Monica H Wojcik1, Maya C Del Rosario2, Pankaj B Agrawal3. 1. Division of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children' Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Genetics & Genomics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; The Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: monica.wojcik@childrens.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children' Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Genetics & Genomics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Division of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children' Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Genetics & Genomics, Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; The Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: pankaj.agrawal@enders.tch.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Genetic disorders often present in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and detecting or confirming these diagnoses has been shown to impact care. However, the availability and use of genetic testing, particularly exome or genome sequencing, among NICUs varies widely. We therefore sought to investigate practice patterns related to genetic testing in NICUs around the country to identify and quantify potential discrepancies. METHODS: We designed a survey that was distributed to neonatologists via email. The survey contained questions related to test availability and desirability, the process of test ordering in NICU, and general comfort with ordering and interpreting genetic testing. Demographic data related to the survey participants and characteristics of their NICU were also obtained. RESULTS: In total, 162 neonatologists completed the survey, representing 40 states and 112 distinct NICUs. Although nearly all (93.2%) neonatologists attributed a high level of importance to identifying a genetic diagnosis for their patients, genetic consultations were only available at 78% of NICUs and exome or genome sequencing was not available on a regular basis (69% of NICUs). CONCLUSION: Although, among US neonatologists surveyed, most feel that genetic tests are indicated for their patients, these are not always clinically available. Further research into implementation barriers is warranted.
PURPOSE: Genetic disorders often present in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and detecting or confirming these diagnoses has been shown to impact care. However, the availability and use of genetic testing, particularly exome or genome sequencing, among NICUs varies widely. We therefore sought to investigate practice patterns related to genetic testing in NICUs around the country to identify and quantify potential discrepancies. METHODS: We designed a survey that was distributed to neonatologists via email. The survey contained questions related to test availability and desirability, the process of test ordering in NICU, and general comfort with ordering and interpreting genetic testing. Demographic data related to the survey participants and characteristics of their NICU were also obtained. RESULTS: In total, 162 neonatologists completed the survey, representing 40 states and 112 distinct NICUs. Although nearly all (93.2%) neonatologists attributed a high level of importance to identifying a genetic diagnosis for their patients, genetic consultations were only available at 78% of NICUs and exome or genome sequencing was not available on a regular basis (69% of NICUs). CONCLUSION: Although, among US neonatologists surveyed, most feel that genetic tests are indicated for their patients, these are not always clinically available. Further research into implementation barriers is warranted.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Natalie B Tan; Tiong Yang Tan; Melissa M Martyn; Ravi Savarirayan; David J Amor; Amanda Moody; Susan M White; Zornitza Stark Journal: J Paediatr Child Health Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 1.954
Authors: Kayleigh A Swaggart; Daniel T Swarr; Leandra K Tolusso; Hua He; D Brian Dawson; Kristen R Suhrie Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Monica H Wojcik; Talia S Schwartz; Katri E Thiele; Heather Paterson; Rachel Stadelmaier; Thomas E Mullen; Grace E VanNoy; Casie A Genetti; Jill A Madden; Cynthia S Gubbels; Timothy W Yu; Wen-Hann Tan; Pankaj B Agrawal Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Grace E VanNoy; Jill A Madden; Pankaj B Agrawal; Timothy W Yu; Cynthia S Gubbels; Deborah Copenheaver; Sandra Yang; Monica H Wojcik; Nina B Gold; Casie A Genetti; Joan Stoler; Richard B Parad; Sergei Roumiantsev; Olaf Bodamer; Alan H Beggs; Jane Juusola Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: David P Dimmock; Michelle M Clark; Mary Gaughran; Julie A Cakici; Sara A Caylor; Christina Clarke; Michele Feddock; Shimul Chowdhury; Lisa Salz; Cynthia Cheung; Lynne M Bird; Charlotte Hobbs; Kristen Wigby; Lauge Farnaes; Cinnamon S Bloss; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Jan M Friedman; Yvonne Bombard; Martina C Cornel; Conrad V Fernandez; Anne K Junker; Sharon E Plon; Zornitza Stark; Bartha Maria Knoppers Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 8.822