Lynch syndrome testing of colorectal cancer patients in a high-income country with universal healthcare: a retrospective study of current practice and gaps in seven australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To inform effective genomic medicine strategies, it is important to examine current approaches and gaps in well-established applications. Lynch syndrome (LS) causes 3-5% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). While guidelines commonly recommend LS tumour testing of all CRC patients, implementation in health systems is known to be highly variable. To provide insights on the heterogeneity in practice and current bottlenecks in a high-income country with universal healthcare, we characterise the approaches and gaps in LS testing and referral in seven Australian hospitals across three states. METHODS: We obtained surgery, pathology, and genetics services data for 1,624 patients who underwent CRC resections from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2018 in the included hospitals. RESULTS: Tumour testing approaches differed between hospitals, with 0-19% of patients missing mismatch repair deficiency test results (total 211/1,624 patients). Tumour tests to exclude somatic MLH1 loss were incomplete at five hospitals (42/187 patients). Of 74 patients with tumour tests completed appropriately and indicating high risk of LS, 36 (49%) were missing a record of referral to genetics services for diagnostic testing, with higher missingness for older patients (0% of patients aged ≤ 40 years, 76% of patients aged > 70 years). Of 38 patients with high-risk tumour test results and genetics services referral, diagnostic testing was carried out for 25 (89%) and identified a LS pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant for 11 patients (44% of 25; 0.7% of 1,624 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Given the LS testing and referral gaps, further work is needed to identify strategies for successful integration of LS testing into clinical care, and provide a model for hereditary cancers and broader genomic medicine. Standardised reporting may help clinicians interpret tumour test results and initiate further actions.

In person and virtual process mapping experiences to capture and explore variability in clinical practice: application to genetic referral pathways across seven Australian hospital networks.

Genetic referral for Lynch syndrome (LS) exemplifies complex clinical pathways. Identifying target behaviours (TBs) for change and associated barriers requires structured group consultation activities with busy clinicians - consolidating implementation activities whilst retaining rigour is crucial. This study aimed to: i) use process mapping to gain in-depth understandings of site-specific LS testing and referral practices in Australian hospitals and support identification of TBs for change, ii) explore if barriers to identified TBs could be identified through process mapping focus-group data, and iii) demonstrate pandemic-induced transition from in-person to virtual group interactive process mapping methods. LS clinical stakeholders attended interactive in-person or virtual focus groups to develop site-specific "process maps" visually representing referral pathways. Content analysis of transcriptions informed site-specific process maps, then clinical audit data was compared to highlight TBs for change. TBs were reviewed in follow-up focus groups. Secondary thematic analysis explored barriers to identified TBs, coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The transition from in-person to pandemic-induced virtual group interactive process mapping methods was documented. Process mapping highlighted six key areas of clinical practice variation across sites and site-specific TBs for change were identified. Key barriers to identified TBs emerged, categorised to seven TDF domains. Process mapping revealed variations in clinical practices surrounding LS referral between sites. Incorporating qualitative perspectives enhances process mapping by facilitating identification of TBs for change and barriers, providing a pathway to developing targeted interventions. Virtual process mapping activities produced detailed data and enabled comprehensive map development.

To achieve change in the health system using implementation approaches, time-poor clinicians must engage in information-gathering and idea-generation activities. This research revealed that qualitative process mapping focus groups held both in-person and virtually can be used to streamline these activities, by simultaneously identifying target behaviours for change, and barriers to change, while gaining information about site-specific clinical processes. Hospital process mapping shows that complex clinical processes vary significantly between sites, and that understanding local variation is crucial to developing targeted interventions. This study has informed new approaches to implementation research methods.