PURPOSE: Increased implementation of complex genetic technologies in clinical practice emphasizes the urgency of genomic literacy and proficiency for medical professionals. We evaluated our genomic education model. METHODS: We assessed the 5-day, extended format program, encompassing lectures, videos, interactive tests, practice cases, and clinical exercises. Pre- and post questionnaires assessed knowledge change, using t-tests to compare groups. Satisfaction on program completion and after 3 years were evaluated. Implementation in other centers determined acceptability. RESULTS: During 2012-2018, 774 clinicians from multiple disciplines and career stages attended 35 programs; 334 (43%) attended the 5-day extended format. Evaluations showed significant improvement of genomic literacy (mean 15.05/100 points, p < 0.001). Residents initially had higher scores than specialists (pre: 66.3 ± 17.3 vs. 58.7 ± 16.6, respectively, p = 0.002); both significantly improved, with specialists "catching up" (post: 79.1 ± 17.2 vs. 75.7 ± 15.9, nonsignificant (NS)); there was a similar trend between fellows and subspecialists (pre: 70 ± 18 vs. 59.4 ± 16.4, respectively, p = 0.007; post: 78.6 ± 16.4 vs. 73.2 ± 17.7, respectively, NS). Younger specialists (≤10 years residency) had significantly higher pre- and post scores. Absolute improvement in scores did not depend on medical specialties. CONCLUSION: Our program is effective in improving genomics literacy for clinicians, irrespective of career length or expertise, and could be a model for improving skills in practical genomics for all medical professionals.
PURPOSE: Increased implementation of complex genetic technologies in clinical practice emphasizes the urgency of genomic literacy and proficiency for medical professionals. We evaluated our genomic education model. METHODS: We assessed the 5-day, extended format program, encompassing lectures, videos, interactive tests, practice cases, and clinical exercises. Pre- and post questionnaires assessed knowledge change, using t-tests to compare groups. Satisfaction on program completion and after 3 years were evaluated. Implementation in other centers determined acceptability. RESULTS: During 2012-2018, 774 clinicians from multiple disciplines and career stages attended 35 programs; 334 (43%) attended the 5-day extended format. Evaluations showed significant improvement of genomic literacy (mean 15.05/100 points, p < 0.001). Residents initially had higher scores than specialists (pre: 66.3 ± 17.3 vs. 58.7 ± 16.6, respectively, p = 0.002); both significantly improved, with specialists "catching up" (post: 79.1 ± 17.2 vs. 75.7 ± 15.9, nonsignificant (NS)); there was a similar trend between fellows and subspecialists (pre: 70 ± 18 vs. 59.4 ± 16.4, respectively, p = 0.007; post: 78.6 ± 16.4 vs. 73.2 ± 17.7, respectively, NS). Younger specialists (≤10 years residency) had significantly higher pre- and post scores. Absolute improvement in scores did not depend on medical specialties. CONCLUSION: Our program is effective in improving genomics literacy for clinicians, irrespective of career length or expertise, and could be a model for improving skills in practical genomics for all medical professionals.