A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

BACKGROUND: Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations. METHODS: Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture. SETTING: 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic. METHODS: A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter. OUTCOMES: provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations. MEASURES: patient and provider surveys and EMR data. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services. METHODS: This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors. RESULTS: Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %). CONCLUSIONS: 65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Family history assessment significantly enhances delivery of precision medicine in the genomics era.

BACKGROUND: Family history has traditionally been an essential part of clinical care to assess health risks. However, declining sequencing costs have precipitated a shift towards genomics-first approaches in population screening programs rendering the value of family history unknown. We evaluated the utility of incorporating family history information for genomic sequencing selection. METHODS: To ascertain the relationship between family histories on such population-level initiatives, we analysed whole genome sequences of 1750 research participants with no known pre-existing conditions, of which half received comprehensive family history assessment of up to four generations, focusing on 95 cancer genes. RESULTS: Amongst the 1750 participants, 866 (49.5%) had high-quality standardised family history available. Within this group, 73 (8.4%) participants had an increased family history risk of cancer (increased FH risk cohort) and 1 in 7 participants (n = 10/73) carried a clinically actionable variant inferring a sixfold increase compared with 1 in 47 participants (n = 17/793) assessed at average family history cancer risk (average FH risk cohort) (p = 0.00001) and a sevenfold increase compared to 1 in 52 participants (n = 17/884) where family history was not available (FH not available cohort) (p = 0.00001). The enrichment was further pronounced (up to 18-fold) when assessing only the 25 cancer genes in the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Secondary Findings (SF) genes. Furthermore, 63 (7.3%) participants had an increased family history cancer risk in the absence of an apparent clinically actionable variant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that the collection and analysis of comprehensive family history and genomic data are complementary and in combination can prioritise individuals for genomic analysis. Thus, family history remains a critical component of health risk assessment, providing important actionable data when implementing genomics screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02791152 . Retrospectively registered on May 31, 2016.

Evaluation of family health history collection methods impact on data and risk assessment outcomes.

Information technology applications for patient-collection of family health history (FHH) increase identification of elevated-risk individuals compared to usual care. It is unknown if the method of collection impacts data collected or if simply going directly to the patient is what makes the difference. The objective of this study was to examine differences in data detail and risk identification rates between FHH collection directly from individuals using paper-based forms and an interactive web-based platform. This is a non-randomized epidemiologic study in Singaporean population from 2016 to 2018. Intervention was paper-based versus web-based interactive platform for FHH collection. Participant demographics, FHH detail, and risk assessment results were analyzed. 882 participants enrolled in the study, 481 in the paper-based group and 401 in the web-based group with mean (SD) age of 45.4 (12.98) years and 47.5% male. Web-based FHH collection participants had an increased number of conditions per relative (p-value <0.001), greater frequency of reporting age of onset (p-value <0.001), and greater odds of receiving ≥1 risk recommendation both overall (OR: 3.99 (2.41, 6.59)) and within subcategories of genetic counselling for hereditary cancer syndromes (p-value = 0.041) and screening and prevention for breast (p-value = 0.002) and colon cancer (p-value = 0.005). This has significant implications for clinical care and research efforts where FHH is being assessed. Using interactive information technology platforms to collect FHH can improve the completeness of the data collected and result in increased rates of risk identification. Methods of data collection to maximize benefit should be taken into account in future studies and clinical care.

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices. METHODS: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014.

Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography for current and former heavy smokers aged 55 to 80 years. There is little published experience regarding implementing this recommendation in clinical practice. Objectives: To describe organizational- and patient-level experiences with implementing an LCS program in selected Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals and to estimate the number of VHA patients who may be candidates for LCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This clinical demonstration project was conducted at 8 academic VHA hospitals among 93 033 primary care patients who were assessed on screening criteria; 2106 patients underwent LCS between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015. Interventions: Implementation Guide and support, full-time LCS coordinators, electronic tools, tracking database, patient education materials, and radiologic and nodule follow-up guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of implementation processes; percentages of patients who agreed to undergo LCS, had positive findings on results of low-dose computed tomographic scans (nodules to be tracked or suspicious findings), were found to have lung cancer, or had incidental findings; and estimated number of VHA patients who met the criteria for LCS. Results: Of the 4246 patients who met the criteria for LCS, 2452 (57.7%) agreed to undergo screening and 2106 (2028 men and 78 women; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [5.1] years) underwent LCS. Wide variation in processes and patient experiences occurred among the 8 sites. Of the 2106 patients screened, 1257 (59.7%) had nodules; 1184 of these patients (56.2%) required tracking, 42 (2.0%) required further evaluation but the findings were not cancer, and 31 (1.5%) had lung cancer. A variety of incidental findings, such as emphysema, other pulmonary abnormalities, and coronary artery calcification, were noted on the scans of 857 patients (40.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: It is estimated that nearly 900 000 of a population of 6.7 million VHA patients met the criteria for LCS. Implementation of LCS in the VHA will likely lead to large numbers of patients eligible for LCS and will require substantial clinical effort for both patients and staff.

Clinical utility of a Web-enabled risk-assessment and clinical decision support program.

PURPOSE: Risk-stratified guidelines can improve quality of care and cost-effectiveness, but their uptake in primary care has been limited. MeTree, a Web-based, patient-facing risk-assessment and clinical decision support tool, is designed to facilitate uptake of risk-stratified guidelines. METHODS: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of three clinics (two intervention, one control). PARTICIPANTS: consentable nonadopted adults with upcoming appointments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: agreement between patient risk level and risk management for those meeting evidence-based criteria for increased-risk risk-management strategies (increased risk) and those who do not (average risk) before MeTree and after. MEASURES: chart abstraction was used to identify risk management related to colon, breast, and ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer, and thrombosis. RESULTS: Participants = 488, female = 284 (58.2%), white = 411 (85.7%), mean age = 58.7 (SD = 12.3). Agreement between risk management and risk level for all conditions for each participant, except for colon cancer, which was limited to those <50 years of age, was (i) 1.1% (N = 2/174) for the increased-risk group before MeTree and 16.1% (N = 28/174) after and (ii) 99.2% (N = 2,125/2,142) for the average-risk group before MeTree and 99.5% (N = 2,131/2,142) after. Of those receiving increased-risk risk-management strategies at baseline, 10.5% (N = 2/19) met criteria for increased risk. After MeTree, 80.7% (N = 46/57) met criteria. CONCLUSION: MeTree integration into primary care can improve uptake of risk-stratified guidelines and potentially reduce "overuse" and "underuse" of increased-risk services.Genet Med 18 10, 1020-1028.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01956773.

Implementation of new clinical programs in the VHA healthcare system: the importance of early collaboration between clinical leadership and research.

Collaboration between policy, research, and clinical partners is crucial to achieving proven quality care. The Veterans Health Administration has expended great efforts towards fostering such collaborations. Through this, we have learned that an ideal collaboration involves partnership from the very beginning of a new clinical program, so that the program is designed in a way that ensures quality, validity, and puts into place the infrastructure necessary for a reliable evaluation. This paper will give an example of one such project, the Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project (LCSDP). We will outline the ways that clinical, policy, and research partners collaborated in design, planning, and implementation in order to create a sustainable model that could be rigorously evaluated for efficacy and fidelity. We will describe the use of the Donabedian quality matrix to determine the necessary characteristics of a quality program and the importance of the linkage with engineering, information technology, and clinical paradigms to connect the development of an on-the-ground clinical program with the evaluation goal of a learning healthcare organization. While the LCSDP is the example given here, these partnerships and suggestions are salient to any healthcare organization seeking to implement new scientifically proven care in a useful and reliable way.

Implementing family health history risk stratification in primary care: impact of guideline criteria on populations and resource demand.

UNLABELLED: The Genomic Medicine Model aims to facilitate patient engagement, patient/provider education of genomics/personalized medicine, and uptake of risk-stratified evidence-based prevention guidelines using MeTree, a patient-facing family health history (FHH) collection and clinical decision support (CDS) program. Here we report the number of increased risk (above population-level risk) patients identified for breast/ovarian cancer, colon cancer, hereditary syndrome risk, and thrombosis; the prevalence of FHH elements triggering increased-risk status; and the resources needed to manage their risk. STUDY DESIGN: hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of adults with upcoming well-visits in 2 primary care practices in Greensboro, NC. PARTICIPANTS: 1,184, mean age = 58.8, female = 58% (N = 694), non-white = 20% (N = 215). Increased Risk: 44% (N = 523). RECOMMENDATIONS: genetic counseling = 26% (N = 308), breast MRI = 0.8% (N = 10), breast chemoprophylaxis = 5% (N = 58), early/frequent colonoscopies = 19% (N = 221), ovarian cancer screening referral = 1% (N = 14), thrombosis testing/counseling = 2.4% (N = 71). FHH elements: 8 FHH elements lead to 37.3% of the increased risk categorizations (by frequency): first-degree-relative (FDR) with polyps age ≥60 (7.1%, N = 85), three relatives with Lynch-related cancers (5.4%, N = 65), FDR with polyps age <60 (5.1%, N = 61), three relatives on same side of family with same cancer (4.9%, N = 59), Gail score ≥1.66% (4.9%, N = 58), two relatives with breast cancer (one ≤age 50) (4.1%, N = 49), one relative with breast cancer ≤age 40 (4.1%, N = 48), FDR with colon cancer age ≥60 (1.7%, N = 20). MeTree identifies a high percentage of individuals in the general primary care population needing non-routine risk management/prevention for the selected conditions. Implementing risk-stratification in primary care will likely increase demand for related-resources, particularly colon screening and GC. Understanding the prevalence of FHH elements helps predict resource needs and may aid in guideline development.

Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Family health history (FHH) is the single strongest predictor of disease risk and yet is significantly underutilized in primary care. We developed a patient facing FHH collection tool, MeTree, that uses risk stratification to generate clinical decision support for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, hereditary cancer syndromes, and thrombosis. Here we present data on the experience of patients and providers after integration of MeTree into 2 primary care practices. METHODS: This was a Type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness study in 3 community-based primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming routine appointments were invited. Patients were recruited from December 2009 to the present and followed for one year. Ease of integration of MeTree into clinical practice at the two intervention clinics was evaluated through patient surveys after their appointment and at 3 months post-visit, and physician surveys 3 months after tool integration. RESULTS: Total enrollment =1,184. Average time to complete MeTree = 27 minutes. Patients found MeTree: easy to use (93%), easy to understand (97%), useful (98%), raised awareness of disease risk (85%), and changed how they think about their health (86%). Of the 26% (N = 311) asking for assistance to complete the tool, age (65 sd 9.4 vs. 57 sd 11.8, p-value < 0.00) and large pedigree size (24.4 sd 9.81 vs. 22.2 sd 8.30, p-value < 0.00) were the only significant factors; 77% of those requiring assistance were over the age of 60. Providers (N = 14) found MeTree: improved their practice (86%), improved their understanding of FHH (64%), made practice easier (79%), and worthy of recommending to their peers (93%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that MeTree has broad acceptance and support from both patients and providers and can be implemented without disruption to workflow.