Opportunities and challenges for the computational interpretation of rare variation in clinically important genes.

Genome sequencing is enabling precision medicine-tailoring treatment to the unique constellation of variants in an individual's genome. The impact of recurrent pathogenic variants is often understood, however there is a long tail of rare genetic variants that are uncharacterized. The problem of uncharacterized rare variation is especially acute when it occurs in genes of known clinical importance with functionally consequential variants and associated mechanisms. Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in these genes are discovered at a rate that outpaces current ability to classify them with databases of previous cases, experimental evaluation, and computational predictors. Clinicians are thus left without guidance about the significance of variants that may have actionable consequences. Computational prediction of the impact of rare genetic variation is increasingly becoming an important capability. In this paper, we review the technical and ethical challenges of interpreting the function of rare variants in two settings: inborn errors of metabolism in newborns and pharmacogenomics. We propose a framework for a genomic learning healthcare system with an initial focus on early-onset treatable disease in newborns and actionable pharmacogenomics. We argue that (1) a genomic learning healthcare system must allow for continuous collection and assessment of rare variants, (2) emerging machine learning methods will enable algorithms to predict the clinical impact of rare variants on protein function, and (3) ethical considerations must inform the construction and deployment of all rare-variation triage strategies, particularly with respect to health disparities arising from unbalanced ancestry representation.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Ethics of Using and Sharing Clinical Imaging Data for Artificial Intelligence: A Proposed Framework.

In this article, the authors propose an ethical framework for using and sharing clinical data for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The philosophical premise is as follows: when clinical data are used to provide care, the primary purpose for acquiring the data is fulfilled. At that point, clinical data should be treated as a form of public good, to be used for the benefit of future patients. In their 2013 article, Faden et al argued that all who participate in the health care system, including patients, have a moral obligation to contribute to improving that system. The authors extend that framework to questions surrounding the secondary use of clinical data for AI applications. Specifically, the authors propose that all individuals and entities with access to clinical data become data stewards, with fiduciary (or trust) responsibilities to patients to carefully safeguard patient privacy, and to the public to ensure that the data are made widely available for the development of knowledge and tools to benefit future patients. According to this framework, the authors maintain that it is unethical for providers to "sell" clinical data to other parties by granting access to clinical data, especially under exclusive arrangements, in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments that exceed costs. The authors also propose that patient consent is not required before the data are used for secondary purposes when obtaining such consent is prohibitively costly or burdensome, as long as mechanisms are in place to ensure that ethical standards are strictly followed. Rather than debate whether patients or provider organizations "own" the data, the authors propose that clinical data are not owned at all in the traditional sense, but rather that all who interact with or control the data have an obligation to ensure that the data are used for the benefit of future patients and society.

What Does the Word "Treatable" Mean? Implications for Communication and Decision-Making in Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how nonphysicians and physicians interpret the word "treatable" in the context of critical illness. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. SETTING: One academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four nonphysicians (patients and community members) purposively sampled for variation in demographic characteristics and 24 physicians (attending physicians and trainees) purposively sampled from four specialties (critical care, palliative care, oncology, and surgery). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified two distinct concepts that participants used to interpret the word "treatable": 1) a "good news" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys a positive message about a patient's future, thereby inspiring hope and encouraging further treatment and 2) an "action-oriented" concept, in which the word "treatable" conveys that physicians have an action or intervention available, but does not necessarily imply an improved prognosis or quality of life. The overwhelming majority of nonphysicians adopted the "good news" concept, whereas physicians almost exclusively adopted the "action-oriented" concept. For some nonphysicians, the word "treatable" conveyed a positive message about prognosis and/or further treatment, even when this contradicted previously stated negative information. CONCLUSIONS: Physician use of the word "treatable" may lead patients or surrogates to derive unwarranted good news and false encouragement to pursue treatment, even when physicians have explicitly stated information to the contrary. Further work is needed to determine the extent to which the word "treatable" and its cognates contribute to widespread decision-making and communication challenges in critical care, including discordance about prognosis, misconceptions that palliative treatments are curative, and disputes about potentially inappropriate or futile treatment.

Treatability Statements in Serious Illness: The Gap Between What is Said and What is Heard.

Empirical work has shown that patients and physicians have markedly divergent understandings of treatability statements (e.g., "This is a treatable condition," "We have treatments for your loved one") in the context of serious illness. Patients often understand treatability statements as conveying good news for prognosis and quality of life. In contrast, physicians often do not intend treatability statements to convey improvement in prognosis or quality of life, but merely that a treatment is available. Similarly, patients often understand treatability statements as conveying encouragement to hope and pursue further treatment, though this may not be intended by physicians. This radical divergence in understandings may lead to severe miscommunication. This paper seeks to better understand this divergence through linguistic theory-in particular, H.P. Grice's notion of conversational implicature. This theoretical approach reveals three levels of meaning of treatability statements: (1) the literal meaning, (2) the physician's intended meaning, and (3) the patient's received meaning. The divergence between the physician's intended meaning and the patient's received meaning can be understood to arise from the lack of shared experience between physicians and patients, and the differing assumptions that each party makes about conversations. This divergence in meaning raises new and largely unidentified challenges to informed consent and shared decision making in the context of serious illness, which indicates a need for further empirical research in this area.

The Unsuccessful Effort to Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

This Viewpoint summarizes the major issues that led to the decision to draft a revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, the alternatives that were considered, why there was failure to reach consensus, and what this means for the future.

Alterations in Spanish Language Interpretation During Pediatric Critical Care Family Meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize alterations in Spanish language medical interpretation during pediatric critical care family meetings. DESIGN: Descriptive, observational study using verbatim transcripts of nine PICU family meetings conducted with in-person, hospital-employed interpreters. SETTING: A single, university-based, tertiary children's hospital. SUBJECTS: Medical staff, family members, ancillary staff, and interpreters. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interpreted speech was compared with original clinician or family speech using the qualitative research methods of directed content analysis and thematic analysis. Alterations occurred in 56% of interpreted utterances and included additions, omissions, substitutions, editorializations, answering for the patient/clinician, confessions, and patient advocacy. Longer utterances were associated with more alterations. CONCLUSIONS: To minimize interpreter alterations during family meetings, physicians should speak in short utterances (fewer than 20 words) and ask interpreters to interrupt in order to facilitate accurate interpretation. Because alterations occur, physicians may also regularly attempt to assess the family's understanding.

Quality of communication in interpreted versus noninterpreted PICU family meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the quality of physician-family communication during interpreted and noninterpreted family meetings in the PICU. DESIGN: Prospective, exploratory, descriptive observational study of noninterpreted English family meetings and interpreted Spanish family meetings in the pediatric intensive care setting. SETTING: A single, university-based, tertiary children's hospital. SUBJECTS: Participants in PICU family meetings, including medical staff, family members, ancillary staff, and interpreters. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty family meetings (21 English and nine Spanish) were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using the qualitative method of directed content analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Quality of communication was analyzed in three ways: 1) presence of elements of shared decision-making, 2) balance between physician and family speech, and 3) complexity of physician speech. Of the 11 elements of shared decision-making, only four occurred in more than half of English meetings, and only three occurred in more than half of Spanish meetings. Physicians spoke for a mean of 20.7 minutes, while families spoke for 9.3 minutes during English meetings. During Spanish meetings, physicians spoke for a mean of 14.9 minutes versus just 3.7 minutes of family speech. Physician speech complexity received a mean grade level score of 8.2 in English meetings compared to 7.2 in Spanish meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of physician-family communication during PICU family meetings is poor overall. Interpreted meetings had poorer communication quality as evidenced by fewer elements of shared decision-making and greater imbalance between physician and family speech. However, physician speech may be less complex during interpreted meetings. Our data suggest that physicians can improve communication in both interpreted and noninterpreted family meetings by increasing the use of elements of shared decision-making, improving the balance between physician and family speech, and decreasing the complexity of physician speech.

Citizen Science and Gamification.

According to the mainstream conception of research involving human participants, researchers have been trained scientists acting within institutions and have been the individuals doing the studying, while participants, who are nonscientist members of the public, have been the individuals being studied. The relationship between the public and scientists is evolving, however, giving rise to several new concepts, including crowdsourcing and citizen science. In addition, the practice of gamification has been applied to research protocols. The role of gamified, crowdsourced citizen scientist is new in the domain of scientific research and does not fit into the existing taxonomy of researchers and participants. We delineate and explicate this role and show that, while traditional roles are governed by well-established norms and regulations, individuals engaged in gamified, crowdsourced citizen science-gamers-fall through the cracks of research protections and regulations. We consider the issues this raises, including exploitation and the absence of responsibility and accountability. Finally, we offer suggestions for how the current lack of appropriate norms may be rectified.

Toward clinical genomics in everyday medicine: perspectives and recommendations.

Precision or personalized medicine through clinical genome and exome sequencing has been described by some as a revolution that could transform healthcare delivery, yet it is currently used in only a small fraction of patients, principally for the diagnosis of suspected Mendelian conditions and for targeting cancer treatments. Given the burden of illness in our society, it is of interest to ask how clinical genome and exome sequencing can be constructively integrated more broadly into the routine practice of medicine for the betterment of public health. In November 2014, 46 experts from academia, industry, policy and patient advocacy gathered in a conference sponsored by Illumina, Inc. to discuss this question, share viewpoints and propose recommendations. This perspective summarizes that work and identifies some of the obstacles and opportunities that must be considered in translating advances in genomics more widely into the practice of medicine.

Genomics in the clinic: ethical and policy challenges in clinical next-generation sequencing programs at early adopter USA institutions.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are poised to revolutionize clinical diagnosis and treatment, but raise significant ethical and policy challenges. This review examines NGS program challenges through a synthesis of published literature, website and conference presentation content, and interviews at early-adopting institutions in the USA. Institutions are proactively addressing policy challenges related to the management and technical aspects of program development. However, ethical challenges related to patient-related aspects have not been fully addressed. These complex challenges present opportunities to develop comprehensive and standardized regulations across programs. Understanding the strengths, weaknesses and current practices of evolving NGS program approaches are important considerations for institutions developing NGS services, policymakers regulating or funding NGS programs and physicians and patients considering NGS services.