Implementing evidence-based assertions of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from the ClinGen Actionability Working Group.

PURPOSE: The ClinGen Actionability Working Group (AWG) developed an evidence-based framework to generate actionability reports and scores of gene-condition pairs in the context of secondary findings from genome sequencing. Here we describe the expansion of the framework to include actionability assertions. METHODS: Initial development of the actionability rubric was based on previously scored adult gene-condition pairs and individual expert evaluation. Rubric refinement was iterative and based on evaluation, feedback, and discussion. The final rubric was pragmatically evaluated via integration into actionability assessments for 27 gene-condition pairs. RESULTS: The resulting rubric has a 4-point scale (limited, moderate, strong, and definitive) and uses the highest-scoring outcome-intervention pair of each gene-condition pair to generate a preliminary assertion. During AWG discussions, predefined criteria and factors guide discussion to produce a consensus assertion for a gene-condition pair, which may differ from the preliminary assertion. The AWG has retrospectively generated assertions for all previously scored gene-condition pairs and are prospectively asserting on gene-condition pairs under assessment, having completed over 170 adult and 188 pediatric gene-condition pairs. CONCLUSION: The AWG expanded its framework to provide actionability assertions to enhance the clinical value of their resources and increase their utility as decision aids regarding return of secondary findings.

Reflections on 'common' genetic medical history questions: Time to examine the what, why, and how.

OBJECTIVE: A central goal of patient-centered care is to establish a therapeutic relationship. While remaining in tune with patient emotions, genetics providers must ask questions to understand medical histories that will inform the differential diagnosis, evaluation plan, and potential treatments. METHODS: 195 audio-recorded conversations between providers and caregivers of pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions were coded and analyzed. Coders identified sensitive history-taking questions asked by providers related to exposures and complications during pregnancy; ancestry and consanguinity; educational attainment of the caregiver; and family structure. RESULTS: We highlight examples of providers: using stigmatizing language about conception or consanguinity; not clarifying the intent behind questions related to caregivers' educational attainment and work history; and making presumptions or assumptions about caregivers' race and ethnicity, family structure, and exposures during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Some questions and phrasing considered routine by genetics providers may interfere with patient-centered care by straining attempts to establish a therapeutic, trusting relationship. Additional research is needed to assess how question asking and phrasing impact rapport building and patient experience during genetics encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Review of the purpose and need for medical history questions common to genetics practice could serve to improve patient-centered care.

Correction: Foss et al. The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 692.

There was an error in the original publication [...].