1
|
Friedrich B, Vindrola-Padros C, Lucassen AM, Patch C, Clarke A, Lakhanpaul M, Lewis C. "A very big challenge": a qualitative study to explore the early barriers and enablers to implementing a national genomic medicine service in England. Front Genet 2024; 14:1282034. [PMID: 38239852 PMCID: PMC10794539 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1282034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: The Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) was launched in 2018 in England to create a step-change in the use of genomics in the NHS, including offering whole genome sequencing (WGS) as part of routine care. In this qualitative study on pediatric rare disease diagnosis, we used an implementation science framework to identify enablers and barriers which have influenced rollout. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven participants tasked with designing the GMS and 14 tasked with leading the implementation across the seven Genomic Medicine Service Alliances (GMSAs) and/or Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs) between October 2021 and February 2022. Results: Overall, those involved in delivering the service strongly support its aims and ambitions. Challenges include: 1) concerns around the lack of trained and available workforce (clinicians and scientists) to seek consent from patients, interpret findings and communicate results; 2) the lack of a digital, coordinated infrastructure in place to support and standardize delivery with knock-on effects including onerous administrative aspects required to consent patients and order WGS tests; 3) that the "mainstreaming agenda", whilst considered important, encountered reluctance to become engaged from those who did not see it as a priority or viewed it as being politically rather than clinically driven; 4) the timelines and targets set for the GMS were perceived by some as too ambitious. Interviewees discussed local adaptations and strategies employed to address the various challenges they had encountered, including 1) capacity-building, 2) employing genomic associates and other support staff to support the consent and test ordering process, 3) having "genomic champions" embedded in mainstream services to impart knowledge and best practice, 4) enhancing collaboration between genetic and mainstream specialties, 5) building evaluation into the service and 6) co-creating services with patients and the public. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the challenges of implementing system-wide change within a complex healthcare system. Local as well as national solutions can undoubtedly address many of these barriers over time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bettina Friedrich
- Population, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
| | - Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
- Department of Targeted Intervention and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anneke M. Lucassen
- Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
- Centre for Personalised Medicine, The Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Chris Patch
- Engagement and Society, Wellcome Connecting Science Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom
| | - Angus Clarke
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Monica Lakhanpaul
- Population, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
| | - Celine Lewis
- Population, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom
- London North Genomic Laboratory Hub, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trainer AH, Goode E, Hoskins CN, Wheeler JCW, Best S. Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty. Genet Med 2023; 25:100982. [PMID: 37724515 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity. METHOD Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty. RESULTS Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework. CONCLUSION Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison H Trainer
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Erin Goode
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cass N Hoskins
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jack C W Wheeler
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fehlberg Z, Best S, Long JC, Theodorou T, Pope C, Hibbert P, Williams S, Freeman L, Righetti S, Archibald AD, Braithwaite J. Scaling-up and future sustainability of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program. NPJ Genom Med 2023; 8:18. [PMID: 37524740 PMCID: PMC10390466 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-023-00357-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023] Open
Abstract
An understanding of factors influencing implementation is essential to realise the benefits of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening programs. The aim of this study was to synthesise data collected during the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) to track how priorities shifted over time and identify important factors during scaling-up and for sustainment. We used a multi-method qualitative approach to integrate longitudinal project data collected from 10 project committees with 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with study team members. Both datasets were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify constructs of interest within early, mid-point, and future implementation phases. Several CFIR constructs were present across implementation. The complexity of implementation presented challenges that were overcome through a quality-designed and packaged product, formal and informal networks and communication, and access to knowledge and information. Addressing the diverse consumer needs through resources and increasing community and non-genetic speciality engagement remained a priority throughout and for future sustainment. Going forward, further addressing program complexities and securing funding were emphasised. By applying an implementation framework, findings from this study may be useful for future effort towards building and/or sustaining reproductive genetic carrier screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Dept of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Tahlia Theodorou
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Catherine Pope
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hibbert
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- IIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Sharon Williams
- School of Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
| | - Lucinda Freeman
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sarah Righetti
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alison D Archibald
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Taylor N, McKay S, Long JC, Gaff C, North K, Braithwaite J, Francis JJ, Best S. Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice. Implement Sci 2023; 18:29. [PMID: 37475088 PMCID: PMC10360252 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01284-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disentangling the interplay between experience-based intuition and theory-informed implementation is crucial for identifying the direct contribution theory can make for generating behaviour changes needed for successful evidence translation. In the context of 'clinicogenomics', a complex and rapidly evolving field demanding swift practice change, we aimed to (a) describe a combined clinician intuition- and theory-driven method for identifying determinants of and strategies for implementing clinicogenomics, and (b) articulate a structured approach to standardise hypothesised behavioural pathways and make potential underlying theory explicit. METHODS Interview data from 16 non-genetic medical specialists using genomics in practice identified three target behaviour areas across the testing process: (1) identifying patients, (2) test ordering and reporting, (3) communicating results. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to group barriers and facilitators to performing these actions. Barriers were grouped by distinct TDF domains, with 'overarching' TDF themes identified for overlapping barriers. Clinician intuitively-derived implementation strategies were matched with corresponding barriers, and retrospectively coded against behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Where no intuitive strategies were provided, theory-driven strategies were generated. An algorithm was developed and applied to articulate how implementation strategies address barriers to influence behaviour change. RESULTS Across all target behaviour areas, 32 identified barriers were coded across seven distinct TDF domains and eight overarching TDF themes. Within the 29 intuitive strategies, 21 BCTs were represented and used on 49 occasions to address 23 barriers. On 10 (20%) of these occasions, existing empirical links were found between BCTs and corresponding distinct TDF-coded barriers. Twenty additional theory-driven implementation strategies (using 19 BCTs on 31 occasions) were developed to address nine remaining barriers. CONCLUSION Clinicians naturally generate their own solutions when implementing clinical interventions, and in this clinicogenomics example these intuitive strategies aligned with theoretical recommendations 20% of the time. We have matched intuitive strategies with theory-driven BCTs to make potential underlying theory explicit through proposed structured hypothesised causal pathways. Transparency and efficiency are enhanced, providing a novel method to identify determinants of implementation. Operationalising this approach to support the design of implementation strategies may optimise practice change in response to rapidly evolving scientific advances requiring swift translation into healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
| | - Skye McKay
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kathryn North
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jill J Francis
- School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Best S, Long JC, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Standardizing variation: Scaling up clinical genomics in Australia. Genet Med 2023; 25:100109. [PMID: 35115231 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.004] [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: 08/17/2021] [Revised: 01/03/2022] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical genomics demands close interaction of physicians, laboratory scientists, and genetic professionals. Taking genomics to scale requires an understanding of the underlying processes from the perspective of nongenetic physicians who are new to the field. We identified components of the processes amenable to adaptation when scaling up clinical genomics. METHODS Semistructured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with nongenetic physicians, who were using clinical genomics in practice, were guided by an annotated process map with 7 steps following the patient's journey. Findings from the individual maps were synthesized into an overview process map and a series of individual maps by common location and specialty. Interviews were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS In total, 16 nongenetic physicians (eg, nephrologists, immunologists) participated, generating 1 overview and 10 individual process maps. Sixteen common steps were identified across clinical specialties and locations, with variations over 9 steps. We report the potential for standardization across these 9 steps. CONCLUSION When scaling up complex interventions, it is essential to identify steps where variation can be accommodated. With these results we show how process mapping can be used to identify steps where variation is acceptable during scale up to accommodate adaptation to local context, allowing for the inevitable evolution of factors influencing ongoing implementation and sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Best S, Vidic N, An K, Collins F, White SM. A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30:645-652. [PMID: 35046503 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01022-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2021] [Revised: 11/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. .,Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Nada Vidic
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Kim An
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Felicity Collins
- Clinical Genetics Service, Institute of Precision Medicine and Bioinformatics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Divisions of Genomic Medicine, Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Susan M White
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Brown HL, Sherburn IA, Gaff C, Taylor N, Best S. Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review. Genet Med 2022; 24:1415-1424. [PMID: 35442192 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to assess the extent to which structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics, proposed or adapted, are informed by evidence. METHODS A systematic approach was used to identify peer-reviewed articles and gray literature to report on 4 research questions: 1. What structured approaches have been proposed to support implementation? 2. To what extent are the structured approaches informed by evidence? 3. How have structured approaches been deployed in the genomic setting? 4. What are the intended outcomes of the structured approaches? RESULTS A total of 30 unique structured approaches to implementation were reported across 23 peer-reviewed publications and 11 gray literature articles. Most approaches were process models, applied in the preadoption implementation phase, focusing on a "service" outcome. Key findings included a lack of implementation science theory informing the development/implementation of newly designed structured approaches in the genomic setting and a lack of measures to assess implementation effectiveness. CONCLUSION This scoping review identified a significant number of structured approaches developed to inform the implementation of genomic medicine into clinical practice, with limited use of implementation science to support the process. We recommend the use of existing implementation science theory and the expertise of implementation scientists to inform the design of genomic programs being implemented into clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen L Brown
- Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Isabella A Sherburn
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australian Institute of Health Innovation (AIHI), Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|