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: 3.92). 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.

1 Bookmark
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2014; DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.8213 · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Family health history is a leading predictor of disease risk. Nonetheless, it is underutilized to guide care and, therefore, is ripe for health information technology intervention. To fill the family health history practice gap, Cleveland Clinic has developed a family health history collection and clinical decision support tool, MyFamily. This report describes the impact and process of implementing MyFamily into primary care, cancer survivorship and cancer genetics clinics. Ten providers participated in semi-structured interviews that were analyzed to identify opportunities for process improvement. Participants universally noted positive effects on patient care, including increases in quality, personalization of care and patient engagement. The impact on clinical workflow varied by practice setting, with differences observed in the ease of integration and the use of specific report elements. Tension between the length of the report and desired detail was appreciated. Barriers and facilitators to the process of implementation were noted, dominated by the theme of increased integration with the electronic medical record. These results fed real-time improvement cycles to reinforce clinician use. This model will be applied in future institutional efforts to integrate clinical genomic applications into practice and may be useful for other institutions considering the implementation of tools for personalizing medical management.
    03/2014; 4(2):115-136. DOI:10.3390/jpm4020115