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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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