OBJECTIVE: To characterize important patterns of genetic testing behavior and reporting in modern electronic medical records (EMRs) at the institutional level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study using EMR data of all 10,715 patients who received genetic testing by physicians trained in a primary care specialty or subspecialty at an academic medical center between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010. RESULTS: Patients had a mean±SD age of 38.3±15.8 years (median 36.1, IQR 30.0-43.8). The proportion of female subjects in the study population was larger than in the general patient population (77.2% vs 55.0%, p<0.001) and they were younger than the male subjects in the study (36.5±13.2 vs 44.6±21.2 years, p<0.001). Approximately 1.1% of all patients received genetic testing. There were 942 physicians who ordered a total of 15,320 genetic tests. By volume, commonly tested genes involved mutations for cystic fibrosis (36.7%), prothrombin (13.7%), Tay-Sachs disease (6.7%), hereditary hemochromatosis (4.4%), and chronic myelogenous leukemia (4.1%). EMRs stored reports as free text with categorical descriptions of mutations and an average length of 269.4±153.2 words (median 242, IQR 146-401). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, genetic tests were often ordered by a diverse group of physicians for women of childbearing age being evaluated for diseases that may affect potential offspring. EMRs currently serve primarily as a storage warehouse for textual reports that could potentially be transformed into meaningful structured data for next-generation clinical decision support. Further studies are needed to address the design, development, and implementation of EMRs capable of managing the critical genetic health information challenges of the future.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize important patterns of genetic testing behavior and reporting in modern electronic medical records (EMRs) at the institutional level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study using EMR data of all 10,715 patients who received genetic testing by physicians trained in a primary care specialty or subspecialty at an academic medical center between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010. RESULTS:Patients had a mean±SD age of 38.3±15.8 years (median 36.1, IQR 30.0-43.8). The proportion of female subjects in the study population was larger than in the general patient population (77.2% vs 55.0%, p<0.001) and they were younger than the male subjects in the study (36.5±13.2 vs 44.6±21.2 years, p<0.001). Approximately 1.1% of all patients received genetic testing. There were 942 physicians who ordered a total of 15,320 genetic tests. By volume, commonly tested genes involved mutations for cystic fibrosis (36.7%), prothrombin (13.7%), Tay-Sachs disease (6.7%), hereditary hemochromatosis (4.4%), and chronic myelogenous leukemia (4.1%). EMRs stored reports as free text with categorical descriptions of mutations and an average length of 269.4±153.2 words (median 242, IQR 146-401). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, genetic tests were often ordered by a diverse group of physicians for women of childbearing age being evaluated for diseases that may affect potential offspring. EMRs currently serve primarily as a storage warehouse for textual reports that could potentially be transformed into meaningful structured data for next-generation clinical decision support. Further studies are needed to address the design, development, and implementation of EMRs capable of managing the critical genetic health information challenges of the future.
Authors: Euan A Ashley; Atul J Butte; Matthew T Wheeler; Rong Chen; Teri E Klein; Frederick E Dewey; Joel T Dudley; Kelly E Ormond; Aleksandra Pavlovic; Alexander A Morgan; Dmitry Pushkarev; Norma F Neff; Louanne Hudgins; Li Gong; Laura M Hodges; Dorit S Berlin; Caroline F Thorn; Katrin Sangkuhl; Joan M Hebert; Mark Woon; Hersh Sagreiya; Ryan Whaley; Joshua W Knowles; Michael F Chou; Joseph V Thakuria; Abraham M Rosenbaum; Alexander Wait Zaranek; George M Church; Henry T Greely; Stephen R Quake; Russ B Altman Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kelly E Ormond; Matthew T Wheeler; Louanne Hudgins; Teri E Klein; Atul J Butte; Russ B Altman; Euan A Ashley; Henry T Greely Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Cecelia A Bellcross; Katherine Kolor; Katrina A B Goddard; Ralph J Coates; Michele Reyes; Muin J Khoury Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Muin J Khoury; Colleen M McBride; Sheri D Schully; John P A Ioannidis; W Gregory Feero; A Cecile J W Janssens; Marta Gwinn; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jay M Bernhardt; Michele Cargill; Stephen J Chanock; George M Church; Ralph J Coates; Francis S Collins; Robert T Croyle; Barry R Davis; Gregory J Downing; Amy Duross; Susan Friedman; Mitchell H Gail; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Robert C Green; Mark H Greene; Philip Greenland; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Andro Hsu; Kathy L Hudson; Sharon L R Kardia; Paul L Kimmel; Michael S Lauer; Amy M Miller; Kenneth Offit; David F Ransohoff; J Scott Roberts; Rebekah S Rasooly; Kari Stefansson; Sharon F Terry; Steven M Teutsch; Angela Trepanier; Kay L Wanke; John S Witte; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Matthew J Rioth; David B Staggs; Lauren Hackett; Erich Haberman; Mike Tod; Mia Levy; Jeremy Warner Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 3.840