Genetic Health Professionals Research Articles

Reanalysis of genomic data in rare disease: current practice and attitudes among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services.

Reanalyzing stored genomic data over time is highly effective in increasing diagnostic yield in rare disease. Automation holds the promise of delivering the benefits of reanalysis at scale. Our study aimed to understand current reanalysis practices among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services and explore attitudes towards large-scale automated re-analysis. We collected audit data regarding testing and reanalysis volumes, policies and procedures from all Australian diagnostic laboratories providing rare disease genomic testing. A genetic health professionals' survey explored current practices, barriers to reanalysis, preferences and attitudes towards automation. Between 2018 and 2021, Australian diagnostic laboratories performed over 25,000 new genomic tests and 950 reanalyses, predominantly in response to clinician requests. Laboratory and clinical genetic health professionals (N = 134) identified workforce capacity as the principal barrier to reanalysis. No specific laboratory or clinical guidelines for genomic data reanalysis or policies were identified nationally. Perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of automating reanalysis were positive, with professionals emphasizing clinical and workflow benefits. In conclusion, there is a large and rapidly growing unmet need for reanalysis of existing genomic data. Beyond developing scalable automated reanalysis pipelines, leadership and policy are needed to successfully transform service delivery models and maximize clinical benefit.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Predictive and Presymptomatic Genetic Testing in Adults and Children.

This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity.Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

'Something that helped the whole picture': Experiences of parents offered rapid prenatal exome sequencing in routine clinical care in the English National Health Service.

In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England. This study aimed to explore parent experiences and their information and support needs from the perspective of parents offered pES and of health professionals involved in its delivery. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 women and 6 male partners and 63 fetal medicine and genetic health professionals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Overall views about pES were positive and parents were grateful to be offered the test. Highlighted benefits of pES included the value of the additional information for pregnancy management and planning for future pregnancies. An anxious wait for results was common, often associated with the need to make decisions near to 24weeks in pregnancy when there are legal restrictions for late termination. Descriptions of dealing with uncertainty were also common, even when results had been returned. Many parents described pES results as informing decision-making around whether or not to terminate pregnancy. Some professionals were concerned that a non-informative result could be overly reassuring and highlighted that careful counselling was needed to ensure parents have a good understanding of what the result means for their pregnancy. Emotional support from professionals was valued; however, some parents felt that post-test support was lacking. Parents and professionals welcomed the introduction of pES. Results inform parents' decision-making around the termination of pregnancy. When there are no diagnostic findings or uncertain findings from pES, personalised counselling that considers scans and other tests are crucial. Directing parents to reliable online sources of information and providing emotional support throughout could improve their experiences of care.

Systematic review of the uptake and outcomes from returning secondary findings to adult participants in research genomic testing.

The increasing use of genomic sequencing in research means secondary findings (SF) is more frequently detected and becoming a more pressing issue for researchers. This is reflected by the recent publication of multiple guidelines on this issue, calling for researchers to have a plan for managing SF prior to commencing their research. A deeper understanding of participants' experiences and outcomes from receiving SF is needed to ensure that the return of SF is conducted ethically and with adequate support. This review focuses on the uptake and outcomes of receiving actionable SF for research participants. This review included studies from January 2010 to January 2023. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Of the 3903 studies identified, 29 were included in the analysis. The uptake of SF ranged between 20% and 97%, and outcomes were categorized into psychological, clinical, lifestyle and behavioral, and family outcomes. The results indicate there is minimal psychological impact from receiving SF. Almost all participants greatly valued receiving SF. These findings highlight considerations for researchers when returning results, including the importance of involving genetic health professionals in consenting, results return process, and ensuring continuity of care by engaging healthcare providers.

A survey of genetic and palliative care health professionals’ views of integrating genetics into palliative care

Genetic counselling and testing have utility for people with palliative care needs and their families. However, genetic and palliative care health professionals have described difficulties initiating palliative-genetic discussions. Between March and July 2022, we received n = 73 surveys (6% response rate) from genetic and palliative care health professionals in Australia and New Zealand that assessed and compared barriers and facilitators. The main perceived barrier to both groups was palliative care health professionals’ lack of genetic knowledge (44%). Most palliative care health professionals were ‘not at all confident’ performing several activities, including discussing DNA banking (52%) and knowing their legal responsibilities when sharing genetic information (58%). The most frequently selected facilitator for genetic health professionals was fostering close relationships with palliative care health professionals (52%), while palliative care health professionals indicated a genetic referral template (51%) would be of assistance. Almost all participants agreed genetic discussions do not undermine the central ethos of palliative care (87%). Fewer palliative care health professionals considered themselves well situated to have genetic discussions with a palliative patient’s family compared to genetic health professionals (p = 0.014). Our results suggest that genetic and palliative care health professionals support integrating genetics into palliative care, although refinement of the palliative care health professionals’ role in this process is required. We have identified intervention targets to overcome barriers related to knowledge and confidence, which ought to be integrated into future interventions designed to support health professionals deliver the benefits of genetic information to people with palliative care needs and their families.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol

IntroductionAs routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many...

Intensive Care Clinicians' Perspectives on Ethical Challenges Raised by Rapid Genomic Testing in Critically Ill Infants.

Rapid genomic testing (rGT) enables genomic information to be available in a matter of hours, allowing it to be used in time-critical settings, such as intensive care units. Although rGT has been shown to improve diagnostic rates in a cost-effective manner, it raises ethical questions around a range of different areas, including obtaining consent and clinical decision-making. While some research has examined the perspectives of parents and genetics health professionals, the attitudes of intensive care clinicians remain under-explored. To address this gap, we administered an online survey to English-speaking neonatal/paediatric intensivists in Europe, Australasia and North America. We posed two ethical scenarios: one relating to obtaining consent from the parents and the second assessing decision-making regarding the provision of life-sustaining treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. We received 40 responses from 12 countries. About 50-75% of intensivists felt that explicit parental consent was necessary for rGT. About 68-95% felt that a diagnosis from rGT should affect the provision of life-sustaining care. Results were mediated by intensivists' level of experience. Our findings show divergent attitudes toward ethical issues generated by rGT among intensivists and suggest the need for guidance regarding ethical decision-making for rGT.

A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome.

"Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing. A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies. The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model. The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Genetic Carrier Testing for Recessive Conditions.

This Position Statement provides guidelines to assist all health professionals who receive requests for carrier testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests.In this Statement, the term 'carrier testing' refers to genetic testing in an individual to determine whether they have inherited a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal or X-linked recessive condition previously identified in a blood relative. Carrier testing recommendations: (1) Carrier testing should only be performed with the individual's knowledge and consent; (2) An individual considering (for themselves, or on behalf of another) whether to have a carrier test should be supported to make an informed decision; (3) The mode of inheritance, the individual's personal experience with the condition, and the healthcare setting in which the test is being performed should be considered when determining whether carrier testing should be offered by a genetic health professional. Regarding children and young people: Unless there is direct medical benefit in the immediate future, the default position should be to postpone carrier testing until the child or young person can be supported to make an informed decision. There may be some specific situations where it is appropriate to facilitate carrier testing in children and young people (see section in this article). In such cases, testing should only be offered with pre- and post-test genetic counseling in which genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should explore the rationale for testing and the interests of the child and the family.

General practitioners’ (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

ObjectiveThe proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in...

Co-design, implementation, and evaluation of plain language genomic test reports

Understanding and communicating genomic results can be challenging for families and health professionals without genetic specialty training. Unlike modifying existing laboratory reports, plain language genomic test reports provide an opportunity for patient/family-centered approaches. However, emerging examples generally lack co-design and/or evaluation in real-world settings. Through co-design involving patient groups, plain language experts, educators, and genetic health professionals, plain language genomic test report templates were produced for common test outcomes in rare diseases. Eight plain language genomic test report templates were developed. These reports were piloted and evaluated as part of a national pediatric ultra-rapid genomic testing program. Family and genetic health professional experiences with report layout, content, and use were explored using surveys. Of 154 families and 107 genetic health professionals issued with reports, 51 families and 57 clinicians responded (RR = 33% and 53%, respectively). Most families (82%) found their report helpful in understanding the result. Reports were shared by 63% of families, predominantly with family members (72%), or health professionals (68%). Clinicians (15%) adapted the reports for other settings. Through co-design, plain language genomic test reports implemented in a real-world setting can facilitate patient/family and caregiver understanding and communication of genomic test purpose, outcome, and potential clinical implications.

Approaching discussions about genetics with palliative patients and their families: a qualitative exploration with genetic health professionals

Genetic information can provide clinical benefits to families of palliative patients. However, integration of genetics into mainstream medicine has not focused on palliative populations. We explored the views and experiences of genetic health professionals in addressing genetics with palliative patients, and their families. We conducted an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists using interviews and focus groups. Findings were generated using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (1) Focusing on the benefit to the family, (2) The discomfort of addressing genetics near end-of-life and (3) “It’s always on the back-burner”: Challenges to getting genetics on the palliative care agenda. Participants discussed the familial benefit of genetics in palliative care alongside the challenges when patients are near end-of-life. They perceived genetics as low priority for palliative care due to misunderstandings related to the value of genetic information. Acknowledging the challenges in the palliative care context, genetic health professionals want improved service leadership and awareness of the familial benefits of palliative genetic testing. Strong leadership to support genetic health professionals in addressing these barriers is needed for the benefits of genetic information to be realised.

The Perspectives of Health Professionals on Neonatal Genetic Screening

Background: After completing the human genome, the project has created opportunities to improve the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of disease. However, the limitations in health professionals (HPs), genetic knowledge, technological resources, and a lack of scientific research prevent global genetic screening from being addressed. Objectives: The objective is to evaluate HPs’ knowledge, attitude, and future outlook toward neonatal genetic screening. Methods: The study was carried out in a cross-sectional survey. A simple random sampling technique was used to select health centers and healthcare professionals. Questionnaires were used to assess HPs knowledge, attitude, and future perspectives towards genetic disease screening. Results: Among the total of 384 HPs, 79.7% and 20.3% had good and poor knowledge on the basic idea of genetic screening, respectively. Similarly, 92.4% and 7.6% of HPs had good and poor knowledge, respectively, on the parental history of genetic disease. Besides, 68.8% and 31.3% of HPs had good and poor knowledge on the possibility of treating genetic diseases. Lastly, 81.3% and 18.5% of HPs had a positive and negative attitude towards genetic screening. Conclusion: The majority of HPs had good genetic knowledge and a positive attitude on the basic idea of genetic screening, parental history, and the possibility of treating genetic disease, respectively. However, the practice of genetic screening is not yet addressed in Ethiopia. Genetic HPs and nongenetic HPs have to encourage the concerned bodies, including the governmental system, to implement genetic screening in Ethiopia.

Toward genetic counseling practice standards for diagnostic testing in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia

Objective: Genetic counseling and diagnostic genetic testing are considered part of the multidisciplinary care of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). We aimed to investigate the ideal components of genetic counseling for ALS/FTD diagnostic testing amongst various stakeholders using an online, modified Delphi survey. Methods: Experts in genetic counseling and testing for ALS/FTD were purposively then snowball recruited and included genetic health professionals, health professionals outside of genetics and consumer experts (patients, relatives, and staff representatives from ALS/FTD support organizations). First-round items were informed by two systematic literature reviews and qualitative interviews with patients and families who had experienced diagnostic testing. Analysis of each round informed the development of the subsequent round and the final results. Results: Forty-six experts participated in the study, 95.65% completed both rounds. After round one, items were updated based on participant responses and were presented again for consensus in round two. After round two, a high level of consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 16 items covering various topics related to genetic counseling service delivery, before and after diagnostic testing is facilitated. Conclusions: Genetic counseling for individuals with ALS/FTD and their families should include the provision of client-centered counseling, education and support throughout. The items developed are adaptable to varied healthcare settings and may inform a standard of genetic counseling practice for health professionals who facilitate testing and counseling discussions. This area of work is timely, given demand for testing is likely to increase as more genotype-driven clinical trials become available.

Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals.

The issue of recontacting past genetics patients is increasingly relevant, particularly with the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Improved testing can provide additional information on the pathogenicity and prevalence of genetic variants, often leading to a need to recontact patients. Some international genetics societies have position statements and recommendations to guide genetic health professionals (GHPs) navigating the legal, ethical and practical issues of recontacting. In the absence of a standardised Australasian protocol, we explored the experiences and opinions of Australasian GHPs regarding patient follow-up and recontacting practices. Forty-five respondents completed an online survey. Most respondents indicated that recontacting occurred on an ad hoc basis, but most genetic services relied on patients (or family) initiating recontact. Implementation of a routine recontacting system was widely dismissed by 73% of respondents, citing lack of resources, limited information on legal responsibility and setting unrealistic expectations as common barriers. If recontact was contemplated, e-communication was an acceptable first step. This study identified the need for integrated familial cancer registries to assist under-resourced genetic services to maintain up-to-date patient records. Developing a standard recontacting protocol with flexibility to account for patient individuality and circumstances might enable provision of equitable service within Australasia.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals’ views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium

BackgroundIn 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies...

Far and wide: Exploring provider utilization of remote service provision for genome-wide sequencing in Canada.

BackgroundIn Canada, funding for genome‐wide sequencing (GWS; exome and whole genome) is provincially regulated. We characterized the uptake of GWS by genetics health professionals (GHPs) across Canada and describe how they use remote technologies for patient access to GWS and genomic counseling.MethodsWe distributed a survey to 574 Canadian GHPs addressing: GWS use, remote technologies (e.g., telephone, videoconferencing) for GWS and provider opinions regarding these technologies. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Associations between variables were evaluated using Chi‐square and Fisher's Exact tests for categorical data, and t‐tests or Mann–Whitney U tests for continuous data.ResultsOf 116 GHPs, 50% reported using GWS in the last year and 57% of GWS users reported using remote technologies. Clinical geneticists who did not use GWS reported lack of provincial funding as the principal reason. Remote technologies were most commonly used for informed consent and results, and rarely used for initial consultations. Average wait times for a GWS appointment were shorter for remote appointments (mean 44.2 (SD 40.2) weeks) than for in‐person (mean 58.2 (SD 42.9), p = 0.036).ConclusionThe use of GWS varied across Canada, professional designation, and discipline. Funding remains a barrier to GWS access. Remote technologies increase patient access with reduced wait times.

Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals.

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs.

Knowledge, views and expectations for cancer polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of health professionals.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

Creation and Worldwide Utilisation of New COVID-19 Online Information Hub for Genetics Health Professionals, Patients and Families.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has unfortunately resulted in many significant concerns for individuals with genetic disorders and their relatives, regarding the viral infection and, particularly, its specific implications and additional advisable precautions for individuals affected by genetic disorders. To address this, the resulting requirement for guidance and information for the public and for genetics professionals was discussed among colleagues nationally, on the ScotGEN Steering Committee, and internationally on the Education Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG). It was agreed that the creation of an online hub of genetics-related COVID-19 information resources would be particularly helpful. The proposed content, divided into a web page for professionals and a page for patients, was discussed with, and approved by, genetics professionals. The hub was created and provided online at www.scotgen.org.uk and linked from the ESHG’s educational website for genetics and genomics, at www.eurogems.org. The new hub provides links, summary information and representative illustrations for a wide range of selected international resources. The resources for professionals include: COVID-19 research related hubs provided by Nature, Science, Frontiers, and PubMed; clinical guidelines; the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; the World Health Organisation; and molecular data sources including coronavirus 3D protein structures. The resources for patients and families include links to many accessible sources of support and relevant information. Since the launch of the pages, the website has received visits from over 50 countries worldwide. Several genetics consultants have commented on usefulness, clarity, readability, and ease of navigation. Visits have originated most frequently in the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Hong Kong, Moldova, United States, Philippines, France, and Qatar. More links have been added since the launch of the hub to include additional international public health and academic resources. In conclusion, an up-to-date online hub has been created and made freely available for healthcare professionals, patients, relatives and the public, providing categorised easily navigated links to a range of worldwide resources related to COVID-19. These pages are receiving a rapidly growing number of return visits and the authors continue to maintain and update the pages’ content, incorporating new developments in this field of enormous worldwide importance.