1
|
Blout Zawatsky CL, Leonhard JR, Bell M, Moore MM, Petry NJ, Platt DM, Green RC, Hajek C, Christensen KD. Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12111929. [PMID: 36422106 PMCID: PMC9692406 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12111929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Revised: 10/11/2022] [Accepted: 11/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper describes one healthcare system’s approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carrie L. Blout Zawatsky
- Genomes2People, Department of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
- Precision Population Health, Ariadne Labs, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- The MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Jennifer R. Leonhard
- Department of Genetics, Sanford Health, Bemidji, MN 56601, USA
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-218-333-5068
| | - Megan Bell
- Department of Genetics, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
- Department of Genetic Counseling, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
| | | | - Natasha J. Petry
- Department of Sanford Imagenetics, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105, USA
| | - Dylan M. Platt
- Department of Genetics, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
- Department of Genetic Counseling, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
| | - Robert C. Green
- Genomes2People, Department of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
- Precision Population Health, Ariadne Labs, Boston, MA 02115, USA
- Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
| | - Catherine Hajek
- Department of Genetics, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
- Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD 57117, USA
- Helix, San Mateo, CA 94401, USA
| | - Kurt D. Christensen
- Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA
- PRecisiOn Medicine Translational Research (PROMoTeR) Center, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Murray MF, Khoury MJ, Abul-Husn NS. Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease. Genome Med 2022; 14:60. [PMID: 35672798 PMCID: PMC9175445 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01062-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes.We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease.The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael F. Murray
- grid.47100.320000000419368710Yale Center for Genomic Health, Department of Genetics, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
| | - Muin J. Khoury
- grid.416738.f0000 0001 2163 0069Office of Genomics and Precision Public Health, Office of Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA
| | - Noura S. Abul-Husn
- grid.59734.3c0000 0001 0670 2351Institute for Genomic Health, Division of Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1041, New York, NY 10029 USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Madden JA, Brothers KK, Williams JL, Myers MF, Leppig KA, Clayton EW, Wiesner GL, Holm IA. Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network. Genet Med 2022; 24:1297-1305. [PMID: 35341654 PMCID: PMC9940614 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jill A. Madden
- Division of Genetics & Genomics and the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Kyle K. Brothers
- Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
| | | | - Melanie F. Myers
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | - Ellen Wright Clayton
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society and Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Georgia L. Wiesner
- Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Ingrid A. Holm
- Division of Genetics & Genomics and the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA,Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA,Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Ingrid A. Holm, Division of Genetics and Genomics and the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|