Assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of a psychosocial screening tool to patients and clinicians in a clinical genetics service in Australia.

Increasing demand for clinical genetic services may impact the resources and quality of genetic counseling, potentially impacting patient outcomes. Using a psychosocial screening tool may aid the provision of genetic counseling by reliably identifying patients' psychosocial needs. The Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI) is a validated genetic-specific screening tool designed to identify psychological risk factors that predict distress in patients having genetic testing. This questionnaire-based study investigated the perceived acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of the GPRI in patients and clinicians in routine clinical genetic practice. From December 2018 to January 2019, 154 patients attending an Australian clinical genetic service were invited to complete a paper-based survey that included the GPRI. The GPRI was scored and provided to the clinician for use in the appointment. In February 2019, clinicians completed an anonymous online survey regarding acceptability, feasibility, and usefulness of the GPRI. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared, t tests, and regression analyses were used to analyze the patient data, and descriptive statistics were employed for clinician surveys. A total of 145 patients participated (94% response rate). The average GPRI score was 46.3 (95% CI 43.6-49.0) with 41% of patients meeting the 50-point threshold indicating high risk for psychological distress. The GPRI was highly acceptable to patients, regardless of their level of psychosocial risk. Fourteen clinicians participated (54% response rate): 85% found the GPRI not too time consuming, and 86% believed it improved patient care by identifying patient needs. All were willing to use the GPRI routinely. The use of the GPRI is highly acceptable to patients and clinicians in this setting, assisting in identifying patients at risk for distress, prompting clinicians to address concerns, provide psychosocial support, and consider ongoing referral. As 41% of patients' scores indicated a high risk of distress, the GPRI is an important tool for potentially enhancing overall patient outcomes.

Personalising genetic counselling (POETIC) trial: Protocol for a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of a patient screening tool to improve patient empowerment after cancer genetic counselling.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counselling aims to identify, and address, patient needs while facilitating informed decision-making about genetic testing and promoting empowerment and adaptation to genetic information. Increasing demand for cancer genetic testing and genetic counsellor workforce capacity limitations may impact the quality of genetic counselling provided. The use of a validated genetic-specific screening tool, the Genetic Psychosocial Risk Instrument (GPRI), may facilitate patient-centred genetic counselling. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and implementation of using the GPRI in improving patient outcomes after genetic counselling and testing for an inherited cancer predisposition. METHODS: The PersOnalising gEneTIc Counselling (POETIC) trial is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial using a randomised control trial to assess the effectiveness of the GPRI in improving patient empowerment (primary outcome), while also assessing implementation from the perspective of clinicians and the healthcare service. Patients referred for a cancer risk assessment to the conjoint clinical genetics service of two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who meet the eligibility criteria and consent to POETIC will be randomised to the usual care or intervention group. Those in the intervention group will complete the GPRI prior to their appointment with the screening results available for the clinicians' use during the appointment. Appointment audio recordings, clinician-reported information about the appointment, patient-reported outcome measures, and clinical data will be used to examine the effectiveness of using the GPRI. Appointment audio recordings, health economic information, and structured interviews will be used to examine the implementation of the GPRI. DISCUSSION: The POETIC trial takes a pragmatic approach by deploying the GPRI as an intervention in the routine clinical practice of a cancer-specific clinical genetics service that is staffed by a multidisciplinary team of genetics and oncology clinicians. Therefore, the effectiveness and implementation evidence generated from this real-world health service setting aims to optimise the relevance of the outcomes of this trial to the practice of genetic counselling while enhancing the operationalisation of the screening tool in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry registration number 12621001582842p. Date of registration: 19th November 2021.

Mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer patients: early experiences from the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre.

The demand for genetic testing of hereditary breast cancer genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 has continued to increase with the lowering costs of testing, raised awareness in the general public, and implications for breast cancer treatment when a patient is identified as having a germline pathogenic variant. Historically within Australia, patients affected by high genetic risk breast cancers have been referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC) for assessment and testing, resulting in wait times for an appointment for pre- and post-test genetic counselling and an increased demand on the public-funded FCC. To improve patient access and pace of genetic testing, as well as refocus FCC resources, a mainstream clinical genetic testing program was rolled out in September 2017 through the Parkville FCC (PFCC) in Australia at 10 hospital sites. This program enables specialist doctors of eligible patients affected by breast cancer to arrange genetic testing directly at an oncology/surgical appointment and follow up the results as part of the patients' routine clinical care. In this model, the specialist doctor is responsible for any treatment implications of the genetic test result, and the PFCC is responsible for result interpretation, future cancer risk, family cascade testing and segregation testing where warranted. To date the program has had successful uptake, a notable pathogenic variant detection rate, reduced the burden on the PFCC enabling a reallocation of resources and has streamlined the process of genetic testing for eligible patients. Investigation into the patient and clinician experiences of the mainstream program is required.