Williams, Janet L.

AbstractBackgroundImproved function is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM) is a subspecialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) that focuses on improving function in patients with cancer. One of the barriers to patients accessing CRM services is the lack of referrals from oncology providers. Understanding the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of oncology trainees regarding the importance of function and the role of CRM is essential to reducing educational gaps and improving patients' access to essential rehabilitation services.ObjectiveTo determine oncology trainees' knowledge, attitude and beliefs about the importance of function and the role of CRM in the care of patients with cancer.SettingThe study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in the United States.InterventionDescriptive survey study was administered to postgraduate oncology trainees who spent at least 1 day a week providing patient care.Main outcomeParticipants' report of their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs on the importance of function and CRM in the care of patients with cancer.ResultsThe survey was sent to 197 oncology trainees with a response rate of 67% (n = 132) and 126 were ultimately included. All participants believed that function is important in the care of patients with cancer. The majority believed that better function improves treatment tolerance (94%) and survival (84%). Most reported that having CRM physicians (80%) and an inpatient rehabilitation unit (88%) in the oncological setting is important; however, most participants reported that they refer fewer than 25% of their patients to CRM services. Participants with prior exposure to PM&R were significantly more likely to consult PM&R compared to those without exposure (p = .005). Most oncology trainees (81%) believed that education in CRM should be part of their oncology training.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that oncology trainees believe that function is important. They also believe that access to CRM would improve treatment tolerance and survival, but most report that they rarely refer patients to CRM services. Most trainees desire increased exposure to CRM during oncology training.

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.

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.

Abstract Background It is unclear how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) should be interpreted in the context of sharing of genomic information between family members. Methods The authors analyzed the HIPAA Privacy Rule, reviewed the literature and constructed a clinical scenario to inform how HIPAA can be interpreted for multiple forms of patient- and provider-mediated genetic risk notification. Results Under HIPAA, healthcare providers can lawfully notify relatives to recommend genetic risk assessment using multiple approaches, including supporting the patient telling their own relatives, contacting relatives directly with the patient’s authorization, or contacting a relative’s provider directly. Conclusions Multiple forms of patient- or provider-mediated contact of relatives are already legally permissible under HIPAA, are consistent with ethical obligations of care to patients and their families, and could result in improved population health through identification of clinically actionable disease risk. Unanswered questions remain about implementation and impacts of provider-mediated programs.

A challenge in returning genomic test results to research participants is how best to communicate complex and clinically nuanced findings to participants in a manner that is scalable to the large numbers of participants enrolled. The purpose of this study was to examine the features of genetic results letters produced at each Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network site to assess their readability and content. Letters were collected from each site, and a qualitative analysis of letter content and a quantitative analysis of readability statistics were performed. Because letters were produced independently at each eMERGE site, significant heterogeneity in readability and content was found. The content of letters varied widely from a baseline of notifying participants that results existed to more detailed information about positive or negative results, as well as materials for sharing with family members. Most letters were significantly above the Centers for Disease Control-suggested reading level for health communication. While continued effort should be applied to make letters easier to understand, the ongoing challenge of explaining complex genomic information, the implications of negative test results, and the uncertainty that comes with some types of test and result makes simplifying letter text challenging.

A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the “real world” of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

Abstract Objective We describe a stratified sampling design that combines electronic health records (EHRs) and United States Census (USC) data to construct the sampling frame and an algorithm to enrich the sample with individuals belonging to rarer strata. Materials and Methods This design was developed for a multi-site survey that sought to examine patient concerns about and barriers to participating in research studies, especially among under-studied populations (eg, minorities, low educational attainment). We defined sampling strata by cross-tabulating several socio-demographic variables obtained from EHR and augmented with census-block-level USC data. We oversampled rarer and historically underrepresented subpopulations. Results The sampling strategy, which included USC-supplemented EHR data, led to a far more diverse sample than would have been expected under random sampling (eg, 3-, 8-, 7-, and 12-fold increase in African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and those with less than a high school degree, respectively). We observed that our EHR data tended to misclassify minority races more often than majority races, and that non-majority races, Latino ethnicity, younger adult age, lower education, and urban/suburban living were each associated with lower response rates to the mailed surveys. Discussion We observed substantial enrichment from rarer subpopulations. The magnitude of the enrichment depends on the accuracy of the variables that define the sampling strata and the overall response rate. Conclusion EHR and USC data may be used to define sampling strata that in turn may be used to enrich the final study sample. This design may be of particular interest for studies of rarer and understudied populations.

We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site’s research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10–261 days, 0–11, and 11–90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs.