J Bethea1, N Qureshi, N Drury, P Guilbert. 1. Nottingham Primary Care Research Partnership, Research and Development Department, Nottinghamshire County Teaching Primary Care Trust, Nottingham, UK. jane.bethea@nottinghamshirecounty-tpct.nhs.uk
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the level of competence and confidence in general practice in relation to the management of familial cancers and to determine the impact of providing genetic educational outreach on confidence and competence. METHODS: Confidence and competence in dealing with familial cancers was measured using a postal questionnaire sent to all general practitioners and practice nurses in 4 geographical areas in central England. In 2 areas, genetic educational outreach was provided to 10 randomly selected practices and a matched analysis of questionnaire responses before and after intervention was done to determine the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: Respondents were more confident in dealing with patient queries around familial breast cancer risk than those around bowel cancer. This was inconsistent with the ability to correctly assign familial risk, with 48% incorrectly assigning a high-risk categorisation to a low-risk breast cancer scenario. Respondents who had taken part in the intervention reported more confidence in dealing with issues related to the management of patient queries around bowel cancer. Following intervention, participants were more likely to report feeling confident in knowing the relevant family history to collect (72.4% of respondents from participating practices compared to 56.1% from non-participating practices; OR 2.39, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.14-5.00) and in making a basic assessment of risk (72.4% compared to 38.9%; OR 3.65, p = 0.01, 95% CI 1.38-9.61). CONCLUSIONS: Providing genetic educational outreach has a positive impact upon how confident primary care staff feel in dealing with patient queries over familial cancers, particularly in relation to bowel cancer. Further research is needed to explore the impact of providing this service on other relevant outcomes such as appropriateness of referrals to genetic services. (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
AIMS: To determine the level of competence and confidence in general practice in relation to the management of familial cancers and to determine the impact of providing genetic educational outreach on confidence and competence. METHODS: Confidence and competence in dealing with familial cancers was measured using a postal questionnaire sent to all general practitioners and practice nurses in 4 geographical areas in central England. In 2 areas, genetic educational outreach was provided to 10 randomly selected practices and a matched analysis of questionnaire responses before and after intervention was done to determine the impact of the intervention. RESULTS: Respondents were more confident in dealing with patient queries around familial breast cancer risk than those around bowel cancer. This was inconsistent with the ability to correctly assign familial risk, with 48% incorrectly assigning a high-risk categorisation to a low-risk breast cancer scenario. Respondents who had taken part in the intervention reported more confidence in dealing with issues related to the management of patient queries around bowel cancer. Following intervention, participants were more likely to report feeling confident in knowing the relevant family history to collect (72.4% of respondents from participating practices compared to 56.1% from non-participating practices; OR 2.39, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.14-5.00) and in making a basic assessment of risk (72.4% compared to 38.9%; OR 3.65, p = 0.01, 95% CI 1.38-9.61). CONCLUSIONS: Providing genetic educational outreach has a positive impact upon how confident primary care staff feel in dealing with patient queries over familial cancers, particularly in relation to bowel cancer. Further research is needed to explore the impact of providing this service on other relevant outcomes such as appropriateness of referrals to genetic services. (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Sara J Knight; Ateesha F Mohamed; Deborah A Marshall; Uri Ladabaum; Kathryn A Phillips; Judith M E Walsh Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Karen P Powell; Carol A Christianson; Whitney A Cogswell; Gaurav Dave; Amit Verma; Sonja Eubanks; Vincent C Henrich Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.537
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
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Celia M T Greenwood; Cheryl Shuman; David Chitayat; K Joan Murphy; Barry Rosen; Susan Randall Armel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Nikola Panic; Emanuele Leoncini; Paolo Di Giannantonio; Benedetto Simone; Andrea Silenzi; Anna Maria Ferriero; Roberto Falvo; Giulia Silvestrini; Chiara Cadeddu; Carolina Marzuillo; Corrado De Vito; Walter Ricciardi; Paolo Villari; Stefania Boccia Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.411