Literature DB >> 27848942

Communicating microarray results of uncertain clinical significance in consultation summary letters and implications for practice.

Jean Lillian Paul1,2,3, Rachel Pope-Couston1,2,4, Samantha Wake1,2,5, Trent Burgess1,2,5, Tiong Yang Tan6,7,8.   

Abstract

Letter-writing is an integral practice for genetic health professionals. In Victoria, Australia, patients with a chromosomal variant of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) referred to a clinical geneticist (CG) for evaluation receive consultation summary letters. While communication of uncertainty has been explored in research to some extent, little has focused on how uncertainty is communicated within consultation letters. We aimed to develop a multi-layered understanding of the ways in which CGs communicate diagnostic uncertainty in consultation summary letters. We used theme-oriented discourse analysis of 49 consultation summary letters and thematic analysis of a focus group involving eight CGs. Results showed that CGs have become more confident in their description of VUS as 'contributing factors' to patients' clinical features, but remain hesitant to assign definitive causality. CGs displayed strong epistemic stance when discussing future technological improvements to provide hope and minimise potentially disappointing outcomes for patients and families. CGs reported feeling overwhelmed by their workload associated with increasing numbers of patients with VUS, and this has led to a reduction in the number of review appointments offered over time. This study provides a rich description of the content and process of summary letters discussing VUS. Our findings have implications for letter-writing and workforce management. Furthermore, these findings may be of relevance to VUS identified by genomic sequencing in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27848942      PMCID: PMC5159770          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  26 in total

1.  Discourse analysis: towards an understanding of its place in nursing.

Authors:  Marie Crowe
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.187

2.  The many meanings of uncertainty in illness: toward a systematic accounting.

Authors:  A S Babrow; C R Kasch; L A Ford
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  1998

3.  The value of written summaries of genetic consultations.

Authors:  N Hallowell; F Murton
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1998-09

4.  Uncertainty and perceived personal control among parents of children with rare chromosome conditions: the role of genetic counseling.

Authors:  Shawn E Lipinski; Michael J Lipinski; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2006-11-15       Impact factor: 3.908

Review 5.  Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies.

Authors:  David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families.

Authors:  M Reiff; K Ross; S Mulchandani; K J Propert; R E Pyeritz; N B Spinner; B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 4.438

7.  Modest impact on risk for autism spectrum disorder of rare copy number variants at 15q11.2, specifically breakpoints 1 to 2.

Authors:  Pauline Chaste; Stephan J Sanders; Kommu N Mohan; Lambertus Klei; Youeun Song; Michael T Murtha; Vanessa Hus; Jennifer K Lowe; A Jeremy Willsey; Daniel Moreno-De-Luca; Timothy W Yu; Eric Fombonne; Daniel Geschwind; Dorothy E Grice; David H Ledbetter; Catherine Lord; Shrikant M Mane; Donna M Martin; Eric M Morrow; Christopher A Walsh; James S Sutcliffe; Matthew W State; Christa Lese Martin; Bernie Devlin; Arthur L Beaudet; Edwin H Cook; Soo-Jeong Kim
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 5.216

8.  How useful are post consultation letters to patients?

Authors:  Nicola J Roberts; Martyn R Partridge
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Cytogenetic microarray in prenatal and postnatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Shubha Phadke
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 2.009

10.  "What does it mean?": uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Marian Reiff; Barbara A Bernhardt; Surabhi Mulchandani; Danielle Soucier; Diana Cornell; Reed E Pyeritz; Nancy B Spinner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.

Authors:  John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-05-13
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.