Literature DB >> 23222660

Effective communication of molecular genetic test results to primary care providers.

Maren T Scheuner1, Maria Orlando Edelen, Lee H Hilborne, Ira M Lubin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated a template for molecular genetic test reports that was developed as a strategy to reduce communication errors between the laboratory and ordering clinician.
METHODS: We surveyed 1,600 primary care physicians to assess satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness of genetic test reports developed using our template and reports developed by clinical laboratories. Mean score differences of responses between the reports were compared using t-tests. Two-way analysis of variance evaluated the effect of template versus standard reports and the influence of physician characteristics.
RESULTS: There were 396 (24%) respondents. Template reports had higher scores than the standard reports for each survey item. The gender and specialty of the physician did not influence scores; however, younger physicians gave higher scores regardless of report type. There was significant interaction between report type and whether physicians ordered or reviewed any genetic tests (none versus at least one) in the past year, P = 0.005.
CONCLUSION: For each survey item assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness, physicians gave higher ratings to genetic test reports developed with the template than standard reports used by clinical laboratories. Physicians least familiar with genetic test reports, and possibly having the greatest need for better communication, were best served by the template reports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23222660     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.151

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  12 in total

1.  Refining the structure and content of clinical genomic reports.

Authors:  Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Brian H Shirts; Lesli Kiedrowski; Joseph Salama; Adam S Gordon; Stephanie M Fullerton; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Peter H Byers; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 3.908

2.  How Primary Care Providers Talk to Patients about Genome Sequencing Results: Risk, Rationale, and Recommendation.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; J Kelly Davis; Christine Kirby; Ian J Richardson; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Molecular pathology testing for non-small cell lung cancer: an observational study of elements currently present in request forms and result reports and the opinion of different stakeholders.

Authors:  Kelly Dufraing; Kaat Van Casteren; Joke Breyne; Nicky D'Haene; Claude Van Campenhout; Sara Vander Borght; Karen Zwaenepoel; Etienne Rouleau; Ed Schuuring; Jan von der Thüsen; Elisabeth Dequeker
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Development of a clinical polygenic risk score assay and reporting workflow.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Matthew S Lebo; Limin Hao; Peter Kraft; Gabriel F Berriz; Elizabeth D Hynes; Christopher Koch; Prathik Korategere V Kumar; Shruti S Parpattedar; Marcie Steeves; Wanfeng Yu; Ashley A Antwi; Charles A Brunette; Morgan Danowski; Manish K Gala; Robert C Green; Natalie E Jones; Anna C F Lewis; Steven A Lubitz; Pradeep Natarajan
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 87.241

5.  Enhancing genomic laboratory reports from the patients' view: A qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Heather Stuckey; Janet L Williams; Audrey L Fan; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Jamie Green; Lynn Feldman; Michele Bonhag; Doris T Zallen; Michael M Segal; Marc S Williams
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Interactive or static reports to guide clinical interpretation of cancer genomics.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Jeffrey Gagan; Ethan Cerami; Angel M Cronin; Hajime Uno; Nelly Oliver; Carol Lowenstein; Ruth Lederman; Anna Revette; Aaron Suarez; Charlotte Lee; Jordan Bryan; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  A comparison of genomic laboratory reports and observations that may enhance their clinical utility for providers and patients.

Authors:  Kyle Walter Davis; Lori Hamby Erby; Katie Fiallos; Megan Martin; Edward Robert Wassman
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.183

Review 8.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records.

Authors:  Ribhi Hazin; Kyle B Brothers; Bradley A Malin; Barbara A Koenig; Saskia C Sanderson; Mark A Rothstein; Marc S Williams; Ellen W Clayton; Iftikhar J Kullo
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.

Authors:  Maren T Scheuner; Jane Peredo; Kelly Tangney; Diane Schoeff; Taylor Sale; Caroline Lubick-Goldzweig; Alison Hamilton; Lee Hilborne; Martin Lee; Brian Mittman; Elizabeth M Yano; Ira M Lubin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Enhancing genomic laboratory reports: A qualitative analysis of provider review.

Authors:  Janet L Williams; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Heather Stuckey; Jamie Green; Lynn Feldman; Doris T Zallen; Michele Bonhag; Michael M Segal; Audrey L Fan; Marc S Williams
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 2.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.