Randa D Sifri1, Richard Wender, Nina Paynter. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA. randa.sifri@mail.tju.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an adequate amount of family history is being collected and recorded by family practitioners to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. POPULATION: Charts from 500 randomly chosen patients, 40 to 60 years of age, were audited. Of those charts, 400 were from a large academic family practice and 50 charts each were from 2 small community family practices in the greater Philadelphia area. OUTCOMES MEASURED: General features of family history taking were recorded, including presence of a family history and date when recorded, evidence of updated family history data, and presence of a genogram. Cancer features recorded included mention of family history of cancer or colon polyps and, if positive, identification of which relative was affected, site of cancer, and age of diagnosis or death. RESULTS: Most charts (89%) had some family history information recorded, and 55% listed a family history of cancer, either positive or negative. Of the 356 relatives affected with cancer, an age of diagnosis was documented in only 8%; of 183 first-degree relatives with cancer, only 7% had a documented age of diagnosis. Two percent of all charts had any mention of a family history of colon polyps. Sixty-five percent of family histories were recorded at the first visit, and only 35% had any updated family history information. CONCLUSIONS: The number and type of family histories currently being recorded by family practitioners are not adequate to fully assess familial risk of cancer. New strategies will need to be developed to better prepare providers for risk-based clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an adequate amount of family history is being collected and recorded by family practitioners to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. POPULATION: Charts from 500 randomly chosen patients, 40 to 60 years of age, were audited. Of those charts, 400 were from a large academic family practice and 50 charts each were from 2 small community family practices in the greater Philadelphia area. OUTCOMES MEASURED: General features of family history taking were recorded, including presence of a family history and date when recorded, evidence of updated family history data, and presence of a genogram. Cancer features recorded included mention of family history of cancer or colon polyps and, if positive, identification of which relative was affected, site of cancer, and age of diagnosis or death. RESULTS: Most charts (89%) had some family history information recorded, and 55% listed a family history of cancer, either positive or negative. Of the 356 relatives affected with cancer, an age of diagnosis was documented in only 8%; of 183 first-degree relatives with cancer, only 7% had a documented age of diagnosis. Two percent of all charts had any mention of a family history of colon polyps. Sixty-five percent of family histories were recorded at the first visit, and only 35% had any updated family history information. CONCLUSIONS: The number and type of family histories currently being recorded by family practitioners are not adequate to fully assess familial risk of cancer. New strategies will need to be developed to better prepare providers for risk-based clinical decision making.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Jean P O'Malley; Andrea Gough; David I Buckley; James Wallace; Lyle J Fagnan; Cynthia Morris; Motomi Mori; John D Heintzman; David Lieberman Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Argyrios Ziogas; Nora K Horick; Anita Y Kinney; Jan T Lowery; Susan M Domchek; Claudine Isaacs; Constance A Griffin; Patricia G Moorman; Karen L Edwards; Deirdre A Hill; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Tomlinson; Hoda Anton-Culver; Louise C Strong; Carol H Kasten; Dianne M Finkelstein; Sharon E Plon Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Anne O Garceau; Barry I Graubard; Marsha Dunn; Timothy S McNeel; Lou Gonsalves; Mitchell H Gail; Mark H Greene; Gordon B Willis; Louise Wideroff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jan T Lowery; Nora Horick; Anita Y Kinney; Dianne M Finkelstein; Kathleen Garrett; Robert W Haile; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Robert S Sandler; Carol Burke; Deirdre A Hill; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Brian S Flynn; Marie E Wood; Takamaru Ashikaga; Alan Stockdale; Greg S Dana; Shelly Naud Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: John M Quillin; Alexander H Krist; Maria Gyure; Rosalie Corona; Vivian Rodriguez; Joseph Borzelleca; Joann N Bodurtha Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-07-20