A national education program for rapid genomics in pediatric acute care: Building workforce confidence, competence, and capability.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a scalable national program to build confidence, competence and capability in the use of rapid genomic testing (rGT) in the acute pediatric setting. METHODS: We used theory-informed approaches to design a modular, adaptive program of blended learning aimed at diverse professional groups involved in acute pediatric care. The program comprised 4 online learning modules and an online workshop and was centered on case-based learning. We evaluated the program using the Kirkpatrick 4-level model of training evaluation and report our findings using the Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation (RISE2) guidelines for genomics education and evaluation. RESULTS: Two hundred and two participants engaged with at least 1 component of the program. Participants self-reported increased confidence in using rGT, (P < .001), and quiz responses objectively demonstrated increased competence (eg, correct responses to a question on pretest counseling increased from 30% to 64%; P < .001). Additionally, their capability in applying genomic principles to simulated clinical cases increased (P < .001), as did their desire to take on more responsibility for performing rGT. The clinical interpretation of more complex test results (such as negative results or variants of uncertain significance) appeared to be more challenging, indicating a need for targeted education in this area. CONCLUSION: The program format was effective in delivering multidisciplinary and wide-scale genomics education in the acute care context. The modular approach we have developed now lends itself to application in other medical specialties or areas of health care.

Patient Experience of Complex Genomic Sequencing Exploring Patient Preference, Barriers, and Enablers for Delivery.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting complex genomic sequencing (CGS) in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. METHODS: This mixed-methods, prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGS in the care of patients with advanced cancer. DNA sequencing was undertaken on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor and matched blood was completed with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes via central laboratory. Oncologists performed consent and result delivery. Patients completed pre- and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions and, if eligible, semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians to evaluate processes. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-nine (63%) had ≥1 finding with the potential to affect management, including 172 (55%) whose finding could affect their treatment options, 25 (8%) whose test led to the resolution of diagnostic ambiguity, and 49 (16%) with a pathogenic germline variant. In 6-month follow-up, 50 (16%) participants had their subsequent therapy changed on the basis of their CGS results. Two hundred ninety-three (88% of adult patients) completed surveys at three time points. At consent, patients cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test patients remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGS. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret after participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Clinicians cited collaboration and communication as critical to delivery. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing CGS are generally satisfied and place value on its use beyond potential therapeutic benefit. Our results suggest that to improve test utility and delivery of CGS with value to patients and investing institutions, focus must be placed on addressing the additional barriers to its wider implications including efforts to improve process efficiencies, clinician genomic literacy, and decision-making support.

Becoming agents for genomic change: genetic counsellors' views of patient care and implementation influences when genomics is mainstreamed.

Genetic counsellors (GCs) across the world are increasingly transitioning beyond clinical genetics services to meet the growing demands for genomic healthcare. This presents a unique opportunity for GCs to be 'genomic change agents' as they work in alternative models of care. Through various innovative models of mainstream care funded through a change program, we explored the views of GCs regarding their position as 'genomic change agents' and what may hinder or drive the success of their evolving roles. Guided by the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, we conducted qualitative interviews with all twelve GCs employed by the change program in different models of providing genomics across five specialties in Australia. Audio-recordings of all interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive content analysis. Findings show that early in these new roles, participants held varied descriptions of 'genomics mainstreaming': some envisioned it as an end state exclusive to medical specialists practicing genomics while others saw the involvement of GCs as crucial. Participants believed they were uniquely positioned to expedite patient access to genomic testing and counselling and enhance medical specialists' capability to use genomics. Challenges included hesitancy of some medical specialists regarding the value of genomics in healthcare and potential tension arising from distinct perspectives and practice between genetic and non-genetic professionals. Participants anticipated a decline in the standard of care when non-genetic colleagues managed consent discussion and result disclosure. Our study underscores leadership support and peer connection with those in similar roles as essential elements for GCs' success in mainstream settings.

Moving Genomics into the Clinic: Platforms for Implementing Clinical Genomic Data-Sharing in Ways That Address Ethical, Legal and Social Implications.

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A scoping review of genomics education needs assessments and evaluations.

A health workforce capable of implementing genomic medicine requires effective genomics education. Genomics education interventions developed for health professions over the last two decades, and their impact, are variably described in the literature. To inform an evaluation framework for genomics education, we undertook an exploratory scoping review of published needs assessments for, and/or evaluations of, genomics education interventions for health professionals from 2000 to 2023. We retrieved and screened 4,659 records across the two searches with 363 being selected for full-text review and consideration by an interdisciplinary working group. 104 articles were selected for inclusion in the review-60 needs assessments, 52 genomics education evaluations, and eight describing both. Included articles spanned all years and described education interventions in over 30 countries. Target audiences included medical specialists, nurses/midwives, and/or allied health professionals. Evaluation questions, outcomes, and measures were extracted, categorized, and tabulated to iteratively compare measures across stages of genomics education evaluation: planning (pre-implementation), development and delivery (implementation), and impact (immediate, intermediate, or long-term outcomes). They are presented here along with descriptions of study designs. We document the wide variability in evaluation approaches and terminology used to define measures and note that few articles considered downstream (long-term) outcomes of genomics education interventions. Alongside the evaluation framework for genomics education, results from this scoping review form part of a toolkit to help educators to undertake rigorous genomics evaluation that is fit for purpose and can contribute to the growing evidence base of the contribution of genomics education in implementation strategies for genomic medicine.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A theory- and empirically informed evaluation framework.

Implementation of genomic medicine into healthcare requires a workforce educated through effective educational approaches. However, ascertaining the impact of genomics education activities or resources is limited by a lack of evaluation and inconsistent descriptions in the literature. We aim to support those developing genomics education to consider how best to capture evaluation data that demonstrate program outcomes and effectiveness within scope. Here, we present an evaluation framework that is adaptable to multiple settings for use by genomics educators with or without education or evaluation backgrounds. The framework was developed as part of a broader program supporting genomic research translation coordinated by the Australian Genomics consortium. We detail our mixed-methods approach involving an expert workshop, literature review and iterative expert input to reach consensus and synthesis of a new evaluation framework for genomics education. The resulting theory-informed and evidence-based framework encompasses evaluation across all stages of education program development, implementation and reporting, and acknowledges the critical role of stakeholders and the effects of external influences.

Key informant perspectives on implementing genomic newborn screening: a qualitative study guided by the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time framework.

Newborn screening (NBS) programmes are highly successful, trusted, public health interventions. Genomic sequencing offers the opportunity to increase the benefits of NBS by screening infants for a greater number and variety of childhood-onset conditions. This study aimed to describe who needs to do what, when, and for whom to deliver genomic newborn screening (gNBS) and capture perceived implementation barriers and enablers. 'Key informants' (individuals involved in the delivery of NBS) were interviewed. The Actor, Action, Context, Time and Target framework guided data collection and analysis. Participants (N = 20) identified new Actions required to deliver gNBS (educating healthcare providers, longitudinal psychosocial support), NBS Actions needing modification (obtaining consent) and NBS Actions that could be adopted for gNBS (prompt referral pathways). Obtaining consent in a prenatal Context was a source of some disagreement. The Time to disclose high chance results was raised as a key consideration in gNBS programme design. Genetic counsellors were identified as key Actors in results management, but workforce limitations may be a barrier. Online decision support tools were an enabler to offering gNBS. The implementation of gNBS will require behaviour changes from HCPs delivering NBS. Findings can inform how to deliver gNBS at population-scale.

Australian public perspectives on genomic newborn screening: which conditions should be included?

BACKGROUND: Implementing genomic sequencing into newborn screening programs allows for significant expansion in the number and scope of conditions detected. We sought to explore public preferences and perspectives on which conditions to include in genomic newborn screening (gNBS). METHODS: We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age, using social media, and invited them to participate in online focus groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five members of the public aged 23-72 participated in one of fifteen focus groups. Participants agreed that if prioritisation of conditions was necessary, childhood-onset conditions were more important to include than later-onset conditions. Despite the purpose of the focus groups being to elicit public preferences, participants wanted to defer to others, such as health professionals or those with a lived experience of each condition, to make decisions about which conditions to include. Many participants saw benefit in including conditions with no available treatment. Participants agreed that gNBS should be fully publicly funded. CONCLUSION: How many and which conditions are included in a gNBS program will be a complex decision requiring detailed assessment of benefits and costs alongside public and professional engagement. Our study provides support for implementing gNBS for treatable childhood-onset conditions.

Prospective cohort study of genomic newborn screening: BabyScreen+ pilot study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening.

Increasing use of diagnostic genomic sequencing is pushing health services to confront the issue of opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). To date, OGS has been offered concomitant with diagnostic testing. In contrast, we piloted a service offering OGS after return of diagnostic testing results. Evaluation was designed to provide insights for future models of service and included patient surveys at three time points, semi-structured interviews with genetic counsellors (GCs) and a focus group with medical scientists. Uptake was relatively low: 83 of 200 patients approached (42%) attended the OGS service, with 81 accepting OGS. Whilst many who declined to attend the service cited practical barriers, others gave reasons that indicated this was a considered decision. Despite specific genetic counselling, one third of patients did not understand the scope of re-analysis. Yet after post-test counselling, all respondents with novel pathogenic additional findings (AF) understood the implications and reported relevant follow-up. Recall was high: five months after last contact, 75% recalled being offered OGS without prompting. GC interviews and patient survey responses provide insights into complexities that influence patient support needs, including diagnostic status and AF result type. There was no consensus among patients or professionals about when to offer OGS. There was a clear preference for multiple, flexible methods of information provision; achieving this whilst balancing patient support needs and resource requirements is a challenge requiring further investigation. Decisions about whether, when and how to offer OGS are complex; our study shows the two-step approach warrants further exploration.

Secondary use of genomic data: patients' decisions at point of testing and perspectives to inform international data sharing.

International sharing of genomic data files arising from clinical testing of patients is essential to further improve genomic medicine. Whilst the general public are reluctant to donate DNA for research, the choices patients actually make about sharing their clinical genomic data for future re-use (research or clinical) are unknown. We ascertained the data-sharing choices of 1515 patients having genomic testing for inherited conditions or cancer treatment from clinical consent forms. To understand the experiences and preferences of these patients, surveys were administered after test consent (RR 73%). Almost all patients (98%) consented to share their data. Survey respondents' decision recall was high (90%), but poorer if English was an additional language (p < 0.001). Parents deciding on behalf of children were over-represented amongst data-sharing decliners (p = 0.047) and decliners were more likely to believe that stored data could be easily reidentified (p < 0.001). A quarter of respondents did not know if reidentification would be easy and 44% of them were concerned about this possibility. Of those willing to share data overseas (60%), 23% indicated the recipient researcher's country would affect their decision. Most respondents (89%) desired some ongoing control over research use of their data. Four preliminary data-sharing profiles emerged; their further development could inform tailored patient resources. Our results highlight considerations for establishment of systems to make clinical genomic data files available for reanalysis locally and across borders. Patients' willingness to share their data - and value of the resulting research - should encourage clinical laboratories to consider sharing data systematically for secondary uses.

Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing.

Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50-95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450-$1700 (US$300-$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.

Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation.

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.

Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling the interplay between experience-based intuition and theory-informed implementation is crucial for identifying the direct contribution theory can make for generating behaviour changes needed for successful evidence translation. In the context of 'clinicogenomics', a complex and rapidly evolving field demanding swift practice change, we aimed to (a) describe a combined clinician intuition- and theory-driven method for identifying determinants of and strategies for implementing clinicogenomics, and (b) articulate a structured approach to standardise hypothesised behavioural pathways and make potential underlying theory explicit. METHODS: Interview data from 16 non-genetic medical specialists using genomics in practice identified three target behaviour areas across the testing process: (1) identifying patients, (2) test ordering and reporting, (3) communicating results. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to group barriers and facilitators to performing these actions. Barriers were grouped by distinct TDF domains, with 'overarching' TDF themes identified for overlapping barriers. Clinician intuitively-derived implementation strategies were matched with corresponding barriers, and retrospectively coded against behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Where no intuitive strategies were provided, theory-driven strategies were generated. An algorithm was developed and applied to articulate how implementation strategies address barriers to influence behaviour change. RESULTS: Across all target behaviour areas, 32 identified barriers were coded across seven distinct TDF domains and eight overarching TDF themes. Within the 29 intuitive strategies, 21 BCTs were represented and used on 49 occasions to address 23 barriers. On 10 (20%) of these occasions, existing empirical links were found between BCTs and corresponding distinct TDF-coded barriers. Twenty additional theory-driven implementation strategies (using 19 BCTs on 31 occasions) were developed to address nine remaining barriers. CONCLUSION: Clinicians naturally generate their own solutions when implementing clinical interventions, and in this clinicogenomics example these intuitive strategies aligned with theoretical recommendations 20% of the time. We have matched intuitive strategies with theory-driven BCTs to make potential underlying theory explicit through proposed structured hypothesised causal pathways. Transparency and efficiency are enhanced, providing a novel method to identify determinants of implementation. Operationalising this approach to support the design of implementation strategies may optimise practice change in response to rapidly evolving scientific advances requiring swift translation into healthcare.

What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review.

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.

What matters to parents? A scoping review of parents' service experiences and needs regarding genetic testing for rare diseases.

Patient care experiences are key to promoting better outcomes and are an essential consideration for successful implementation of genomics in paediatric care. To understand parents' service experiences and needs regarding testing of their child for rare diseases, we conducted a scoping review. Five databases were searched (2000-2022), with 29 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Experiences of care wholly delivered by genetic services were most commonly reported (n = 11). Results were synthesised by mapping extracted data to adapted Picker principles of person-centred care. Parents especially valued and emphasised the importance of feeling 'cared for', continuous relationships with clinicians, empathic communication, being kept informed while awaiting genetic test results, linkage with informational and psychosocial resources following results disclosure, and follow-up. Strategies were often proposed by authors to address long-standing unmet needs but evidence from the literature regarding their potential effectiveness was rarely provided. We conclude that 'what matters' to parents regarding genetic testing is not dissimilar to other aspects of care. Paediatric medical specialists have existing skill sets, trusted relationships and can apply familiar principles of 'good' care to enhance experiences of genetic testing. The lack of evidence for service improvement strategies highlights the pressing need to undertake rigorous design and testing of interventions alongside mainstreaming of genomics into paediatric care.

Investigating genomic medicine practice and perceptions amongst Australian non-genetics physicians to inform education and implementation.

Genomic medicine is being implemented on a global scale, requiring a genomic-competent health workforce. To inform education as part of implementation strategies to optimize adoption of genomics by non-genetics physicians, we investigated current practices, perceptions and preferences relating to genomic testing and education. Australian non-genetics physicians completed an online survey; we conducted univariate and multivariate analyses of determinants of confidence and engagement with genomic medicine. Confident or engaged respondents were more likely to be pediatricians, have completed continuing genomics education (CGE) and/or have genomics research experience. Confident or engaged respondents were also more likely to prefer to request genomic testing with support from genetics services than other models. Respondents who had completed CGE and were engaged reported higher confidence than those who were not engaged. We propose a progression of genomic competence aligned with service delivery models, where education is one enabler of mastery or independence to facilitate genomic tests (from referral to requesting with or without clinical genetics support). Workplace learning could provide additional impetus for adoption.

Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

Australian Genomics: Outcomes of a 5-year national program to accelerate the integration of genomics in healthcare.

Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery.