Ziniel, Sonja I.

ObjectiveNot much is known regarding musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) practices of rheumatologists in the United States. We sought to determine the current use of MSUS among past participants of the Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists (USSONAR) training program and, by extension, MSUS‐practicing rheumatologists and to understand barriers to its MSUS use.MethodsAn online survey was sent to 374 participants in the eight‐month USSONAR blended course (Fundamentals in Musculoskeletal Ultrasound and Train the Trainer) between 2009 and 2020. Each respondent had a unique identifier linked to their total number of submitted practice scans and examination scores during training.ResultsThe survey response rate was 28.1% (105 of 374), comprising 82% adult and 18% pediatric rheumatologists. Of the respondents, 71% were MSUS certified: 86.7% performed and/or interpreted diagnostic MSUS, 81.0% performed/interpreted procedural MSUS, 59.8% billed for at least 50% of diagnostic studies, and 78.8% billed for at least 50% of procedural studies. The top reasons for not doing diagnostic and procedural ultrasonography were lack of administrative support and limited time, respectively. For 25% of diagnostic ultrasonography and 12.9% of procedural ultrasonography, billing was done <50% of the time. Of the respondents, 78.0% reported that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists.ConclusionMost USSONAR‐trained rheumatologists are certified, practicing both diagnostic and procedural MSUS and billing for most of their work. However, a substantial number of studies are not being billed due to time constraints, limited administrative support, and legal liability. Participants agreed that USSONAR training made them better rheumatologists.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.