Dataset Information

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Genomic technologies are having an increasing impact across medicine, including primary care. To enable their wider adoption and realize their potential, education of primary health-care practitioners will be required. To enable the development of such resources, understanding where GPs currently access genomic information is needed. One-hundred fifty-nine UK GPs completed the survey in response to an open invitation, between September 2017 and September 2018. Questions were in response to 4 clinical genomic scenarios, with further questions exploring resources used for rare disease patients, direct-to-consumer genetic testing and collecting a family history. Respondents were most commonly GP principals (independent GPs who own their clinic) (64.8%), aged 35-49 years (54%), worked as a GP for more than 15 years (44%) and practiced within suburban locations (typically wealthier) (50.3%). The most popular 'just in time' education source for all clinical genomic scenarios were online primary care focussed resources with general Internet search engines also popular. For genomic continuous medical education, over 70% of respondents preferred online learning. Considering specific scenarios, local guidelines were a popular resource for the familial breast cancer scenario. A large proportion (41%) had not heard of Genomics England's 100,000 genome project. Few respondents (4%) would access rare disease specific Internet resources (Orphanet, OMIM). Twenty-five percent of respondents were unsure how to respond to a direct-to-consumer commercial genetic test query, with 41% forwarding such queries to local genetic services. GPs require concise, relevant, primary care focussed resources in trusted and familiar online repositories of information. Inadequate genetic education of GPs could increase burden on local genetic services.

SUBMITTER: Evans WRH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7295869 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners.

Evans W R H WRH Tranter J J Rafi I I Hayward J J Qureshi N N

Journal of community genetics 20200303 3

Genomic technologies are having an increasing impact across medicine, including primary care. To enable their wider adoption and realize their potential, education of primary health-care practitioners will be required. To enable the development of such resources, understanding where GPs currently access genomic information is needed. One-hundred fifty-nine UK GPs completed the survey in response to an open invitation, between September 2017 and September 2018. Questions were in response to 4 cli ...[more]

PMID: 32125658

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The benefits from the combination of 4 clinical information systems (CISs)-electronic health records (EHRs), health information exchange (HIE), personal health records (PHRs), and telehealth-in primary care depend on the configuration of their functional capabilities available to clinicians. However, our empirical knowledge of these configurations and their associated performance implications is very limited because they have mostly been studied in isolation. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to pursue 3 objectives: (1) characterize general practitioners (GPs) by uncovering the typical profiles of combinations of 4 major CIS capabilities, (2) identify physician and practice characteristics that predict cluster membership, and (3) assess the variation in the levels of performance associated with each configuration. METHODS:We used data from a survey of GPs conducted throughout the European Union (N=5793). First, 4 factors, that is, EHRs, HIE, PHRs, and Telehealth, were created. Second, a cluster analysis helps uncover clusters of GPs based on the 4 factors. Third, we compared the clusters according to five performance outcomes using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Tamhane T2 post hoc test. Fourth, univariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of the clusters. Finally, with a multivariate multinomial logistic regression, among the clusters, we compared performance in terms of the number of patients treated (3 levels) over the last 2 years. RESULTS:We unveiled 3 clusters of GPs with different levels of CIS capability profiles: strong (1956/5793, 37.36%), medium (2764/5793, 47.71%), and weak (524/5793, 9.04%). The logistic regression analysis indicates that physicians (younger, female, and less experienced) and practice (solo) characteristics are significantly associated with a weak profile. The ANOVAs revealed a strong cluster associated with significantly high practice performance outcomes in terms of the quality of care, efficiency, productivity, and improvement of working processes, and two noncomprehensive medium and weak profiles associated with medium (equifinal) practice performance outcomes. The logistic regression analysis also revealed that physicians in the weak profile are associated with a decrease in the number of patients treated over the last 2 years. CONCLUSIONS:Different CIS capability profiles may lead to similar equifinal performance outcomes. This underlines the importance of looking beyond the adoption of 1 CIS capability versus a cluster of capabilities when studying CISs. GPs in the strong cluster exhibit a comprehensive CIS capability profile and outperform the other two clusters with noncomprehensive profiles, leading to significantly high performance in terms of the quality of care provided to patients, efficiency of the practice, productivity of the practice, and improvement of working processes. Our findings indicate that medical practices should develop high capabilities in all 4 CISs if they have to maximize their performance outcomes because efforts to develop high capabilities selectively may only be in vain.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.DesignCross sectional online survey.Participants1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.Main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace-not merely aid-the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge.ResultsA total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time.ConclusionsThe majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs' in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.

Dataset Information

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners.

Publications

How genomic information is accessed in clinical practice: an electronic survey of UK general practitioners.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets