The evolution of genetic counseling at Johns Hopkins Hospital and beyond.

In celebration of the 100th birthday of Dr. Victor A. McKusick, we look back at the history of genetic counseling at Johns Hopkins Hospital and at some milestones for the profession. With the first students graduating from the Human Genetics program at Sarah Lawrence College in 1971, the genetic counseling profession is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The profession has seen growth in numbers and scope of practice, the evolution of a national society, the advent of certification and accreditation, the proliferation of graduate programs, the pursuit of state licensure, and collaboration with fellow genetics professionals. Many of the early jobs were at academic centers, such as Johns Hopkins Hospital, while today counselors are employed in a multitude of settings and engaged in a variety of roles.

A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the primary care setting.

Pharmacogenetic testing can help identify primary care patients at increased risk for medication toxicity, poor response or treatment failure and inform drug therapy. While testing availability is increasing, providers are unprepared to routinely use pharmacogenetic testing for clinical decision-making. Practice-based resources are needed to overcome implementation barriers for pharmacogenetic testing in primary care.The NHGRI's IGNITE I Network (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org) explored practice models, challenges and implementation barriers for clinical pharmacogenomics. Based on these experiences, we present a stepwise approach pharmacogenetic testing in primary care: patient identification; pharmacogenetic test ordering; interpretation and application of test results, and patient education. We present clinical factors to consider, test-ordering processes and resources, and provide guidance to apply test results and counsel patients. Practice-based resources such as this stepwise approach to clinical decision-making are important resources to equip primary care providers to use pharmacogenetic testing.

Actions and Uncertainty: How Prenatally Diagnosed Variants of Uncertain Significance Become Actionable.

The development of genomic technologies has seemed almost magical. Excitement about it, both in medicine and among the public, stems from the belief that genomic techniques will illuminate the causes of health and disease, will lead to effective interventions for both rare and common genetic conditions, and will inform reproductive decision-making. Novel diagnostic tools, however, are often deployed before targeted therapies are developed, tested, or available and before their psychosocial implications are explored. Newer technologies such as prenatal whole exome screening are seen as offering "decisional autonomy" to expectant parents, although such technologies identify information about genetic sequencing that may not have clear meaning. The "therapeutic gap" between the ability to conduct genetic sequencing and the ability to fully understand what the test results mean, much less what treatments to offer, leaves families with complex and unclear information they cannot act upon with confidence during pregnancy. In this essay, we will consider the psychosocial and ethical implications of such assumptions-and of the uncertain information produced by these technologies-for individuals and families and for societal aspects such as medical service usage and demographic inequities.

Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.

Implementing genome and exome sequencing in clinical practice presents challenges, including obtaining meaningful informed consent. Consent may be challenging due to test limitations such as uncertainties associated with test results and interpretation, complexity created by the potential for additional findings and high patient expectations. We drew on the experiences of research teams within the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) Consortium on informed consent for clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) to negotiate consensus considerations. We present six considerations for clinicians and 12 key points to communicate as they support patients in deciding whether to undergo CGES. These considerations and key points provide a helpful starting point for informed consent to CGES, grounded in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER1) experience.

Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation.

PURPOSE: Research on genomic medicine integration has focused on applications at the individual level, with less attention paid to implementation within clinical settings. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify system-level factors that played a role in implementation of genomic medicine within Implementing GeNomics In PracTicE (IGNITE) Network projects. METHODS: Up to four study personnel, including principal investigators and study coordinators from each of six IGNITE projects, were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide that asked interviewees to describe study site(s), progress at each site, and factors facilitating or impeding project implementation. Interviews were coded following CFIR inner-setting constructs. RESULTS: Key barriers included (1) limitations in integrating genomic data and clinical decision support tools into electronic health records, (2) physician reluctance toward genomic research participation and clinical implementation due to a limited evidence base, (3) inadequate reimbursement for genomic medicine, (4) communication among and between investigators and clinicians, and (5) lack of clinical and leadership engagement. CONCLUSION: Implementation of genomic medicine is hindered by several system-level barriers to both research and practice. Addressing these barriers may serve as important facilitators for studying and implementing genomics in practice.

Clinical providers' experiences with returning results from genomic sequencing: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. RESULTS: The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.

Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.

Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings.

PURPOSE: Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings. METHODS: Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined how responses varied by secondary finding. RESULTS: Genetic specialists scored higher than other providers on four-point scales assessing understandings of reports (3.89 vs. 3.42, p = 0.0002), and lower on scales assessing reporting obligations (2.60 vs. 3.51, p < 0.0001) and burdens of responding (1.73 vs. 2.70, p < 0.0001). Nearly all attitudes differed between findings, although genetic specialists were more likely to assert that laboratories had no obligations when findings had less-established actionability (p < 0.0001 in interaction tests). The importance of reviewing personal and family histories, documenting findings, learning more about the variant, and recommending familial discussions also varied according to finding (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Genetic specialists felt better prepared to respond to secondary findings than providers without specialized genetics training, but perceived fewer obligations for laboratories to report them, and the two groups anticipated similar clinical responses. Findings may inform development of targeted education and support.

Gratitude, protective buffering, and cognitive dissonance: How families respond to pediatric whole exome sequencing in the absence of actionable results.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) may identify variants leading to targeted management of existing conditions. Yet, CGES often fails to identify pathogenic diagnostic variants and introduces uncertainties by detecting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and secondary findings. This study investigated how families understand findings and adjust their perspectives on CGES. As part of NIH's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium, children were recruited from clinics at the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP) and offered exome sequencing. Primary pathogenic and possibly pathogenic, and some secondary findings were returned. Investigators digitally recorded results disclosure sessions and conducted 3-month follow up interviews with 10 adolescents and a parent. An interdisciplinary team coded all transcripts. Participants were initially disappointed with findings, yet reactions evolved within disclosure sessions and at 3-month interviews toward acceptance and satisfaction. Families erroneously expected, and prepared extensively, to learn about risk for common conditions. During disclosure sessions, parents and adolescents varied in how they monitored and responded to each others reactions. Several misinterpreted, or overestimated, the utility of findings to attribute meaning and achieve closure for the CGES experience. Participants perceived testing as an opportunity to improve disease management despite results that did not introduce new treatments or diagnoses. Future research may examine whether families experience cognitive dissonance regarding discrepancies between expectations and findings, and how protective buffering minimizes the burden of disappointment on loved ones. As CGES is increasingly integrated into clinical care providers must contend with tempering family expectations and interpretations of findings while managing complex medical care.

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing.

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large-scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre-test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single-gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post-counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow-up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.

How do providers discuss the results of pediatric exome sequencing with families?

AIM: This study provides preliminary data on the process and content of returning results from exome sequencing offered to children through one of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) projects. MATERIALS & METHODS: We recorded 25 sessions where providers returned diagnostic and secondary sequencing results to families. Data interpretation utilized inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Typically, providers followed a results report and discussed diagnostic findings using technical genomic and sequencing concepts. We identified four provider processes for returning results: teaching genetic concepts; assessing family response; personalizing findings; and strengthening patient-provider relationships. CONCLUSION: Sessions should reflect family interest in medical management and next steps, and minimize detailed genomic concepts. As the scope and complexity of sequencing increase, the traditional information-laden counseling model requires revision.

Genomic decision support needs in pediatric primary care.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing can diagnose pediatric patients with complex conditions that often require follow-up care with multiple specialties. The American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes the role of the medical home and the primary care pediatrician in coordinating care for patients who need multidisciplinary support. In addition, the electronic health record (EHR) with embedded clinical decision support is recognized as an important component in providing care in this setting. We interviewed 6 clinicians to assess their experience caring for patients with complex and rare genetic findings and hear their opinions about how the EHR currently supports this role. Using these results, we designed a candidate EHR clinical decision support application mock-up and conducted formative exploratory user testing with 26 pediatric primary care providers to capture opinions on its utility in practice with respect to a specific clinical scenario. Our results indicate agreement that the functionality represented by the mock-up would effectively assist with care and warrants further development.

An Observational Study of Children's Involvement in Informed Consent for Exome Sequencing Research.

The goal of this study was to examine children's involvement in consent sessions for exome sequencing research and associations of involvement with provider and parent communication. Participants included 44 children (8-17 years) from five cohorts who were offered participation in an exome sequencing study. The consent sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Providers attempted to facilitate the child's involvement in the majority (73%) of sessions, and most (75%) children also verbally participated. Provider facilitation was strongly associated with likelihood of child participation. These findings underscore that strategies such as asking for children's opinions and soliciting their questions show respect for children and may increase the likelihood that they are engaged and involved in decisions about research participation.

"Set in Stone" or "Ray of Hope": Parents' Beliefs About Cause and Prognosis After Genomic Testing of Children Diagnosed with ASD.

Despite increasing utilization of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for autism spectrum disorders (ASD), limited information exists about how results influence parents' beliefs about etiology and prognosis. We conducted in-depth interviews and surveys with 57 parents of children with ASD who received CMA results categorized as pathogenic, negative or variant of uncertain significance. Parents tended to incorporate their child's CMA results within their existing beliefs about the etiology of ASD, regardless of CMA result. However, parents' expectations for the future tended to differ depending on results; those who received genetic confirmation for their children's ASD expressed a sense of concreteness, acceptance and permanence of the condition. Some parents expressed hope for future biomedical treatments as a result of genetic research.

"They Can't Find Anything Wrong with Him, Yet": Mothers' experiences of parenting an infant with a prenatally diagnosed copy number variant (CNV).

Chromosome microarray (CMA) testing is used widely in prenatal settings. Some copy number variants (CNVs) detected using CMA are associated with variable or uncertain phenotype and/or possible neurocognitive involvement. Little is known about parenting an infant following such findings. Researchers conducted interviews with 23 mothers of infants diagnosed prenatally with a potentially pathogenic CNV to elicit perspectives on the child's development and disclosure of results to others. Interviews were audiotaped and analyzed for common themes. Most respondents reported their infants were developing typically. The majority expressed concern about their child's future development given the CNV. They reassured themselves their child was unaffected by: comparing him/her to siblings, scrutinizing the child's appearance and behavior, or following provider reassurances. Even without developmental and neurological concerns, some remained acutely observant of their child's neurocognitive development, leading to enrollment in early intervention or ongoing medical assessments. Mothers who were unconcerned stated they would likely attribute atypical behavior or developmental to the CNV. All interviewees shared the result with pediatricians, relatives, or friends, and many shared across groups. Most shared information with pregnant friends considering prenatal testing, but withheld partial or full information from family members due to stigma, lack of understanding, inability to explain the CNV, or presumptions that the child was unaffected. Research must address the long-term consequences of returning uncertain results for parent-child bonding and costs of ongoing assessment and early intervention for typically developing children. Follow up appointments will permit providers to screen for anxiety and assuage worry in the absence of symptoms. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A taxonomy of medical uncertainties in clinical genome sequencing.

PURPOSE: Clinical next-generation sequencing (CNGS) is introducing new opportunities and challenges into the practice of medicine. Simultaneously, these technologies are generating uncertainties of an unprecedented scale that laboratories, clinicians, and patients are required to address and manage. We describe in this report the conceptual design of a new taxonomy of uncertainties around the use of CNGS in health care. METHODS: Interviews to delineate the dimensions of uncertainty in CNGS were conducted with genomics experts and themes were extracted in order to expand on a previously published three-dimensional taxonomy of medical uncertainty. In parallel, we developed an interactive website to disseminate the CNGS taxonomy to researchers and engage them in its continued refinement. RESULTS: The proposed taxonomy divides uncertainty along three axes-source, issue, and locus-and further discriminates the uncertainties into five layers with multiple domains. Using a hypothetical clinical example, we illustrate how the taxonomy can be applied to findings from CNGS and used to guide stakeholders through interpretation and implementation of variant results. CONCLUSION: The utility of the proposed taxonomy lies in promoting consistency in describing dimensions of uncertainty in publications and presentations, to facilitate research design and management of the uncertainties inherent in the implementation of CNGS.Genet Med advance online publication 19 January 2017.

Health screening behaviors among adults with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia in North America.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify factors that influence screening behaviors of adults with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT). METHODS: Participants with a self-reported diagnosis of HHT were recruited from the HHT Foundation International, Inc.; the "HHT Awareness" Facebook group; and six HHT clinics. A cross-sectional mixed methods survey was administered to investigate the relationships among the Health Belief model constructs, the domains of illness representations, and HHT-specific screening behaviors consistent with recommended guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 320 participants reported rates of cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM) screenings, pulmonary AVM screenings, and HHT annual checkups that were 82.0, 67.1, and 56.5%, respectively. Logistical regression analysis showed that perceived barriers (ß = -0.114, P < 0.001), perceived susceptibility (ß = 0.117, P < 0.05), treatment control (ß = 0.078, P < 0.05), and emotional representations (ß = 0.067, P < 0.05) were significant predictors of HHT screening. Open-ended responses revealed perceived barriers to screening, including a lack of health-care providers (HCPs) familiar with and/or knowledgeable about HHT. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal suboptimal screening rates among adults with HHT and identify several factors influencing these behaviors. We suggest that there is a need for increased provider education regarding HHT as well as approaches that providers can use to improve screening adherence.Genet Med advance online publication 13 October 2016.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Balancing Genetics (Science) and Counseling (Art) in Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing.

Genetic counselors frequently are called upon to assist patients in understanding the implications of prenatal testing information for their pregnancies and their family's lives. The introduction of highly sensitive testing such as chromosomal microarray has generated additional kinds of uncertainty into the prenatal period. Counselors may feel uncomfortable or inadequately prepared to engage in discussions with prospective parents who are faced with making critical, and timely, decisions about a pregnancy based on uncertain information. As highly sensitive prenatal testing becomes routine in prenatal care, counselors may be in search of approaches to prenatal counseling, as well as specific skills to approach, engage with, and help families find resolution in such challenging circumstances. To assist genetic counselors, we describe practice skills and provide language for approaching conversations with prospective parents. When clinicians regularly provide care to patients and families making life-altering decisions under conditions of significant uncertainty, discomfort is common and compassion fatigue is likely. We make recommendations directly to the genetic counselor working in reproductive and perinatal settings to enhance training and self-care and to decrease discomfort in balancing the scientific- and art- demands of genetic counseling.