Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Christensen KD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6103906 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.
Christensen Kurt D KD Bernhardt Barbara A BA Jarvik Gail P GP Hindorff Lucia A LA Ou Jeffrey J Biswas Sawona S Powell Bradford C BC Grundmeier Robert W RW Machini Kalotina K Karavite Dean J DJ Pennington Jeffrey W JW Krantz Ian D ID Berg Jonathan S JS Goddard Katrina A B KAB
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 20180201 10
<h4>Purpose</h4>Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings.<h4>Methods</h4>Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined ho ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeHow primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown.MethodsWe randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority).ResultsPCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014).ConclusionResults suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization.
| S-EPMC8487923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Secondary genomic findings are increasingly being returned to individuals as opportunistic screening results. A secondary finding offers the chance to identify and mitigate disease that may otherwise be unrecognized in an individual. As a form of screening, secondary findings must be considered differently from sequencing results in a diagnostic setting. For these reasons, clinicians should employ an evaluation and long-term management strategy that accounts for both the increased disease risk associated with a secondary finding and the lower positive predictive value of a screening result compared to an indication-based testing result. Here we describe an approach to the clinical evaluation and management of an individual who presents with a secondary finding. This approach enumerates five domains of evaluation-(1) medical history, (2) physical exam, (3) family history, (4) diagnostic phenotypic testing, and (5) variant correlation-through which a clinician can distinguish a molecular finding from a clinicomolecular diagnosis of genomic disease. With this framework, both geneticists and non-geneticist clinicians can optimize their ability to detect and mitigate genomic disease while avoiding the pitfalls of overdiagnosis. Our goal with this approach is to help clinicians translate secondary findings into meaningful recognition, treatment, and prevention of disease.
| S-EPMC7332641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Exome-based testing for genetic diseases can reveal unsolicited findings (UFs), i.e. predispositions for diseases that exceed the diagnostic question. Knowledge of patients' interpretation of possible UFs and of motives for (not) wanting to know UFs is still limited. This lacking knowledge may impede effective counselling that meets patients' needs. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of UFs from a patient perspective. A qualitative study was conducted and an interpretative phenomenological analysis was made of 14 interviews with patients with an inherited retinal disease. Patients assign a complex meaning to UFs, including three main components. The first component focuses on result-specific qualities, i.e. the characteristics of an UF (inclusive of actionability, penetrance, severity and age of onset) and the consequences of disclosure; the second component applies to a patient's lived illness experiences and to the way these contrast with reflections on presymptomatic UFs; the third component addresses a patient's family embedding and its effect on concerns about disease prognosis and genetic information's family relevance. The complex meaning structure of UFs suggests the need for counselling procedures that transcend a strictly clinical approach. Counselling should be personalised and consider patients' lived illness experiences and family context.
| S-EPMC8339116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term "unsolicited genomic results" (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. METHODS:Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. RESULTS:Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based "paths" for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. CONCLUSION:The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.
| S-EPMC6294706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results are key aspects of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pretest counseling while still faithfully eliciting patients' preferences.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role that preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities.ResultsPatients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences.ConclusionsOur novel instrument-PIGSR-should be useful in a wide variety of clinical and research settings.Genet Med 19 3, 337-344.
| S-EPMC5326612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContrary to Missed Nursing Care, some anecdotal data and sparse evidence has documented the tendency of nurses to anticipate some nursing interventions. However, no study has been conducted to date with the purpose of understanding this phenomenon and its underlying mechanisms and consequences. The aim of this study was to describe the phenomenon of delivering anticipated nursing care, its antecedents and consequences as perceived by nurses.MethodA descriptive qualitative study. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines were followed. A purposeful sample of 17 clinical nurses and nurse managers working in three Italian hospitals were interviewed in depth in 2019. The audio-recorded interviews were verbatim transcribed and thematically analysed.Results'Anticipated Nursing Care' is delivered significantly earlier than when expected by nurses in their care plan, by patients, by caregivers and by other members of the team. Medication administration, mobilisation of patients, hygiene care, changes of dressing, vital parameter monitoring, blood sampling and administrative activities were reported as interventions delivered before rather than when expected. Clinically stable patients have been reported to be at risk of receiving anticipated nursing care. Individual values and attitudes, group attitudes of being always ready for the "unexpected", implicit group norms to "leave the patients and the unit in order", high workloads, intertwined activities and work processes inside the units, have been reported as reasons for Anticipated Nursing Care. Effects of this phenomenon have been reported at the patients' and at the nurses' level.ConclusionAnticipated Nursing Care occurs when nurses perform interventions earlier than expected according to an implicit or explicit decision and not as a consequence of a request. The phenomenon requires future studies to detect its diffusion and to accumulate evidence. Its presence in daily practice, if confirmed, suggests that Missed Nursing Care studies should also consider the combined effect of these two phenomena as, on one hand, there may be the tendency to postpone and, on the other hand, the tendency to anticipate interventions.
| S-EPMC7541304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Unsolicited findings (UFs) in clinical exome sequencing are variants that are unrelated to the initial clinical question the DNA test was performed for, but that may nonetheless be of medical relevance to patients and/or their families. There is limited knowledge about the impact of UFs on patients' lives. In order to characterise patient perceptions of the impact of an UF, we conducted 20 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with patients and/or their relatives to whom an UF predisposing to oncological disease (n = 10) or predisposing to a cardiac condition (n = 10) had been disclosed. We have identified a psychological, physical and financial aspect of the perceived impact of UF disclosure in exome sequencing. Actionability, understanding, patients' pre-test health and social context were influencing factors, according to our participants. Although most expressed considerable psychological impact initially, all but one participant would choose to undergo genetic testing again, knowing what they know now. These novel findings provide insight in patients' perspectives on the impact of UF disclosure. Our study highlights the value of incorporating patients' perceptions in UF disclosure policy.
| S-EPMC8187681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Discovering an incidental finding (IF) or secondary finding (SF) is a potential result of genomic testing, but few data exist describing types and frequencies of SFs likely to appear in broader clinical populations.Methods: The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network Phase III (eMERGE III) developed a CLIA-compliant sequencing panel of 109 genes and 1551 variants of clinical relevance or research interest and deployed this panel at ten clinical sites. We evaluated medically actionable SFs across 67 genes and 14 single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in a diverse cohort of 21,915 participants drawn from a variety of settings (e.g., primary care, biobanks, specialty clinics).Results: Correcting for testing indication, we found a 3.02% overall frequency of SFs; 2.54% from 59 genes the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommends for SF return, and 0.48% in other genes, primarily HFE and PALB2. SFs associated with cancer susceptibility were most frequent (1.38%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (0.87%), and lipid disorders (0.50%). After removing HFE, the frequency of SFs and proportion of pathogenic versus likely pathogenic SFs did not differ in those self-identifying as White versus others.Conclusion: Here we present frequencies and types of medically actionable secondary findings to support informed decision making by patients, participants, and practitioners engaged in genomic medicine.
| S-EPMC7713503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the implementation and adoption of the NHS detailed care records service in "early adopter" hospitals in England.DesignTheoretically informed, longitudinal qualitative evaluation based on case studies.Setting12 "early adopter" NHS acute hospitals and specialist care settings studied over two and a half years.Data sourcesData were collected through in depth interviews, observations, and relevant documents relating directly to case study sites and to wider national developments that were perceived to impact on the implementation strategy. Data were thematically analysed, initially within and then across cases. The dataset consisted of 431 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, including hospital staff, developers, and governmental stakeholders; 590 hours of observations of strategic meetings and use of the software in context; 334 sets of notes from observations, researchers' field notes, and notes from national conferences; 809 NHS documents; and 58 regional and national documents.ResultsImplementation has proceeded more slowly, with a narrower scope and substantially less clinical functionality than was originally planned. The national strategy had considerable local consequences (summarised under five key themes), and wider national developments impacted heavily on implementation and adoption. More specifically, delays related to unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of systems; the time needed to build, configure, and customise the software; the work needed to ensure that systems were supporting provision of care; and the needs of end users for training and support. Other factors hampering progress included the changing milieu of NHS policy and priorities; repeatedly renegotiated national contracts; different stages of development of diverse NHS care records service systems; and a complex communication process between different stakeholders, along with contractual arrangements that largely excluded NHS providers. There was early evidence that deploying systems resulted in important learning within and between organisations and the development of relevant competencies within NHS hospitals.ConclusionsImplementation of the NHS Care Records Service in "early adopter" sites proved time consuming and challenging, with as yet limited discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. Although our results might not be directly transferable to later adopting sites because the functionalities we evaluated were new and untried in the English context, they shed light on the processes involved in implementing major new systems. The move to increased local decision making that we advocated based on our interim analysis has been pursued and welcomed by the NHS, but it is important that policymakers do not lose sight of the overall goal of an integrated interoperable solution.
| S-EPMC3195310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Parents' preferences for unsolicited findings (UFs) from diagnostic whole-exome sequencing (WES) for their children remain largely unexplored. Our aim was to gain insight into parental considerations favoring acceptance/decline of UFs pertaining to their child. We conducted 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews with parents (n=34) of children with a developmental delay, aged <1 to 17 years, after consenting to WES, but before feedback of results. Key findings from our study were that all parents favored acceptance of UFs for medically actionable conditions in childhood, but that preferences and considerations diverged for UFs with no medical actionability, or only in adulthood, and regarding carrier-status. Sometimes non-medical utility considerations (considerations of usefulness of knowing UFs, not rooted in (preventive) medical treatment or controls) were given in favor of disclosure of UFs. Sometimes the child's future autonomy formed a reason to withhold UFs at present, despite an unfavorable prognosis concerning the child's cognitive capabilities. Some parents only preferred receiving UFs if these findings were directly related to their reasons for seeking a diagnosis. These findings are essential for developing morally responsible policy and for counseling. Further research should focus on whether considerations of non-medical utility alone can justify disclosure of UFs and whether reasons for seeking a diagnosis place further constraints on what UFs may be returned/withheld. How parents can be aided in contemplating different scenarios regarding their child's future development also deserves further inquiry.
| S-EPMC5117911 | biostudies-literature