 county councils in Sweden have implemented risk-adjusted capitation based on the Care Need Index, which increases capitation to primary care centers with a large share of patients with unfavorable socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Our aim is to estimate the effects of using care-need adjusted capitation on the supply of private primary care centers.MethodWe use a dataset that combines information on all primary care centers in Sweden during 2005-2013, the payment system and other conditions for establishing new primary care centers used in the county councils, and demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic variables for low-level geographic areas. To estimate the effects of care-need adjusted capitation, we use difference-in-differences models, contrasting the development over time between areas with and without risk-adjusted capitation, and with high and low Care Need Index values.ResultsRisk-adjusted capitation significantly increases the number of private primary care centers in areas with relatively high Care Need Index values. The adjustment results in a changed distribution of private centers within county councils; the total number of private centers does not increase in county councils using care-need adjusted capitation. The effects are furthermore increasing over the first three years after the implementation of such capitation, and concentrated to the lower and middle range of the group of areas with high index values.ConclusionsRisk-adjusted capitation based on the Care Need Index increases the supply of private primary care centers in areas with unfavorable socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. More generally, this result indicates that risk-adjusted capitation can significantly affect private providers' establishment decisions.

Project description:ImportancePrevious studies have found a mixed association between Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) designation and improvements in primary care quality indicators, including avoidable pediatric emergency department (ED) encounters. Whether these associations persist after accounting for the geographic locations of providers relative to where patients reside is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between geographic proximity to primary care providers versus hospitals and risk of avoidable and potentially avoidable ED visits among children with pre-existing diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or asthma.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of a panel of pediatric Medicaid claims data from the South Carolina from 2016-2018 for 2,959 beneficiaries having a pre-existing diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD, ages 6-12) and 6,390 beneficiaries with asthma (MMA, ages 5-18), as defined using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) performance measures. We calculated differences in avoidable and potentially avoidable ED visits by the beneficiary's PCMH attribution type and in relation to differences in proximity to their primary care providers versus hospitals. Outcomes were defined using the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm (NYU-EDA). Differences in ED visit risk were assessed using generalized estimation equations and compared using marginal effects models.ResultsThe 2.4 percentage point reduction in risk of avoidable ED visits among children in the ADD cohort who attended a PCMH versus those who did not increased to 3.9 to 7.2 percentage points as relative proximity to primary care providers versus hospitals improved (p < 0.01). Children in the ADD and MMA cohorts that were enrolled in a medical home, but did not attend one for primary care services exhibited a 5.4 and 3.0 percentage point increase in avoidable ED visit compared to children who were unenrolled and did not attend medical homes (p < 0.05), but these differences were only observed when geographic proximity to hospitals was more convenient than primary care providers. Mixed findings were observed for potentially avoidable visits.ConclusionsIn several health care performance evaluations, patient-centered medical homes have not been found to reduce differences in hospital utilization for conditions that are treatable in primary care settings among children with chronic illnesses. Analytical approaches that also consider geographic proximity to health care services can identify performance benefits of medical homes. Expanding risk-adjustment models to also include geographic data would benefit ongoing quality improvement initiatives.

Dataset Information

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Publications

How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets