Embedding genomics across the NHS: a primary care perspective.

Primary care remains the point of access to the NHS as well as having key roles in care coordination and prescribing. Therefore, embedding of genomic medicine in the NHS relies on successful implementation into the primary care landscape. Primary care is currently facing considerable challenges, including increasing numbers of patients and consultations per GP, multiple health conditions and polypharmacy, all contributing to increasing workload within a resource-constrained system. Although genomic medicine has enormous potential to benefit patients, its successful implementation demands alignment with existing skills and working practices, development of underpinning informatics infrastructure, integration into care pathways with consideration of commissioning and leadership. Here, we set out current initiatives and future strategies to support primary care colleagues in the delivery of genomic medicine, covering issues of workforce development and education, primary care leadership, and data and digital considerations.

Genomic health data generation in the UK: a 360 view.

In the UK, genomic health data is being generated in three major contexts: the healthcare system (based on clinical indication), in large scale research programmes, and for purchasers of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. The recently delivered hybrid clinical/research programme, 100,000 Genomes Project set the scene for a new Genomic Medicine Service, through which the National Health Service aims to deliver consistent and equitable care informed by genomics, while providing data to inform academic and industry research and development. In parallel, a large scale research study, Our Future Health, has UK Government and Industry investment and aims to recruit 5 million volunteers to support research intended to improve early detection, risk stratification, and early intervention for chronic diseases. To explore how current models of genomic health data generation intersect, and to understand clinical, ethical, legal, policy and social issues arising from this intersection, we conducted a series of five multidisciplinary panel discussions attended by 28 invited stakeholders. Meetings were recorded and transcribed. We present a summary of issues identified: genomic test attributes; reasons for generating genomic health data; individuals' motivation to seek genomic data; health service impacts; role of genetic counseling; equity; data uses and security; consent; governance and regulation. We conclude with some suggestions for policy consideration.

Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models.

The application of pharmacogenomics could meaningfully contribute toward medicines optimization within primary care. This review identified 13 studies describing eight implementation models utilizing a multi-gene pharmacogenomic panel within a primary care or community setting. These were small feasibility studies (n <200). They demonstrated importance and feasibility of pre-test counseling, the role of the pharmacist, data integration into the electronic medical record and point-of-care clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Findings were considered alongside existing primary care prescribing practices and implementation frameworks to demonstrate how issues may be addressed by existing nationalized healthcare and primary care infrastructure. Development of point-of-care CDSS should be prioritized; establishing clinical leadership, education programs, defining practitioner roles and responsibilities and addressing commissioning issues will also be crucial.

Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced reorganization of clinical services to minimize face-to-face contact between patients and health-care providers. Specialist services, including clinical genetics, must consider methods of remote delivery including videoconferencing-termed telegenetics. This review evaluates the evidence for telegenetics and its applicability to future service development. METHODS: A systematic review of six databases was conducted to identify studies from 2005 onward using synchronous videoconferencing to deliver clinical genetics services. Included studies compared telegenetics to an alternative method or used a before and after design. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (eight compared telegenetics to in-person consultations and three to telephone delivery). Patient satisfaction, genetic knowledge, and psychosocial outcomes were similar for in-person and telegenetic counseling. There was some evidence that telegenetics may be superior to telephone delivery for knowledge gain and reduction in anxiety and depression. There is limited evidence concerning the effect of telegenetics on provider satisfaction and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions are limited by at least moderate risk of bias in all evaluated studies and small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: Across most outcomes measured, telegenetics had equivalent outcomes to in-person appointment; however, the extent to which the available evidence is applicable to longer-term use is debatable.

Primary care professionals' perceptions of using a short family history questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Improving access for relatives at-risk of genetic conditions by building referral systems from primary care to genetic services is well recognised. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore primary care professionals' (PCPs) views about using a short, seven-item family history questionnaire (S-FHQ) as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives of patients with a genetic condition in routine primary care for referral to genetic services. METHOD: This qualitative study was conducted in the UK in 2013-14. Focus groups were held with 21 PCPs. The normalisation process theory (NPT) was used during analysis as the theoretical lens for exploring potential implementation and sustainability of the intervention. RESULTS: In principle, participants were supportive of the S-FHQ. They initially expressed enthusiasm for the S-FHQ and identified benefits of its use. However, in discussions about its use in practice, they raised concerns about their expertise to deliver the intervention, implications for their workload, potential duplication with existing roles and services in secondary care, the ethical implications of its use in routine care and its acceptability to patients. CONCLUSION: This study shows why even a short family history questionnaire, as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives, is unlikely to be implemented by primary care professionals.