An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014

Developing a Common Framework for Evaluating the Implementation of Genomic Medicine Interventions in Clinical Care: The IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group

Purpose Implementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network’s efforts to promote: 1) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research; and 2) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network. Methods To facilitate this goal the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide their approach to: identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross network analyses. Results CMG identified ten high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight didn’t have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model. Conclusion We developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field

Strategies to Integrate Genomic Medicine into Clinical Care: Evidence from the IGNITE Network

The complexity of genomic medicine can be streamlined by implementing some form of clinical decision support (CDS) to guide clinicians in how to use and interpret personalized data; however, it is not yet clear which strategies are best suited for this purpose. In this study, we used implementation science to identify common strategies for applying provider-based CDS interventions across six genomic medicine clinical research projects funded by an NIH consortium. Each project’s strategies were elicited via a structured survey derived from a typology of implementation strategies, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), and follow-up interviews guided by both implementation strategy reporting criteria and a planning framework, RE-AIM, to obtain more detail about implementation strategies and desired outcomes. We found that, on average, the three pharmacogenomics implementation projects used more strategies than the disease-focused projects. Overall, projects had four implementation strategies in common; however, operationalization of each differed in accordance with each study’s implementation outcomes. These four common strategies may be important for precision medicine program implementation, and pharmacogenomics may require more integration into clinical care. Understanding how and why these strategies were successfully employed could be useful for others implementing genomic or precision medicine programs in different contexts

A research agenda to support the development and implementation of genomics-based clinical informatics tools and resources.

OBJECTIVE: The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda . The meeting\u27s goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting\u27s goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy. RESULTS: Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address. DISCUSSION: Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them

Establishing the value of genomics in medicine: the IGNITE Pragmatic Trials Network.

PURPOSE: A critical gap in the adoption of genomic medicine into medical practice is the need for the rigorous evaluation of the utility of genomic medicine interventions. METHODS: The Implementing Genomics in Practice Pragmatic Trials Network (IGNITE PTN) was formed in 2018 to measure the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine interventions, to assess approaches for real-world application of genomic medicine in diverse clinical settings, and to produce generalizable knowledge on clinical trials using genomic interventions. Five clinical sites and a coordinating center evaluated trial proposals and developed working groups to enable their implementation. RESULTS: Two pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been initiated, one evaluating genetic risk APOL1 variants in African Americans in the management of their hypertension, and the other to evaluate the use of pharmacogenetic testing for medications to manage acute and chronic pain as well as depression. CONCLUSION: IGNITE PTN is a network that carries out PCTs in genomic medicine; it is focused on diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority trial participants; it uses electronic health records and clinical decision support to deliver the interventions. IGNITE PTN will develop the evidence to support (or oppose) the adoption of genomic medicine interventions by patients, providers, and payers

Review of State Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans for Genomics Content

Introduction The goals of this study were to determine U.S. states with Comprehensive Cancer Control plans that include genomics in some capacity and to review successes with and barriers to implementation of genomics-related cancer control initiatives. Methods This study was conducted in two phases. Phase one included a content analysis of written state Comprehensive Cancer Control plans (n = 30) for terms related to genomics, or “genomic components” (n = 18). The second phase involved telephone interviews with the Comprehensive Cancer Control plan coordinators in states with plans that contained genomic components (n = 16). The interview was designed to gather more detailed information about the genomics-related initiatives within the state’s Comprehensive Cancer Control plan and the successes with and barriers to plan implementation, as defined by each state. Results Eighteen of the 30 Comprehensive Cancer Control plans analyzed contained genomics components. We noted a large variability among these 18 plans in the types of genomics components included. Nine (56%) of the 16 states interviewed had begun to implement the genomics components in their plan. Most states emphasized educating health care providers and the public about the role of genomics in cancer control. Many states consider awareness of family history to be an important aspect of their Comprehensive Cancer Control plan. Approximately 67% of states with family history components in their plans had begun to implement these goals. Virtually all states reported they would benefit from additional training in cancer genetics and general public health genomics. Conclusion The number of states incorporating genomics into their Comprehensive Cancer Control plans is increasing. Family history is a public health application of genomics that could be implemented more fully into Comprehensive Cancer Control plans

Perspectives on Genetic and Genomic Technologies in an Academic Medical Center: The Duke Experience

In this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice. Methods. We surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers’ use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers’ awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers’ opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships

Perspectives on Genetic and Genomic Technologies in an Academic Medical Center: The Duke Experience

In this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice. Methods. We surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers’ use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers’ awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers’ opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships

Perspectives on Genetic and Genomic Technologies in an Academic Medical Center: The Duke Experience

UnlabelledIn this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice.MethodsWe surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers' use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers' awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers' opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships