OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate an electronic referral form to increase referral for genetic risk assessment of women with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A form summarizing referral for genetic counseling for women with ovarian cancer was introduced into the electronic medical record allowing gynecologic oncologists to electronically submit a request for genetic services. Analysis compared patient and provider characteristics for women newly diagnosed with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer referred 1 year before and after introducing the form. All patients were seen in a single fee-for-service university-based cancer center clinic. RESULTS: There were 86 newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients seen before and 83 seen after the introduction of the electronic referral form. Most lived in the metropolitan area and had stage III to IV disease, serous histology, a documented family history, and a treating oncologist who was less than 10 years from completion of fellowship. Postintervention referral rates increased from 17% to 30% (P = 0.053). Factors best predicting referral were whether the patient was seen after the intervention (P = 0.009), resided in the metropolitan area (P = 0.006), and had been identified as at high hereditary risk (P < 0.0001). Sixty percent of the referred patients participated in counseling. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the referred patients before and after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Referral rates increased with the introduction of an electronic medical record referral form suggesting that streamlining the physician referral process might be effective at increasing referrals for cancer genetic risk assessment.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate an electronic referral form to increase referral for genetic risk assessment of women with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A form summarizing referral for genetic counseling for women with ovarian cancer was introduced into the electronic medical record allowing gynecologic oncologists to electronically submit a request for genetic services. Analysis compared patient and provider characteristics for women newly diagnosed with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer referred 1 year before and after introducing the form. All patients were seen in a single fee-for-service university-based cancer center clinic. RESULTS: There were 86 newly diagnosed ovarian cancerpatients seen before and 83 seen after the introduction of the electronic referral form. Most lived in the metropolitan area and had stage III to IV disease, serous histology, a documented family history, and a treating oncologist who was less than 10 years from completion of fellowship. Postintervention referral rates increased from 17% to 30% (P = 0.053). Factors best predicting referral were whether the patient was seen after the intervention (P = 0.009), resided in the metropolitan area (P = 0.006), and had been identified as at high hereditary risk (P < 0.0001). Sixty percent of the referred patients participated in counseling. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of the referred patients before and after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Referral rates increased with the introduction of an electronic medical record referral form suggesting that streamlining the physician referral process might be effective at increasing referrals for cancer genetic risk assessment.
Authors: Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Ming K Lee; Christopher C Pennil; Alex S Nord; Anne M Thornton; Wendy Roeb; Kathy J Agnew; Sunday M Stray; Anneka Wickramanayake; Barbara Norquist; Kathryn P Pennington; Rochelle L Garcia; Mary-Claire King; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: B Meiser; M Gleeson; N Kasparian; K Barlow-Stewart; M Ryan; K Watts; D Menon; G Mitchell; K Tucker Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Akiva P Novetsky; Kylie Smith; Sheri A Babb; Donna B Jeffe; Andrea R Hagemann; Premal H Thaker; Matthew A Powell; David G Mutch; L Stewart Massad; Israel Zighelboim Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Charlotte C Sun; Bethsaida Camacho; John Terrell; Alyssa G Rieber; Lois M Ramondetta; Ralph S Freedman; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Michael T Walsh; Ellen Baker; Kimberly I Muse; Holly D Oakley; Rebekah C Krukenberg; Cara S Dresbold; Sandra B Jenkinson; Amanda L Eppolito; Kelly B Teed; Molly H Klein; Nichole A Morman; Elizabeth C Bowdish; Pauline Russ; Emaline E Wise; Julia N Cooper; Michael W Method; John W Henson; Andrew V Grainger; Banu K Arun; Karen H Lu Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Agnes Sebastian; June C Carroll; Leslie E Oldfield; Chloe Mighton; Salma Shickh; Elizabeth Uleryk; Yvonne Bombard Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sarah M Temkin; Matthew P Smeltzer; Monique D Dawkins; Leigh M Boehmer; Leigha Senter; Destin R Black; Stephanie V Blank; Anna Yemelyanova; Anthony M Magliocco; Mollie A Finkel; Tracy E Moore; Premal H Thaker Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Lori A Orlando; R Ryanne Wu; Rachel A Myers; Adam H Buchanan; Vincent C Henrich; Elizabeth R Hauser; Geoffrey S Ginsburg Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 8.822