Improving the referral process for familial breast cancer genetic counselling: findings of three randomised controlled trials of two interventions

Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.12). 03/2005; 9(3):iii-iv, 1-126. DOI: 10.3310/hta9030
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two complementary interventions, using familial breast cancer as a model condition. The primary care intervention consisted of providing computerised referral guidelines and related education to GPs. The nurse counsellor intervention evaluated genetic nurses as substitutes for specialist geneticists in the initial assessment and management of referred patients.
The computerised referral guidelines study was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with general practices randomised to intervention or control groups. The nurse counsellor intervention was tested in two concurrent RCTs conducted in separate UK health service locations, using predetermined definitions of equivalence.
The computerised referral guidelines trial took place in general practices in Scotland from November 2000 to June 2001. The nurse counsellor intervention took place in a regional genetics clinic in Scotland, and in two health authorities in Wales served by a single genetics service during 2001.
The computerised referral guidelines study involved GPs and referred patients. Both nurse counsellor intervention trials included women referred for the first time, aged 18 years or over and whose main concern was family history of breast cancer.
The software system was developed with GPs, presenting cancer genetic referral guidelines in a checklist approach. Intervention GPs were invited to postgraduate update education sessions, and both intervention and control practices received paper-based guidelines. The intervention period was November 2000 to June 2001. For the nurse counsellor trial, trial 1 ran outpatient sessions with the same appointment length as the standard service offered by geneticists, but the nurse counsellor saw new patients at the first appointment and referred back to the GP or on to a clinical geneticist according to locally developed protocol, under the supervision of a consultant geneticist. The control intervention was the current service, which comprised an initial and a follow-up appointment with a clinical geneticist. In trial 2, a nurse counsellor ran outpatient sessions with the same appointment length as the new consultant-based cancer genetics service and new patients were seen at the first appointment and referred as in trial 1. The control intervention was a new service, and comprised collection of family history by telephone followed by a consultation with a clinical assistant or a specialist registrar, supervised by a consultant. The intervention was implemented between 1998 and 2001.
In the software system trial, the primary outcome was GPs' confidence in their management of patients with concerns about family history of breast cancer. For the nurse counsellor trial, the primary outcome was patient anxiety, measured using standard scales.
In the software system trial, 57 practices (230 GPs) were randomised to the intervention group and 29 (116 GPs) to the control group. No statistically significant differences were detected in GPs' confidence or any other outcomes. Fewer than half of the intervention GPs were aware of the software, and only 22 reported using it in practice. The estimated total cost was GBP3.12 per CD-ROM distributed (2001 prices). For the two arms of the nurse counsellor trial, 289 patients (193 intervention, 96 control) and 297 patients (197 intervention and 100 control) consented, were randomised, returned a baseline questionnaire and attended the clinic for trials 1 and 2 respectively. The analysis in both cases suggested equivalence in all anxiety scores, and no statistically significant differences were detected in other outcomes in either trial. A cost-minimisation analysis suggested that the cost per counselling episode was GBP10.23 lower in intervention arm than in the control arm and GBP10.89 higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (2001 prices) for trials 1 and 2, respectively. Taking the trials together, the costs were sensitive to the grades of doctors and the time spent in consultant supervision of the nurse counsellor, but they were only slightly affected by the grade of nurse counsellor, the selected discount rate and the lifespan of equipment.
Computer-based systems in the primary care intervention cannot be recommended for widespread use without further evaluation and testing in real practice settings. Genetic nurse counsellors may be a cost-effective alternative to assessment by doctors. This trial does not provide definitive evidence that the general policy of employing genetics nurse counsellors is sound, as it was based on only three individuals. Future evaluations of computer-based decision support systems for primary care must first address their efficacy under ideal conditions, identify barriers to the use of such systems in practice, and provide evidence of the impact of the policy of such systems in routine practice. The nurse counsellor trial should be replicated in other settings to provide reassurance of the generalisability of the intervention and other models of nurse-based assessment, such as in outreach clinics, should be developed and evaluated. The design of future evaluations of professional substitution should also address issues such as the effect of different levels of training and experience of nurse counsellors, and learning effects.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reports a pilot study to test the feasibility of providing genetic nurse counsellor clinics in primary care in the United Kingdom, to develop a questionnaire to evaluate patients' satisfaction with their genetics appointments, and to establish patient and provider costs. Genetic counsellors are healthcare professionals with experience in medical genetics and counselling and often have a professional background in nursing, science, genetics, psychology, or public health and work as members of multidisciplinary teams. Professional genetic counsellor accreditation is possible in the United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia and Canada. Increasing referrals to specialist genetics services have precipitated a review of models of service delivery in the United Kingdom. A random half of 74 general practices in three primary care trusts were selected for the study, and the patients registered with these practices and referred to the clinical genetics service, were offered an appointment in primary care with a genetic nurse counsellor. A clinic follow-up postal questionnaire was developed. Between July 2002 and May 2003, 64 appointments were offered to patients referred and registered with the selected general practices, 45 (79%) patients attended their appointment and 34 (77%) returned their follow-up questionnaire. Total mean satisfaction score was high and patients were most satisfied with the information and affective domains of the appointment. Those referred with a family history of cancer were more satisfied than those referred with a non-cancer diagnosis. Forty-eight per cent of patients seen by the genetic nurse counsellor did not need to attend a further appointment with a doctor in secondary care. Patients were satisfied with the travel time and distance to clinic and patient clinic costs were low. Patients do attend genetic nurse counsellor clinics in primary care, and are satisfied with the new location. A large cluster randomized controlled trial is now being conducted to obtain a controlled comparison of clinic attendance rates and patients' satisfaction with clinics in primary vs. secondary care settings.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 04/2006; 53(5):591-604. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03760.x · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The assessment of genetic variants and environmental exposures (i.e., genetic and environmental risk assessment) may permit individualized risk stratification for common diseases as part of routine care. A pilot study was conducted to assess the uptake of, and response to, testing for colorectal cancer risk among average risk patients in primary care practice settings. Physicians in primary care practices identified patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening and referred them to the study. Research staff administered a baseline survey to consenting patients. At a scheduled office visit, participants underwent decision counseling with a trained nurse educator to facilitate informed decision making about being tested for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase status and red blood cell folate level. Combined assessment can stratify colorectal cancer risk. Test results were disclosed within 2 weeks after the visit. Postvisit and 1-month endpoint surveys were administered. Univariable analyses of survey data were performed to assess changes from baseline in genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening-related knowledge and perceptions. Of the 57 patients who were referred to the study, 25 (44%) consented to participate, and all but one were tested. Participant knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening, perceived colorectal cancer screening response efficacy, and perceived social support for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly from baseline. Participants reported low levels of intrusive thoughts about CRC. Knowledge and favorable perceptions of colorectal cancer screening increased, as did knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment, after exposure to the study intervention. Further research is needed to assess genetic and environmental risk assessment uptake and impact at the population level.
    Genetics in Medicine 07/2007; 9(6):378-84. DOI:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3180654ce2 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to evaluate the effect of an assessment strategy using the computer decision support system (the GRAIDS software), on the management of familial cancer risk in British general practice in comparison with best current practice. The design included cluster randomised controlled trial, and involved forty-five general practice teams in East Anglia, UK. Randomised to GRAIDS (Genetic Risk Assessment on the Internet with Decision Support) support (intervention n=23) or comparison (n=22). Training in the new assessment strategy and access to the GRAIDS software (GRAIDS arm) was conducted, compared with an educational session and guidelines about managing familial breast and colorectal cancer risk (comparison) were mailed. Outcomes were measured at practice, practitioner and patient levels. The primary outcome measure, at practice level, was the proportion of referrals made to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial breast or colorectal cancer that were consistent with referral guidelines. Other measures included practitioner confidence in managing familial cancer (GRAIDS arm only) and, in patients: cancer worry, risk perception and knowledge about familial cancer. There were more referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic from GRAIDS than comparison practices (mean 6.2 and 3.2 referrals per 10 000 registered patients per year; mean difference 3.0 referrals; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.8; P=0.001); referrals from GRAIDS practices were more likely to be consistent with referral guidelines (odds ratio (OR)=5.2; 95% CI 1.7-15.8, P=0.006). Patients referred from GRAIDS practices had lower cancer worry scores at the point of referral (mean difference -1.44 95% CI -2.64 to -0.23, P=0.02). There were no differences in patient knowledge about familial cancer. The intervention increased GPs' confidence in managing familial cancer. Compared with education and mailed guidelines, assessment including computer decision support increased the number and quality of referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial cancer risk, improved practitioner confidence and had no adverse psychological effects in patients. Trials are registered under N0181144343 in the UK National Research Register.
    British Journal of Cancer 09/2007; 97(4):486-93. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603897 · 4.82 Impact Factor
Show more