Genetic ancestry and diagnostic yield of exome sequencing in a diverse population.

It has been suggested that diagnostic yield (DY) from Exome Sequencing (ES) may be lower among patients with non-European ancestries than those with European ancestry. We examined the association of DY with estimated continental/subcontinental genetic ancestry in a racially/ethnically diverse pediatric and prenatal clinical cohort. Cases (N = 845) with suspected genetic disorders underwent ES for diagnosis. Continental/subcontinental genetic ancestry proportions were estimated from the ES data. We compared the distribution of genetic ancestries in positive, negative, and inconclusive cases by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and linear associations of ancestry with DY by Cochran-Armitage trend tests. We observed no reduction in overall DY associated with any genetic ancestry (African, Native American, East Asian, European, Middle Eastern, South Asian). However, we observed a relative increase in proportion of autosomal recessive homozygous inheritance versus other inheritance patterns associated with Middle Eastern and South Asian ancestry, due to consanguinity. In this empirical study of ES for undiagnosed pediatric and prenatal genetic conditions, genetic ancestry was not associated with the likelihood of a positive diagnosis, supporting the equitable use of ES in diagnosis of previously undiagnosed but potentially Mendelian disorders across all ancestral populations.

Patient Perspectives on Social Risk Screening and Documentation in a Dermatology Clinic.

Importance: Providing person-centered dermatologic care includes consideration of social risk factors, such as housing instability and unreliable transportation, that may affect clinical management. Patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in dermatology clinics have not yet been evaluated. Objective: To understand patients' perspectives on social risk screening and documentation in a dermatology clinic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study used a survey and semistructured interviews and was conducted in a general dermatology clinic at a large urban public hospital. Patients at the clinic were eligible to complete the survey if they were 18 years or older; able to speak and read English, Spanish, or Cantonese; and comfortable using a computer tablet. Survey participants who preferred to use English were eligible for interviews. The survey included social risk screening questions, measures of acceptability, and questions on social risk factors associated with patient acceptability. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore attitudes and beliefs about social risk screening and documentation. Survey and interview findings were integrated during data analysis through development of themes and joint display. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 2 outcome measures of acceptability: appropriateness of screening in a dermatology clinic and comfort with documentation of social risk in the electronic health record (EHR). Results: A total of 135 participants (including 73 males [54.1%]) answered both measures of acceptability in the survey. Of these participants, 116 (85.9%) reported that social risk screening in their dermatology clinic was very or somewhat appropriate and 85 (63.0%) reported being completely or somewhat comfortable with having their social risks documented in the EHR. Themes that were developed from surveys and interviews were the (1) role of interpersonal factors in willingness to disclose social risks, (2) implications of institutional trust for willingness to disclose and comfort with documentation, and (3) relevance of screening in a dermatology clinic. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that most participants found social risk screening to be appropriate in a dermatology clinic, although a smaller proportion of participants were comfortable with EHR documentation of their social risks. Optimizing patients' trust in their physicians and the medical system, while addressing privacy and discrimination concerns, may help facilitate disclosure of social risks.

Community Health Center Staff Perspectives on Financial Payments for Social Care.

Policy Points State and federal payers are actively considering strategies to increase the adoption of social risk screening and interventions in health care settings, including through the use of financial incentives. Activities related to social care in Oregon community health centers (CHCs) provided a unique opportunity to explore whether and how fee-for-service payments for social risk screening and navigation influence CHC activities. CHC staff, clinicians, and administrative leaders were often unaware of existing financial payments for social risk screening and navigation services. As currently designed, fee-for-service payments are unlikely to strongly influence CHC social care practices. CONTEXT: A growing crop of national policies has emerged to encourage health care delivery systems to ask about and try to address patients' social risks, e.g., food, housing, and transportation insecurity, in care delivery contexts. In this study, we explored how community health center (CHC) staff perceive the current and potential influence of fee-for-service payments on clinical teams' engagement in these activities. METHODS: We interviewed 42 clinicians, frontline staff, and administrative leaders from 12 Oregon CHC clinical sites about their social care initiatives, including about the role of existing or anticipated financial payments intended to promote social risk screening and referrals to social services. Data were analyzed using both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches. FINDINGS: We grouped findings into three categories: participants' awareness of existing or anticipated financial incentives, uses for incentive dollars, and perceived impact of financial incentives on social care activities in clinical practices. Lack of awareness of existing incentives meant these incentives were not perceived to influence the behaviors of staff responsible for conducting screening and providing referrals. Current or anticipated meaningful uses for incentive dollars included paying for social care staff, providing social services, and supporting additional fundraising efforts. Frontline staff reported that the strongest motivator for clinic social care practices was the ability to provide responsive social services. Clinic leaders/managers noted that for financial incentives to substantively change CHC practices would require payments sizable enough to expand the social care workforce as well. CONCLUSIONS: Small fee-for-service payments to CHCs for social risk screening and navigation services are unlikely to markedly influence CHC social care practices. Refining the design of financial incentives-e.g., by increasing clinical teams' awareness of incentives, linking screening to well-funded social services, and changing incentive amounts to support social care staffing needs-may increase the uptake of social care practices in CHCs.

Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in a Diverse Pediatric and Prenatal Population is not Associated with Genetic Ancestry.

Purpose: It has been hypothesized that diagnostic yield (DY) from Exome Sequencing (ES) may be lower among patients with non-European ancestries than those with European ancestry. We examined the association of DY with estimated continental genetic ancestry in a racially/ethnically diverse pediatric and prenatal clinical cohort. Methods: Cases (N=845) with suspected genetic disorders underwent ES for diagnosis. Continental genetic ancestry proportions were estimated from the ES data. We compared the distribution of genetic ancestries in positive, negative, and inconclusive cases by Kolmogorov Smirnov tests and linear associations of ancestry with DY by Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Results: We observed no reduction in overall DY associated with any continental genetic ancestry (Africa, America, East Asia, Europe, Middle East, South Asia). However, we observed a relative increase in proportion of autosomal recessive homozygous inheritance versus other inheritance patterns associated with Middle Eastern and South Asian ancestry, due to consanguinity. Conclusions: In this empirical study of ES for undiagnosed pediatric and prenatal genetic conditions, genetic ancestry was not associated with the likelihood of a positive diagnosis, supporting the ethical and equitable use of ES in diagnosis of previously undiagnosed but potentially Mendelian disorders across all ancestral populations.

"I Have Fought for so Many Things": Disadvantaged families' Efforts to Obtain Community-Based Services for Their Child after Genomic Sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Families whose child has unexplained intellectual or developmental differences often hope that a genetic diagnosis will lower barriers to community-based therapeutic and support services. However, there is little known about efforts to mobilize genetic information outside the clinic or how socioeconomic disadvantage shapes and constrains outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic study with predominantly socioeconomically disadvantaged families enrolled in a multi-year genomics research study, including clinic observations and in-depth interviews in English and Spanish at multiple time points. Coding and thematic development were used to collaboratively interpret fieldnotes and transcripts. RESULTS: Thirty-two families participated. Themes included familial expectations that a genetic diagnosis could be translated into information, understanding, and assistance to improve the quality of a child's day-to-day life. After sequencing, however, genetic information was not readily converted into improved access to services beyond the clinic, with families often struggling to use a genetic diagnosis to advocate for their child. CONCLUSION: Families' ability to use a genetic diagnosis as an effective advocacy tool beyond the clinic was limited by the knowledge and resources available to them, and by the eligibility criteria used by therapeutic service providers' - which focused on clinical diagnosis and functional criteria more than etiologic information. All families undertaking genomic testing, particularly those who are disadvantaged, need additional support to understand the limits and potential benefits of genetic information beyond the clinic.

Caregivers' and providers' perspectives of social and medical care after pediatric liver transplant: Results from the multicenter SOCIAL-Tx study.

Disparities exist in pediatric liver transplant (LT). We characterized barriers and facilitators to providing transplant and social care within pediatric LT clinics. This was a multicenter qualitative study. We oversampled caregivers reporting household financial strain, material economic hardship, or demonstrating poor health literacy. We also enrolled transplant team members. We conducted semistructured interviews with participants. Caregiver interviews focused on challenges addressing transplant and household needs. Transplant provider interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to providing social care within transplant teams. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model. We interviewed 27 caregivers and 27 transplant team members. Fifty-two percent of caregivers reported a household income <$60,000, and 62% reported financial resource strain. Caregivers reported experiencing (1) high financial burdens after LT, (2) added caregiving labor that compounds the financial burden, (3) dependency on their social network's generosity for financial and logistical support, and (4) additional support being limited to the perioperative period. Transplant providers reported (1) relying on the pretransplant psychosocial assessment for identifying social risks, (2) discomfort initiating social risk discussions in the post-transplant period, (3) reliance on social workers to address new social risks, and (4) social workers feeling overburdened by quantity and quality of the social work referrals. We identified barriers to providing effective social care in pediatric LT, primarily a lack of comfort in assessing and addressing new social risks in the post-transplant period. Addressing these barriers should enhance social care delivery and improve outcomes for these children.

Parental Hopes and Understandings of the Value of Prenatal Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing: A Qualitative Analysis.

Objective: To provide qualitative empirical data on parental expectations of diagnostic prenatal genomic sequencing and the value of the results to families. Methods: We interviewed 15 families-mothers and/or fathers-who had had prenatal genomic sequencing about their expectations and their respective evaluations of the benefits of genomic sequencing. Results: Families' hopes for genetic sequencing clustered around three themes: hoping to identify the cause of the fetal anomaly in a terminated pregnancy; hopes for guidance as to the likely outcome of current pregnancy; and hopes for information to support future family planning. In addition, hopes were discussed in terms of the potential for results to be beneficial in acquiring greater knowledge, while at the same time recognizing that new knowledge may raise more questions. Assessment of the value of sequencing largely mirrored these expectations when positive results seen. Negative results can also be seen as valuable in ruling out a genetic cause and in providing certainty that families had done everything that they could to know about the cause of fetal demise. Conclusion: It would appear that with guidance from genetic counsellors, families were largely able to navigate the many uncertainties of prenatal genomic sequencing and thus see themselves as benefitting from sequencing. However, support structures are essential to guide them through their expectations and interpretations of results to minimize possible harms. Engaging in the process of genomic sequencing was seen as beneficial in of itself to families who would otherwise be left without any options to seek diagnostic answers.

"Let's Just Wait Until She's Born": Temporal Factors That Shape Decision-Making for Prenatal Genomic Sequencing Amongst Families Underrepresented in Genomic Research.

Genomic sequencing has been increasingly utilized for prenatal diagnosis in recent years and this trend is likely to continue. However, decision-making for parents in the prenatal period is particularly fraught, and prenatal sequencing would significantly expand the complexity of managing health risk information, reproductive options, and healthcare access. This qualitative study investigates decision-making processes amongst parents who enrolled or declined to enroll in the prenatal arm of the California-based Program in Prenatal and Pediatric Genome Sequencing (P3EGS), a study in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium that offered whole exome sequencing for fetal anomalies with a focus on underrepresented groups in genomic research. Drawing on the views of 18 prenatal families who agreed to be interviewed after enrolling (n = 15) or declining to enroll (n = 3) in P3EGS, we observed that the timing of sequencing, coupled with unique considerations around experiences of time during pregnancy and prenatal testing, intersect with structural supports beyond the clinic to produce preferences for and against prenatal sequencing and to contain the threat of unwelcome, uncertain knowledge. Particularly for those without structural supports, finding out consequential information may be more palatable after the birth, when the first stage of the uncertain future has been revealed. Future research should examine the role of temporality in decision-making around prenatal genomic sequencing across diverse population cohorts, in order to observe more precisely the role that structural barriers play in patient preferences.

Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) are routinely offered the option to receive secondary findings (SF). However, little is known about the views of individuals from underrepresented minority pediatric or prenatal populations regarding SF. METHODS: We explored the preferences for receiving hypothetical categories of SF (H-SF) and reasons for accepting or declining actual SF through surveying (n = 149) and/or interviewing (n = 47) 190 families undergoing pediatric or prenatal ES. RESULTS: Underrepresented minorities made up 75% of the probands. In total, 150 families (79%) accepted SF as part of their child/fetus's ES. Most families (63%) wanted all categories of H-SF. Those who declined SF as part of ES were less likely to want H-SF across all categories. Interview findings indicate that some families did not recall their SF decision. Preparing for the future was a major motivator for accepting SF, and concerns about privacy, discrimination, and psychological effect drove decliners. CONCLUSION: A notable subset of families (37%) did not want at least 1 category of H-SF, suggesting more hesitancy about receiving all available results than previously reported. The lack of recollection of SF decisions suggests a need for alternative communication approaches. Results highlight the importance of the inclusion of diverse populations in genomic research.

Perceived Utility of Genomic Sequencing: Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis of a Conceptual Model to Inform Patient-Centered Instrument Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is as yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We took a patient-centered approach, in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. RESULTS: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several subdomains are specified within each. CONCLUSION: We present an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

The difficulties of broad data sharing in genomic medicine: Empirical evidence from diverse participants in prenatal and pediatric clinical genomics research.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand broad data sharing decisions among predominantly underserved families participating in genomic research. METHODS: Drawing on clinic observations, semistructured interviews, and survey data from prenatal and pediatric families enrolled in a genomic medicine study focused on historically underserved and underrepresented populations, this paper expands empirical evidence regarding genomic data sharing communication and decision-making. RESULTS: One-third of parents declined to share family data, and pediatric participants were significantly more likely to decline than prenatal participants. The pediatric population was significantly more socioeconomically disadvantaged and more likely to require interpreters. Opt-in was tied to altruism and participants' perception that data sharing was inherent to research participation. Opt-out was associated with privacy concerns and influenced by clinical staff's presentation of data handling procedures. The ability of participants to make informed choices during enrollment about data sharing was weakened by suboptimal circumstances, which was revealed by poor understanding of data sharing in follow-up interviews as well as discrepancies between expressed participant desires and official recorded choices. CONCLUSION: These empirical data suggest that the context within which informed consent process is conducted in clinical genomics may be inadequate for respecting participants' values and preferences and does not support informed decision-making processes.

The Challenge of Recruiting Diverse Populations into Health Research: An embedded social science perspective.

Addressing health disparities has become a central remit for conducting health research. In the following paper, we explore the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by the call to recruit medically underserved populations. This exploration of challenges is undertaken from the perspective of social science researchers embedded in a large within a clinical genomics research study. We suggest that these challenges are found in respect to the development of recruiting strategies, analysis of the data in respect to understanding and interpreting the experiences of being medically underserved, and in comparing the experiences of being medically underserved compared to not being underserved. By way of conclusion, it is argued that there is important role for social scientists with large health research studies which, if achieved successfully, can benefit study teams and society as a whole.

Examining access to care in clinical genomic research and medicine: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of "access to genomic medicine" is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking. METHODS: Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them. RESULTS: CSER's enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

Conceptualization of utility in translational clinical genomics research.

Prior to integration into clinical care, a novel medical innovation is typically assessed in terms of its balance of benefits and risks, often referred to as utility. Members of multidisciplinary research teams may conceptualize and assess utility in different ways, which has implications within the translational genomics community and for the evidence base upon which clinical guidelines groups and healthcare payers make decisions. Ambiguity in the conceptualization of utility in translational genomics research can lead to communication challenges within research teams and to study designs that do not meet stakeholder needs. We seek to address the ambiguity challenge by describing the conceptual understanding of utility and use of the term by scholars in the fields of philosophy, medicine, and the social sciences of decision psychology and health economics. We illustrate applications of each field's orientation to translational genomics research by using examples from the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, and we provide recommendations for increasing clarity and cohesion in future research. Given that different understandings of utility will align to a greater or lesser degree with important stakeholders' views, more precise use of the term can help researchers to better integrate multidisciplinary investigations and communicate with stakeholders.

Design and execution of a public randomization ceremony to enhance stakeholder engagement within a cluster randomized trial to improve tuberculosis diagnosis in Uganda.

Public randomization ceremonies have been proposed as a strategy to strengthen stakeholder engagement and address concerns and misconceptions associated with trial randomization. However, there are few published examples that describe how to conduct a public randomization ceremony with meaningful stakeholder engagement or how such ceremonies impact stakeholder perceptions about randomization and the randomization process. Cluster randomization for the GeneXpert Performance Evaluation for Linkage to Tuberculosis Care (XPEL-TB) trial was conducted at a public randomization ceremony attended by 70 stakeholders in Kampala, Uganda. Presentations given by the Acting Assistant Commissioner from the Uganda National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme and trial investigators emphasized how the trial aimed to further national TB goals, as well as how stakeholders contributed to the intervention design. The purpose and process of randomization were described using simple text and visuals. Randomization was an interactive activity that required participation of stakeholders from each trial site. A survey administered to stakeholders at the end of the ceremony suggested high comprehension of randomization (98%), trust in the randomization process (96%), and satisfaction with randomization outcomes (96%). Public randomization ceremonies should be considered more routinely to engage stakeholders in and address potential concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the randomization process for community-based trials.

Laboratory business models and practices: implications for availability and access to germline genetic testing.

PURPOSE: Germline testing laboratories have evolved over several decades. We describe laboratory business models and practices and explore their implications on germline testing availability and access. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with key informants using purposive sampling. We interviewed 13 key informants representing 14 laboratories. We used triangulation and iterative data analysis to identify topics concerning laboratory business models and practices. RESULTS: We characterized laboratories as full-service (FSL), for-profit germline (PGL), and not-for-profit germline (NGL). Relying on existing payer contracts is a key characteristic of the FSL business models. FSLs focus on high-volume germline tests with evidence of clinical utility that have reimbursable codes. In comparison, a key business model characteristic of PGLs is direct patient billing facilitated by commodity-based pricing made possible by investors and industry partnerships. Client billing is a key business model characteristic of NGLs. Because many NGLs exist within academic settings, they are challenged by their inability to optimize laboratory processes and billing practices. CONCLUSION: Continued availability of, and access to germline testing will depend on the financial success of laboratories; organizational characteristics of laboratories and payers; cultural factors, particularly consumer interest and trust; and societal factors, such as regulation and laws surrounding pricing and reimbursement.

Improving Patient Safety in Public Hospitals: Developing Standard Measures to Track Medical Errors and Process Breakdowns.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop standards for tracking patient safety gaps in ambulatory care in safety net health systems. METHODS: Leaders from five California safety net health systems were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process sponsored by the Safety Promotion Action Research and Knowledge Network (SPARKNet) and the California Safety Net Institute in 2016. During each of the three Delphi rounds, the feasibility and validity of 13 proposed patient safety measures were discussed and prioritized. Surveys and transcripts from the meetings were analyzed to understand the decision-making process. RESULTS: The Delphi process included eight panelists. Consensus was reached to adopt 9 of 13 proposed measures. All 9 measures were unanimously considered valid, but concern was expressed about the feasibility of implementing several of the measures. CONCLUSIONS: Although safety net health systems face high barriers to standardized measurement, our study demonstrates that consensus can be reached on acceptable and feasible methods for tracking patient safety gaps in safety net health systems. If accompanied by the active participation key stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, staff, data system professionals, and health system leaders, the consensus measures reported here represent one step toward improving ambulatory patient safety in safety net health systems.

Study protocol: a cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of onsite GeneXpert testing at community health centers in Uganda (XPEL-TB).

BACKGROUND: Delays in diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis (TB) remain common in high-burden countries. To improve case detection, substantial investments have been made to scale-up Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test that can detect TB within 2 hours, as a replacement for sputum smear microscopy. However, the optimal strategy for implementation of Xpert testing remains unclear. METHODS: The Xpert Performance Evaluation for Linkage to Tuberculosis Care (XPEL-TB) trial uses an ultra-pragmatic, hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation design to assess the effectiveness and implementation of a streamlined strategy for delivery of Xpert testing in real-world settings. Twenty health centers with TB microscopy units were selected to participate in the trial, with ten health centers randomized to the intervention strategy (onsite molecular testing using GeneXpert Edge, process redesign to facilitate same-day TB diagnosis and treatment, and performance feedback) or routine care (onsite sputum smear microscopy plus referral of sputum samples to Xpert testing sites). The primary outcome is the number of patients with microbiologically confirmed TB who were initiated on treatment within 14 days of presentation to the health center, which reflects successful completion of the TB diagnostic evaluation process. Secondary outcomes include health outcomes (6-month vital status), as well as measures of the reach, adoption, and implementation of the intervention strategy. DISCUSSION: The design elements and implementation approach for the XPEL-TB trial were intentionally selected to minimize disruptions to routine care procedures, with the goal of limiting their influence on key primary and secondary outcomes. Trial findings may result in increased support and funding for rapid, onsite molecular testing as the standard-of-care for all patients being evaluated for TB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Institutes of Health's ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03044158. Registered 06 February 2017. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201610001763265. Registered 03 September 2016.

Comparing Patients' Experiences with Electronic and Traditional Consultation: Results from a Multisite Survey.

BACKGROUND: There have been no large-scale studies to date of patients' experiences with electronic consultation (eConsult) between primary and specialty care. OBJECTIVE: Compare experiences with eConsult and referral for in-person specialist consultation. DESIGN: Online survey 2-6 weeks following eConsult or referral at 9 US academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with no more than one eConsult or referral order from a primary care provider (PCP) in the prior month. Over 9 months, 29,291 email invitations were sent (88% referral; 12% eConsult). MAIN MEASURES: Trust in and satisfaction with PCP; consult type awareness; agreement with decision to seek specialist input; timeliness of care; mode of PCP-patient eConsult communication; satisfaction with specialist's recommendations; future preference for eConsult or referral. KEY RESULTS: A 27.6% response rate yielded 8087 respondents (88.4% referral; 11.6% eConsult). Many did not know that their PCP had placed a referral (32.8% unaware) or eConsult (52.9%), and eConsult awareness was significantly higher among patients reporting better health (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18-2.23). Most (81.4% eConsult; 82.0% referral) were satisfied with the specialist's recommendations. Those who had a good primary care experience were more likely to be satisfied (eConsult: OR 10.63, 95% CI 2.95-38.32; referral: OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.86-4.44). For a similar problem in the future, 78% of eConsult and 32% percent of referral patients preferred eConsult. CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study demonstrates that many patients find virtual consultation to be an acceptable strategy for the management of their medical condition and that trust and confidence in one's PCP are crucial ingredients for a satisfying eConsult experience. The lack of awareness of eConsult among many patients who were beneficiaries of the service warrants an increased effort to include patients in eConsult decision-making and communication. Further research is needed to assess eConsult acceptability and satisfaction in more diverse patient populations.

Patients Assess an eConsult Model's Acceptability at 5 US Academic Medical Centers.

PURPOSE: Electronic consultation (eConsult), involving asynchronous primary care clinician-to-specialist consultation, is being adopted at a growing number of health systems. Most evaluations of eConsult programs have assessed clinical and financial impacts and clinician acceptability. Less attention has been focused on patients' opinions. We set out to understand patient perspectives and preferences for hypothetical eConsult use at 5 US academic medical centers in the process of adopting an eConsult model. METHODS: We invited adult primary care patients to participate in focus groups. Participants were introduced to the eConsult model, considered its potential benefits and drawbacks, judged the acceptability of a hypothetical copay, and expressed their preferences for future involvement in eConsult decision making and communication. Thematic analysis was used for data interpretation. RESULTS: One focus group was conducted at each of the 5 sites with a total of 52 participants. Focus groups responded positively to the idea of eConsult, with quicker access to specialty care and convenience identified as key benefits. Approval was particularly high among those with a trusted primary care clinician. Preference for involvement in eConsult decision making and communication varied and enthusiasm about eConsult waned when a hypothetical copay was introduced. Concerns included potential misuse of eConsult and exclusion of the patient's illness narrative in the eConsult exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients expressed strong support for eConsult, particularly when used by a trusted primary care clinician, in addition to voicing several concerns. Patient involvement in eConsult outreach and education efforts could help to enhance the model's effectiveness and acceptability.