Dataset Information

Frequency of Participation in External Quality Assessment Programs Focused on Rare Diseases: Belgian Guidelines for Human Genetics Centers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Participation in quality controls, also called external quality assessment (EQA) schemes, is required for the ISO15189 accreditation of the Medical Centers of Human Genetics. However, directives on the minimal frequency of participation in genetic quality control schemes are lacking or too heterogeneous, with a possible impact on health care quality.

Objective

The aim of this project is to develop Belgian guidelines on the frequency of participation in quality controls for genetic testing in the context of rare diseases.

Methods

A group of experts analyzed 90 EQA schemes offered by accredited providers and focused on analyses used for the diagnosis of rare diseases. On that basis, the experts developed practical recommendations about the minimal frequencies of participation of the Medical Centers of Human Genetics in quality controls and how to deal with poor performances and change management. These guidelines were submitted to the Belgian Accreditation Body and then reviewed and approved by the Belgian College of Human Genetics and Rare Diseases and by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance.

Results

The guidelines offer a decisional algorithm for the minimal frequency of participation in human genetics EQA schemes. This algorithm has been developed taking into account the scopes of the EQA schemes, the levels of experience, and the annual volumes of the Centers of Human Genetics in the performance of the tests considered. They include three key principles: (1) the recommended annual assessment of all genetic techniques and technological platforms, if possible through EQAs covering the technique, genotyping, and clinical interpretation; (2) the triennial assessment of the genotyping and interpretation of specific germline mutations and pharmacogenomics analyses; and (3) the documentation of actions undertaken in the case of poor performances and the participation to quality control the following year. The use of a Bayesian statistical model has been proposed to help the Centers of Human Genetics to determine the theoretical number of tests that should be annually performed to achieve a certain threshold of performance (eg, a maximal error rate of 1%). Besides, the guidelines insist on the role and responsibility of the national public health authorities in the follow-up of the quality of analyses performed by the Medical Centers of Human Genetics and in demonstrating the cost-effectiveness and rationalization of participation frequency in these quality controls.

Conclusions

These guidelines have been developed based on the analysis of a large panel of EQA schemes and data collected from the Belgian Medical Centers of Human Genetics. They are applicable to other countries and will facilitate and improve the quality management and financing systems of the Medical Centers of Human Genetics.

SUBMITTER: Lantoine J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8314149 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFamily caregivers provide the majority of health care to the 18 million patients with cancer in the US. Yet despite providing complex medical and nursing care, a large proportion of caregivers report no formal support or training. In recognition of this gap, many interventions to support cancer caregivers have been developed and tested over the past 2 decades. However, there are few system-level data on whether US cancer centers have adopted and implemented these interventions.ObjectiveTo describe and characterize the availability of family caregiver support programs in US cancer centers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional national survey study was conducted between September 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023. Participants comprised clinical and administrative staff of Commission on Cancer-accredited US cancer centers. Data analysis was performed in May and June 2023.Main outcomes and measuresSurvey questions about the availability of 11 types of family caregiver programs (eg, peer mentoring, education classes, and psychosocial programs) were developed after literature review, assessment of similar program evaluation surveys, and discussions among a 13-member national expert advisory committee. Family caregiver programs were defined as structured, planned, and coordinated groups of activities and procedures aimed at specifically supporting family caregivers as part of usual care. Survey responses were tabulated using standard descriptive statistics, including means, proportions, and frequencies.ResultsOf the surveys sent to potential respondents at 971 adult cancer centers, 238 were completed (response rate, 24.5%). After nonresponse weight adjustment, most cancer centers (75.4%) had at least 1 family caregiver program; 24.6% had none. The most common program type was information and referral services (53.6%). Cancer centers with no programs were more likely to have smaller annual outpatient volumes (χ2 = 11.10; P = .011). Few centers had caregiver programs on training in medical and/or nursing tasks (21.7%), caregiver self-care (20.2%), caregiver-specific distress screening (19.3%), peer mentoring (18.9%), and children caregiving for parents (8.3%). Very few programs were developed from published evidence in a journal (8.1%). The top reason why cancer centers selected their programs was community members requesting the program (26.3%); only 12.3% of centers selected their programs based on scientific evidence. Most programs were funded by the cancer center or hospital (58.6%) or by philanthropy (42.4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, most cancer centers had family caregiver programs; however, a quarter had none. Furthermore, the scope of programming was limited and rarely evidence based, with few centers offering caregiving education and training. These findings suggest that implementation strategies are critically needed to foster uptake of evidence-based caregiver interventions.

Project description:AimTo evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of Participation and Environment Measure-Plus (PEM+) 2.0, an optimized version of a web-based, participation-focused, care-planning tool.MethodTwenty-two caregivers of children aged 0 to 5 years receiving rehabilitation services, who reported dissatisfaction with their child's participation, had internet access, and could read and write English, were recruited for this 2-week, single-arm pilot trial. Feasibility was assessed through retention rates, completion time, percentage of care plans developed relative to caregiver reported need, and independent completion of PEM+ 2.0. Acceptability was assessed by the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use Questionnaire. Preliminary effects were assessed by two items on caregiver reported impact of PEM+ 2.0 on confidence for addressing their child's participation.ResultsEighteen caregivers completed at least one iteration of PEM+ 2.0; of those, 17 were female and 15 were 30 to 39 years old. The median completion time was 12.99 minutes (quartile 1, 6.30; quartile 3, 17.33), mean care plan creation relative to need was 50% (standard deviation [SD] 31), and 17 completed PEM+ 2.0 independently. Mean acceptability scores were 3.80 to 4.97 (SD 1.25-1.97) and mean preliminary effect scores were 4.61 to 4.72 (SD 1.85-2.24), out of 7.0. There were strong and significant positive associations between two of the three estimates of PEM+ 2.0 acceptability and caregiver confidence (r=0.577-0.793, p<0.01).InterpretationElectronic health tools have the potential for facilitating family-centered care in pediatric rehabilitation. PEM+ 2.0 is a feasible tool within pediatric rehabilitation and has potential to be an acceptable tool for improving caregiver confidence for promoting their child's participation in valued activities.What this paper addsParticipation and Environment Measure-Plus (PEM+) 2.0 is feasible for collaboratively engaging caregivers in the care-planning process. Caregivers perceived PEM+ 2.0 as helpful for thinking about their child's participation and what can be done to improve it. Feasibility and acceptability results will inform PEM+ 2.0 optimizations.