Dataset Information

Measuring physician practice, preparedness and preferences for genomic medicine: a national survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Even as genomic medicine is implemented globally, there remains a lack of rigorous, national assessments of physicians' current genomic practice and continuing genomics education needs. The aim of this study was to address this gap.

Design

A cross-sectional survey, informed by qualitative data and behaviour change theory, to assess the current landscape of Australian physicians' genomic medicine practice, perceptions of proximity and individual preparedness, and preferred models of practice and continuing education. The survey was advertised nationally through 10 medical colleges, 24 societies, 62 hospitals, social media, professional networks and snowballing.

Results

409 medical specialists across Australia responded, representing 30 specialties (majority paediatricians, 20%), from mainly public hospitals (70%) in metropolitan areas (75%). Half (53%) had contacted their local genetics services and half (54%) had ordered or referred for a gene panel or exome/genome sequencing test in the last year. Two-thirds (67%) think genomics will soon impact their practice, with a significant preference for models that involved genetics services (p<0.0001). Currently, respondents mainly perform tasks associated with pretest family history taking and counselling, but more respondents expect to perform tasks at all stages of testing in the future, including tasks related to the test itself, and reporting results. While one-third (34%) recently completed education in genomics, only a quarter (25%) felt prepared to practise. Specialists would like (more) education, particularly on genomic technologies and clinical utility, and prefer this to be through varied educational strategies.

Conclusions

This survey provides data from a breadth of physician specialties that can inform models of genetic service delivery and genomics education. The findings support education providers designing and delivering education that best meet learner needs to build a competent, genomic-literate workforce. Further analyses are underway to characterise early adopters of genomic medicine to inform strategies to increase engagement.

SUBMITTER: Nisselle A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273463 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic centered in West Africa highlighted recurring challenges in the United States regarding risk communication and preparedness during global epidemics.ObjectiveTo investigate perceptions, preparedness, and knowledge among U.S. internists with regard to Ebola risk.DesignCross-sectional Web-based national survey distributed by e-mail between December 2014 and January 2015.ParticipantsPracticing U.S. internists participating in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians (ACP) membership.Main measuresRespondents' perceptions of Ebola, reported sources of information, and reported management of possible Ebola cases. The primary predictor was the possibility of encountering Ebola (based on respondents' geographic proximity to designated airports or confirmed Ebola cases, or on their patients' travel histories). Pre-specified outcomes included reported management intensity in clinical vignettes involving patients at low risk of symptomatic Ebola as well as reported Ebola preparedness.Key resultsThe survey response rate was 46.1 %. Among the 202 respondents, 9.9 % (95 % CI 6.2-14.9 %) reported that they had recently evaluated a patient who had traveled to West Africa. Seventy percent (95 % CI 63.0-76.0 %) reported a practice-level protocol. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was the most popular source for Ebola information (75.2 %, 95 % CI 68.7-81.0 %). Most respondents felt very (45.0 %) or somewhat prepared (52.0 %) to communicate information about or diagnose Ebola, especially those with the possibility of encountering Ebola and those who reported medical journals, professional groups, or government as information sources. One-fifth of respondents (19.8 %, 95 % CI 14.5-26.0 %) reported overly intensive management for low-risk patients. Those with the possibility of encountering Ebola were less likely to report overly intensive management (3.1 vs. 22.9 %, p = 0.011).ConclusionsInternists had wide-ranging views and understanding of Ebola risk; those least likely to encounter Ebola were most likely to be overly aggressive in managing patients at low risk. Our findings underscore the need for better risk communication through various information channels to empower frontline providers in infectious disease outbreaks.

Project description:BackgroundThere remains a paucity of evidence for curricula for the transition to practice (TTP) stage of Competence by Design internal medicine (IM) training programs. Current entrustable professional activities are based on expert consensus rather than robust subspecialty-specific needs assessment.MethodsA scoping review was completed to identify studies with TTP focus. A national survey was conducted to identify transition experiences for general internal medicine physicians. Results were assessed by grounded theory analysis to identify core topics for TTP curricula.ResultsNeither scoping review nor national survey identified TTP topics related to the CanMEDS Medical Expert role. Scoping Review: 41 relevant studies were identified. Most (97.6%) were from North America. The most common study types were observational (survey) or curriculum (13/41 31.7% for each). Only two studies were exclusively in IM, and the most common subspecialty studied was surgical (13/41, 31.7%). The most common TTP topics were mentorship, billing and coding, practice management, negotiating contract and job, and financial aspects of practice. National Survey: There were 44 respondents, with the majority (25/44, 56.8%) having completed an IM subspecialty fellowship. Most (38/44) completed medical school in Canada, and most were from academic practice settings (33/44, 75.0%). The most common TTP topics were billing and coding, personal financial planning, practice management, work-life balance and mentorship. Grounded Theory Analysis: There were six themes that encompassed all TTP topics from the scoping review and national survey, being (i) building a career, (ii) continuing professional development, (iii) expectations of the profession, (iv) practice management, (v) Life, health and well-being and (vi) clinical skills. Curriculum competencies and resources for curriculum development were provided.ConclusionsThis study identifies topics critical for curricula development for IM transition to practice. Further research is required to evaluate effectiveness of curricula including topics and themes developed from this scoping review and national survey.

Project description:ObjectivePractice arrangements in physician offices were characterised by examining the share of visits that involved physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). The hypothesis was that collaborative practice (ie, care delivered by a dyad of physician-PA and/or physician-NP) was increasing.DesignTemporal ecological study.SettingNon-federal physician offices.ParticipantsPatient visits to a physician, PA or NP, spanning years 2007-2016.MethodsA stratified random sample of visits to office-based physicians was pooled through the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey public use linkage ﬁle. Among 317 674 visits to physicians, PAs or NPs, solo and collaborative practices were described and compared over two timespans of 2007-2011 and 2012-2016. Weighted patient visits were aggregated in bivariate analyses to achieve nationally representative estimates. Survey statistics assessed patient demographic characteristics, reason for visit and visit specialty by provider type.ResultsWithin years 2007-2011 and 2012-2016, there were 4.4 billion and 4.1 billion physician office visits (POVs), respectively. Comparing the two timespans, the rate of POVs with a solo PA (0.43% vs 0.21%) or NP (0.31% vs 0.17%) decreased. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-PA increased non-significantly. Rate of POVs with a collaborative physician-NP (0.49% vs 0.97%, p<0.01) increased. Overall, collaborative practice, in particular physician-NP, has increased in recent years (p<0.01), while visits handled by a solo PA or NP decreased (p<0.01). In models adjusted for patient age and chronic conditions, the odds of collaborative practice in years 2012-2016 compared with years 2007-2011 was 35% higher (95% CI 1.01 to 1.79). Furthermore, in 2012-2016, NPs provided more independent primary care, and PAs provided more independent care in a non-primary care medical specialty. Preventive visits declined among all providers.ConclusionsIn non-federal physician offices, collaborative care with a physician-PA or physician-NP appears to be a growing part of office-based healthcare delivery.