A cancer genetics toolkit improves access to genetic services through documentation and use of the family history by primary-care clinicians.

1] VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 06/2013; DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.75
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Purpose:We developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent cancer genetics toolkit designed to improve recognition and appropriate referral of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes.Methods:We evaluated toolkit implementation in the women's clinics at a large Veterans Administration medical center using mixed methods, including pre-post semistructured interviews, clinician surveys, and chart reviews, and during implementation, monthly tracking of genetic consultation requests and use of a reminder in the electronic health record. We randomly sampled 10% of progress notes 6 months before (n = 139) and 18 months during implementation (n = 677).Results:The toolkit increased cancer family history documentation by almost 10% (26.6% pre- and 36.3% postimplementation). The reminder was a key component of the toolkit; when used, it was associated with a twofold increase in cancer family history documentation (odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.15), and the history was more complete. Patients whose clinicians completed the reminder were twice as likely to be referred for genetic consultation (4.1-9.6%, P < 0.0001).Conclusion:A multicomponent approach to the systematic collection and use of family history by primary-care clinicians increased access to genetic services.Genet Med advance online publication 13 June 2013Genetics in Medicine (2013); doi:10.1038/gim.2013.75.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed Australian clinicians' knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome for genetic services. A total of 144 oncologists, surgeons, gynaecologists, general practitioners and gastroenterologists from the Australian Medical Association and Clinical Oncology Society responded to a web-based survey. Most respondents demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Male general practitioners who have been practicing for ≥10 years were less likely to offer genetic referral than specialists, and many clinicians did not recognize that immunohistochemistry testing is not a germline test. Half of all general practitioners did not actually refer patients in the past 12 months, and 30% of them did not feel that their role is to identify patients for genetic referral. The majority of clinicians considered everyone to be responsible for making the initial referral to genetic services, but a small preference was given to oncologists (15%) and general practitioners (13%). Patient information brochures, continuing genetic education programs and referral guidelines were favoured as support for practice. Targeted education interventions should be considered to improve referral. An online family history assessment tool with built-in decision support would be helpful in triaging high-risk individuals for pathology analysis and/or genetic assessment in general practice.
    06/2014; 4(2):218-44. DOI:10.3390/jpm4020218
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2014; DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8213 · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The past decade has witnessed rapid advances in human genome sequencing technology and in the understanding of the role of genetic and epigenetic alterations in cancer development. These advances have raised hopes that such knowledge could lead to improvements in behavioral risk reduction interventions, tailored screening recommendations, and treatment matching that together could accelerate the war on cancer. Despite this optimism, translation of genomic discovery for clinical and public health applications has moved relatively slowly. To date, health psychologists and the behavioral sciences generally have played a very limited role in translation research. In this report we discuss what we mean by genomic translational research and consider the social forces that have slowed translational research, including normative assumptions that translation research must occur downstream of basic science, thus relegating health psychology and other behavioral sciences to a distal role. We then outline two broad priority areas in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment where evidence will be needed to guide evaluation and implementation of personalized genomics: (a) effective communication, to broaden dissemination of genomic discovery, including patient-provider communication and familial communication, and (b) the need to improve the motivational impact of behavior change interventions, including those aimed at altering lifestyle choices and those focusing on decision making regarding targeted cancer treatments and chemopreventive adherence. We further discuss the role that health psychologists can play in interdisciplinary teams to shape translational research priorities and to evaluate the utility of emerging genomic discoveries for cancer prevention and control. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 02/2015; 70(2):91-104. DOI:10.1037/a0036568 · 6.87 Impact Factor