Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed-methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self-identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in-depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk.

The effect of multiple recruitment contacts on response rates and patterns of missing data in a survey of bladder cancer survivors 6 months after cystectomy.

PURPOSE: The Bladder Cancer Quality of Life Study collected detailed and sensitive patient-reported outcomes from bladder cancer survivors in the period after bladder removal surgery, when participation in survey research may present a burden. This paper describes the study recruitment methods and examines the response rates and patterns of missing data. METHODS: Detailed surveys focusing on quality of life, healthcare decision-making, and healthcare expenses were mailed to patients 5-7 months after cystectomy. We conducted up to 10 follow-up recruitment calls. We analyzed survey completion rates following each contact in relation to demographic and clinical characteristics, and patterns of missing data across survey content areas. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 71% (n = 269/379). This was consistent across patient clinical characteristics; response rates were significantly higher among patients over age 70 and significantly lower among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Each follow-up contact resulted in marginal survey completion rates of at least 10%. Rates of missing data were low across most content areas, even for potentially sensitive questions. Rates of missing data differed significantly by sex, age, and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the effort required to participate in research, this population of cancer survivors showed willingness to share detailed information about quality of life, health care decision-making, and expenses, soon after major cancer surgery. Additional contacts were effective at increasing participation. Response patterns differed by race/ethnicity and other demographic factors. Our data collection methods show that it is feasible to gather detailed patient-reported outcomes during this challenging period.

Recommended care and care adherence following a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome. This study assesses trends in diagnosis of LS and adherence to recommended LS-related care in a large integrated healthcare organization (~ 575,000 members). METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data (1999-2015) were examined to identify patients with a diagnosis of LS. We examined their LS-associated care recommendations and adherence to these recommendations. Qualitative patient and provider interviews were conducted with the aim of identifying opportunities for improved care delivery. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with a diagnosis of LS; 64% were diagnosed with a LS-related malignancy prior to their diagnosis of LS. The time to LS diagnosis following development of a LS-related cancer decreased over time: before 2009 11% of individuals received a diagnosis of LS within 1 year of developing a LS-related cancer compared to 83% after 2009 (p < 0.0001). Colonoscopy recommendations were documented in the EMR for almost all patients with LS (96%). Documentation of other recommendations for cancer surveillance was less commonly found. Overall, patient adherence to colonoscopy was high (M = 81.5%; SD = 32.7%), and adherence to other recommendations varied. To improve care coordination, patients and providers suggested providing automated reminder prompts for LS-related surveillance, adding a LS-specific diagnosis code, and providing guidelines for LS-related surveillance in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: We identified fewer than expected patients with LS in our large care system, indicating that there is still a diagnostic care gap. However, patients with LS were likely to receive and follow CRC surveillance recommendations. Recommendations for and adherence to extracolonic surveillance were variable. Improved care coordination and clearer documentation of the LS diagnosis is needed.

Patient perspectives on the use of categories of conditions for decision making about genomic carrier screening results.

As expanded genome-scale carrier screening becomes increasingly prevalent, patients will face decisions about whether to receive results about a vast number of genetic conditions. Understanding patient preferences is important to meaningfully demonstrate the ethical goal of respect and support patient autonomy. We explore one possible way to elicit preferences by sorting conditions into categories, which may support patient decision making, but the extent to which categories are helpful is unknown. In the context of a randomized trial of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening compared to usual care (single disease carrier testing), we interviewed 41 participants who had genome sequencing about their experience using a taxonomy of conditions to select categories of results to receive. We then conducted interviews with an additional 10 participants who were not randomized to genome sequencing, asking them about the taxonomy, their reasons for selecting categories, and alternative ways of presenting information about potential results to receive. Participants in both groups found the categories helpful and valued having a meaningful opportunity to choose which results to receive, regardless of whether they opted to receive all or only certain categories of results. Additionally, participants who received usual care highlighted preparedness as a primary motivation for receiving results, and they indicated that being presented with possible reasons for receiving or declining results for each category could be helpful. Our findings can be used to develop approaches, including the use of categories, to support patient choices in expanded carrier screening. Further research should evaluate and optimize these approaches.

Time Costs for Genetic Counseling in Preconception Carrier Screening with Genome Sequencing.

Advances in technology and the promise of personalized health care are driving greater use of genome sequencing (GS) for a variety of clinical scenarios. As health systems consider adopting GS, they need to understand the impact of GS on the organization and cost of care. While research has documented a dramatic decrease in the cost of sequencing and interpreting GS, few studies have examined how GS impacts genetic counseling workloads. This study examined the time needed to provide genetic counseling for GS in the context of preconception carrier screening. Genetic counselors prospectively reported on the time spent in the results disclosure process with 107 study participants who were part of the NextGen study. We found that the median time for results disclosure was 64 min (ranged from 5 to 229 min). Preparation work was the most time-consuming activity. Qualitative data from journal entries, debrief interviews with genetic counselors, and detailed case conference notes provided information on factors influencing time for results disclosure and implications for practice. Results suggest that expanded carrier screening could require significant increases in genetic counseling time, unless we are able to generate new resources to reduce preparation work or develop other strategies such as the creation of new models to deliver this type of service.

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist. RESULTS: Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result. CONCLUSION: The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations.

Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. METHODS: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. RESULTS: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.

Reasons for Declining Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening Using Genome Sequencing.

Genomic carrier screening can identify more disease-associated variants than existing carrier screening methodologies, but its utility from patients' perspective is not yet established. A randomized controlled trial for preconception genomic carrier screening provided an opportunity to understand patients' decisions about whether to accept or decline testing. We administered a survey to potential genomic carrier screening recipients who declined participation (N = 240) to evaluate their reasons for doing so. Two thirds of women declined participation. We identified major themes describing reasons these individuals declined to participate; the most common were time limitation, lack of interest, not wanting to know the information, and potential cause of worry or anxiety. Most women eligible for genomic carrier screening indicated that their reasons for opting out were due to logistical issues rather than opposing the rationale for testing. As expanded carrier screening and genomic sequencing become a more routine part of clinical care, it is anticipated there will be variable uptake from individuals for this testing. Thus, the advancement of clinical carrier screening from single genes, to expanded screening panels, to an exome- or genome-wide platform, will require approaches that respect individual choice to receive genetic testing for reproductive risk assessment.

Patients' ratings of genetic conditions validate a taxonomy to simplify decisions about preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.

Advances in genome sequencing and gene discovery have created opportunities to efficiently assess more genetic conditions than ever before. Given the large number of conditions that can be screened, the implementation of expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing will require practical methods of simplifying decisions about the conditions for which patients want to be screened. One method to simplify decision making is to generate a taxonomy based on expert judgment. However, expert perceptions of condition attributes used to classify these conditions may differ from those used by patients. To understand whether expert and patient perceptions differ, we asked women who had received preconception genetic carrier screening in the last 3 years to fill out a survey to rate the attributes (predictability, controllability, visibility, and severity) of several autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions. These conditions were classified into one of five taxonomy categories developed by subject experts (significantly shortened lifespan, serious medical problems, mild medical problems, unpredictable medical outcomes, and adult-onset conditions). A total of 193 women provided 739 usable ratings across 20 conditions. The mean ratings and correlations demonstrated that participants made distinctions across both attributes and categories. Aggregated mean attribute ratings across categories demonstrated logical consistency between the key features of each attribute and category, although participants perceived little difference between the mild and serious categories. This study provides empirical evidence for the validity of our proposed taxonomy, which will simplify patient decisions for results they would like to receive from preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.

Generating a taxonomy for genetic conditions relevant to reproductive planning.

As genome or exome sequencing (hereafter genome-scale sequencing) becomes more integrated into standard care, carrier testing is an important possible application. Carrier testing using genome-scale sequencing can identify a large number of conditions, but choosing which conditions/genes to evaluate as well as which results to disclose can be complicated. Carrier testing generally occurs in the context of reproductive decision-making and involves patient values in a way that other types of genetic testing may not. The Kaiser Permanente Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research program is conducting a randomized clinical trial of preconception carrier testing that allows participants to select their preferences for results from among broad descriptive categories rather than selecting individual conditions. This paper describes (1) the criteria developed by the research team, the return of results committee (RORC), and stakeholders for defining the categories; (2) the process of refining the categories based on input from patient focus groups and validation through a patient survey; and (3) how the RORC then assigned specific gene-condition pairs to taxonomy categories being piloted in the trial. The development of four categories (serious, moderate/mild, unpredictable, late onset) for sharing results allows patients to select results based on their values without separately deciding their interest in knowing their carrier status for hundreds of conditions. A fifth category, lifespan limiting, was always shared. The lessons learned may be applicable in other results disclosure situations, such as incidental findings.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recommended among all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. However, there is limited literature regarding patient perspectives of tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with CRC who are not selected for screening based on family history criteria. METHODS: A total of 145 patients aged 39 to 87 years were administered surveys assessing perceived risk, patient perspectives, and potential benefits of and barriers to tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. Associations between patient-specific and cancer-specific factors and survey responses were analyzed. RESULTS: The majority of participants perceived their risk of developing Lynch syndrome as being low, with 9 participants (6.2%) anticipating an abnormal screening result. However, most participants endorsed the potential benefits of screening for themselves and their families, with 84.8% endorsing ≥6 benefits and 50.3% endorsing all 8 benefits. Participants also endorsed few potential barriers to screening, with 89.4% endorsing ≤4 of 9 potential barriers. A common barrier was worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance, which was endorsed by 54.5% of participants. The level of distress associated with tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, which was very low, was not associated with age or CRC stage. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that patients with CRC overall have a positive attitude toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, endorse the benefits of screening, and experience low levels of distress. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with CRC to inform educational approaches that assist in patient decision-making and guide the successful implementation of screening programs.

Ethnographic process evaluation in primary care: explaining the complexity of implementation.

BACKGROUND: The recent growth of implementation research in care delivery systems has led to a renewed interest in methodological approaches that deliver not only intervention outcome data but also deep understanding of the complex dynamics underlying the implementation process. We suggest that an ethnographic approach to process evaluation, when informed by and integrated with quantitative data, can provide this nuanced insight into intervention outcomes. The specific methods used in such ethnographic process evaluations are rarely presented in detail; our objective is to stimulate a conversation around the successes and challenges of specific data collection methods in health care settings. We use the example of a translational clinical trial among 11 community clinics in Portland, OR that are implementing an evidence-based, health-information technology (HIT)-based intervention focused on patients with diabetes. DISCUSSION: Our ethnographic process evaluation employed weekly diaries by clinic-based study employees, observation, informal and formal interviews, document review, surveys, and group discussions to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation success, provide insight into the quantitative study outcomes, and uncover lessons potentially transferable to other implementation projects. These methods captured the depth and breadth of factors contributing to intervention uptake, while minimizing disruption to clinic work and supporting mid-stream shifts in implementation strategies. A major challenge is the amount of dedicated researcher time required. The deep understanding of the 'how' and 'why' behind intervention outcomes that can be gained through an ethnographic approach improves the credibility and transferability of study findings. We encourage others to share their own experiences with ethnography in implementation evaluation and health services research, and to consider adapting the methods and tools described here for their own research.

Should Health Systems Share Genetic Findings With At-Risk Relatives When the Proband Is Deceased? Interviews With Individuals Diagnosed With Lynch Syndrome.

Purpose: Genetic information has health implications for patients and their biological relatives. Death of a patient before sharing a genetic diagnosis with at-risk relatives is a missed opportunity to provide important information that could guide interventions to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality in relatives. Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome at 1 of 4 health systems to explore their perspectives on whether health systems should share genetic risk information with relatives following a patient's death. An inductive, open-coding approach was used to analyze audio-recorded content, with software-generated code reports undergoing iterative comparative analysis by a qualitative research team to identify broad themes and representative participant quotes. Results: Among 23 participating interviewees, 19 supported health systems informing relatives about their Lynch syndrome risk while the remaining 4 were conflicted about patient privacy. Most (n=22) wanted their Lynch syndrome diagnosis shared with relatives if they were unable to share and to be informed of their own risk if a diagnosed relative was unable to share. The most common issues noted regarding information-sharing with relatives included patient privacy and privacy laws (n=8), potential anxiety (n=5), and lack of contact information for relatives (n=3). Interviewee perspectives on how health systems could communicate genetic findings generated a consensus: When - a few months after but within a year of the patient's death; How - explanatory letter and follow-up phone call; and Who - a knowledgeable professional. Conclusions: Interviews demonstrated strong and consistent perspectives from individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome that health systems have a role and responsibility to inform relatives of genetic findings following a patient's death.

Effect of Clinical Decision Support at Community Health Centers on the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in socioeconomically vulnerable patients is suboptimal; better risk factor control could improve CVD outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) targeting CVD risk in community health centers (CHCs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial included 70 CHC clinics randomized to an intervention group (42 clinics; 8 organizations) or a control group that received no intervention (28 clinics; 7 organizations) from September 20, 2018, to March 15, 2020. Randomization was by CHC organization accounting for organization size. Patients aged 40 to 75 years with (1) diabetes or atherosclerotic CVD and at least 1 uncontrolled major risk factor for CVD or (2) total reversible CVD risk of at least 10% were the population targeted by the CDSS intervention. Interventions: A point-of-care CDSS displaying real-time CVD risk factor control data and personalized, prioritized evidence-based care recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year change in total CVD risk and reversible CVD risk (ie, the reduction in 10-year CVD risk that was considered achievable if 6 key risk factors reached evidence-based levels of control). Results: Among the 18 578 eligible patients (9490 [51.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.8] years), patients seen in control clinics (n = 7419) had higher mean (SD) baseline CVD risk (16.6% [12.8%]) than patients seen in intervention clinics (n = 11 159) (15.6% [12.3%]; P < .001); baseline reversible CVD risk was similarly higher among patients seen in control clinics. The CDSS was used at 19.8% of 91 988 eligible intervention clinic encounters. No population-level reduction in CVD risk was seen in patients in control or intervention clinics; mean reversible risk improved significantly more among patients in control (-0.1% [95% CI, -0.3% to -0.02%]) than intervention clinics (0.4% [95% CI, 0.3% to 0.5%]; P < .001). However, when the CDSS was used, both risk measures decreased more among patients with high baseline risk in intervention than control clinics; notably, mean reversible risk decreased by an absolute 4.4% (95% CI, -5.2% to -3.7%) among patients in intervention clinics compared with 2.7% (95% CI, -3.4% to -1.9%) among patients in control clinics (P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The CDSS had low use rates and failed to improve CVD risk in the overall population but appeared to have a benefit on CVD risk when it was consistently used for patients with high baseline risk treated in CHCs. Despite some limitations, these results provide preliminary evidence that this technology has the potential to improve clinical care in socioeconomically vulnerable patients with high CVD risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03001713.

"I didn't know you could do that": A Pilot Assessment of EHR Optimization Training.

BACKGROUND: Informatics tools within electronic health records (EHRs)-for example, data rosters and clinical reminders-can help disseminate care guidelines into clinical practice. Such tools' adoption varies widely, however, possibly because many primary care providers receive minimal training in even basic EHR functions. OBJECTIVES: This mixed-methods evaluation of a pilot training program sought to identify factors to consider when providing EHR use optimization training in community health centers (CHCs) as a step toward supporting CHC providers' adoption of EHR tools. METHODS: In spring 2018, we offered 10 CHCs a 2-day, 16-hour training in EHR use optimization, provided by clinician trainers, and customized to each CHC's needs. We surveyed trainees pre- and immediately post-training and again 3 months later. We conducted post-training interviews with selected clinic staff, and conducted a focus group with the trainers, to assess satisfaction with the training, and perceptions of how it impacted subsequent EHR use. RESULTS: Six CHCs accepted and received the training; 122 clinic staff members registered to attend, and most who completed the post-training survey reported high satisfaction. Three months post-training, 80% of survey respondents said the training had changed their daily EHR use somewhat or significantly. CONCLUSION: Factors to consider when planning EHR use optimization training in CHCs include: CHCs may face barriers to taking part in such training; it may be necessary to customize training to a given clinic's needs and to different trainees' clinic roles; identifying trainees' skill level a priori would help but is challenging; in-person training may be preferable; and inclusion of a practice coach may be helpful. Additional research is needed to identify how to provide such training most effectively.

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding. RESULTS: Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

Discordant Patient and Clinician Perspectives on the Potential Value of Genetic Services in Safety-Net Clinics.

PURPOSE: As new genetic services become available, their implementation in safety-net settings must be studied. METHODS: We interviewed stakeholders (patients and primary care clinicians) from federally qualified health centers to discuss the utility, acceptability, and priority of new genetic services. We presented scenarios tailored for each audience describing carrier testing, diagnostic testing for a developmental delay, and hereditary cancer syndrome testing. We summarized transcripts using the framework method and compared patient and clinician perspectives. RESULTS: Clinicians questioned the relevance and priority of genetic services. Hereditary cancer testing was perceived most favorably by clinicians, who focused on actionability, cost, and access to downstream care. Patients stated that access to genetic services was important and that there should be parity across safety-net and higher-resourced settings. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic services with clear clinical impact are more acceptable to clinicians in safety-net clinics. Clinicians may be underestimating patients' interest in expanded genetic services.

Recovering from Cystectomy: Patient Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer patients who undergo cystectomy and urinary diversion face functional and quality-of-life challenges. Little is known about these patients' experiences during decision-making, surgery, and recovery, or how they vary by treatment setting. OBJECTIVE: To learn about patients' experiences with treatment choice, surgical care, and recovery across health settings. Understanding patient experiences is essential to closing care gaps and developing patient-reported measures. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with cystectomy patients and family caregivers at a large comprehensive health care system (N = 32 patients) and an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (N = 25 patients and 5 caregivers). Using standard qualitative methods, we identified themes that are not well-represented in existing research. RESULTS: Across both systems, patients described variable experiences in decision-making about their cystectomy and urinary diversion. Some felt overwhelmed by information; others felt poorly informed. Many found self-care equipment challenging; many felt they knew little about what to expect regarding chemotherapy, recovery, and transitioning home. At times, health care personnel could not help manage patients' ostomies or catheterization equipment. Our study also contributes a grounded theoretical framework for describing meaningful domains of patient experience with cystectomy and urinary diversion. We identified a common trajectory that includes decision-making, surgery and post-operative recovery, mastery of self-care, and reintegration. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion report a wide variety of experiences not captured by quantitative measures. These findings demonstrate that many cystectomy patients could benefit from additional post-operative support. We offer a framework to measure patient-centered domains in future research.

Does increased implementation support improve community clinics' guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs' EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes. RESULTS: Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics' ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Implementation of a Systematic Tumor Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome in an Integrated Health Care Setting.

A subset of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are attributable to Lynch syndrome (LS), a hereditary form of CRC. Effective evaluation for LS can be done on CRC tumors to guide diagnostic testing. Increased diagnosis of LS allows for surveillance and risk reduction, which can mitigate CRC-related burden and prevent cancer-related deaths. We evaluated participation in LS screening among newly diagnosed adult CRC patients. Some cases were referred for genetics evaluation prior to study recruitment (selective screening). Those not referred directly were randomized to the intervention or control (usual care) arms. Control cases were observed for one year, then given information about LS screening. Patients who declined participation were followed through the medical record. Of 601 cases of CRC, 194 (32%) enrolled in our study and were offered LS screening, 43 (7%) were followed as a control group, 148 (25%) declined participation and 216 (36%) were ineligible [63 (10%) of which received prior selective screening]. Six and nine cases of LS were identified through the intervention and selective screening groups, respectively. Overall, a higher proportion of PMS2 variants were identified in the intervention (3/6, 50%) versus selective screening groups (2/9, 22%) (not statistically significant). Eighty-eight percent and 23% of intervention and control patients, respectively, received LS screening. No control patients were found to have LS. Systems-based approaches are needed to ensure we fully identify LS cases. The proportion of LS cases from this program was 4% of newly diagnosed cases of CRC, similar to other programs.