Halverson, Colin

Abstract Background: The Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS) are a set of connective tissue disorders that are hereditary in nature and characterized by joint hypermobility and tissue fragility. The complex nature of this unique patient population requires multidisciplinary care, but appropriate centers for such care do not exist in large portions of the country. Need for more integrated services has been identified in the Chicagoland region. In order to explore and begin to address barriers to seeking out appropriate care facing EDS patients in this region, we developed an online survey which we circulated through EDS social media groups for Chicagoland patients. Results: Three hundred and nine unique respondents participated. We found that there exists a strong medical need for and interest in the development of a center in the region, and participants reported that, if made available to them, that they would make extensive and regular use of such a facility. Conclusions: We conclude that the establishment of a collaborative medical center specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of EDS, HSD, and related disorders in the Chicagoland area would greatly benefit patients by providing comprehensive care, alleviate the burden on overworked healthcare providers, and generate revenue for medical facilities.

AbstractPopulation‐based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life‐altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and “lessons learned” across institutions. A 60‐item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open‐ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.