Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: With few trained genetics professionals, the Military Health System is ill-equipped to manage the rapid expansion of genomic medicine. The MilSeq Project introduces an alternative service delivery model (ASDM) in which primary health-care providers (HCPs) provide post-test counseling (PTC) to healthy Airmen who have undergone exome sequencing. We describe HCP performance after a prerequisite educational intervention (EI). METHODS: After a brief EI and pre-/posteducation surveys, HCPs were eligible to provide PTC with a genetic counselor available for consult. PTC was recorded, transcribed, and reviewed. Opportunities for improvement were organized into four error adjustment categories: (1) knowledge limitation, (2) minor, (3) moderate, and (4) critical. Thematic analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Pre-/posteducation survey responses revealed statistically significant improvements in all domains. Minor error adjustments were most represented (n = 93), followed by knowledge limitation (n = 39) and moderate (n = 19). No critical errors were identified, and 17 transcripts required no adjustment. Thematic analysis revealed four themes that would benefit from more focused education: (1) family-centered care, (2) conveying risk, (3) disease knowledge, and (4) assay knowledge. CONCLUSION: HCPs demonstrated competence in basic PTC after a brief EI. This ASDM may be a viable interim response to the shortage of genetics professionals in some systems.

Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project.

PURPOSE: The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS: We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient participants (n = 93) and health-care provider participants (HCPs) (n = 12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS: Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p = 0.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for nondisease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION: Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.