Literature DB >> 11818352

Reactions of GPs to a triage-controlled referral system for cancer genetics.

Glyn Elwyn1, Rachel Iredale, Jonathon Gray.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The demand for genetic services is increasing as public awareness about 'predictive' tests increases and commercial marketing initiatives develop. In the UK, genetic services vary widely between regions. To manage demand, an all-Wales cancer genetics service based on telephone triage and referral guidelines was designed and implemented.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the reactions of GPs to a cancer genetics service controlled by referral guidelines and a triage system, and the perceived impact genetics will have on general practice.
METHODS: We conducted a structured qualitative study in primary care using sequential focus group discussions with 14 GPs, representing 12 practices divided into two groups (service providers and educationalists). The doctors were introduced to the 'new' genetics, briefed about the service and the referral guidelines and given an outline of the topics to be discussed. All discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed.
RESULTS: The GPs in this study had not considered how they and their teams would handle the practical implications of the 'new' genetics. They had no major objections to a triage system as a means of regulating access to a scarce specialist service, but were concerned about two issues. First, that an insistence on the completion of a postal questionnaire as a means of obtaining an initial assessment could disadvantage some individuals and, secondly, that it was not clear to either the GP or the patient that the risk assessment would be undertaken by a telephone interview. Although there was some concern about yet another set of referral guidelines, participants accepted that the potential demand for cancer genetics services had to be regulated.
CONCLUSION: The acceptance by GPs of this triage system represented a reluctant acknowledgement that primary care, in its present organizational form, cannot provide high quality genetic counselling. However, the realization that this represented a relinquishment of the normal generalist role led to the emergence of ambivalence and a wish to consider how best to accommodate this new need in primary care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818352     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/19.1.65

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  14 in total

1.  Integrating genetics into primary care in practice.

Authors:  S Kumar; M Gantley; G Elwyn; R Iredale
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-12-08

2.  Family history in primary care: understanding GPs' resistance to clinical genetics--qualitative study.

Authors:  Jonathan Mathers; Sheila Greenfield; Alison Metcalfe; Trevor Cole; Sarah Flanagan; Sue Wilson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Screen positive rates among six family history screening protocols for breast/ovarian cancer in four cohorts of women.

Authors:  Monica R McClain; Glenn E Palomaki; Heather Hampel; Judith A Westman; James E Haddow
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-02-23       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Delivery of cancer genetics services: The Royal Marsden telephone clinic model.

Authors:  S Shanley; K Myhill; R Doherty; A Ardern-Jones; S Hall; C Vince; S Thomas; P Aspinall; R Eeles
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Analysis of referrals to a multi-disciplinary breast cancer genetics clinic: practical and economic considerations.

Authors:  Marta M Reis; Dorothy Young; Lorna McLeish; David Goudie; Alan Cook; Frank Sullivan; Helen Vysny; Alison Fordyce; Roger Black; Manouche Tavakoli; Michael Steel
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Familial risk of cancer and knowledge and use of genetic testing.

Authors:  Heather J Baer; Phyllis Brawarsky; Michael F Murray; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-02       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Breast cancer genetic counselling referrals: how comparable are the findings between the UK and the Netherlands?

Authors:  Akke Albada; Julie Werrett; Sandra Van Dulmen; Jozien M Bensing; Cyril Chapman; Margreet G E M Ausems; Alison Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-08-18

8.  Why do women not return family history forms when referred to breast cancer genetics services? A mixed-method study.

Authors:  Kirstie A Hanning; Michael Steel; David Goudie; Lorna McLeish; Jackie Dunlop; Jessica Myring; Frank Sullivan; Jonathan Berg; Gerry Humphris; Gozde Ozakinci
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-01-05       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  The information and support needs of women at high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer: how can cancer genetic services give patients what they want?

Authors:  Rachel Iredale; Kate Brain; Jonathon Gray; Elizabeth France
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic?

Authors:  L Fraser; S Bramald; C Chapman; C Chu; V Cornelius; F Douglas; A Lucassen; A Nehammer; S Sutton; M Trivella; S Hodgson
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.