Family Ties: A Detroit Community Hospital Quality Improvement Project to Improve Post-Test Genetic Counseling for Patients Tested by Non-Genetics Providers
Education and Research Strategies
-
Primary Categories:
- General Education
-
Secondary Categories:
- General Education
Introduction:
Consistent with national trends, many physicians without formal training in genetics at our community teaching hospital (Detroit, MI) are ordering genetic testing for their patients. Many of these physicians, however, may not understand key differences between germline and somatic testing. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to improve physician knowledge about genetic testing.
Methods:
The project, conducted from 6/17/2024 to 12/31/2024, included three steps: 1.) a baseline survey completed at didactic lectures or tumor board; 2.) a brief genetics educational lecture on germline/somatic testing, findings of variants of uncertain significance, and family cascade testing; and 3.) a post-intervention survey. The two surveys were linked by a unique code Survey questions addressed the following topics: would the physician refer a patient with a variant of uncertain significance, would age/stage impact whether a physician would refer to genetics, would physicians educate patients about family cascade testing offered by genetic companies, and finally what guidelines are used for genetic testing (ex: NCCN/American Society of Breast Surgeons and American Society of Clinical Oncology).
Results:
Eighteen individuals filled out at least one the pre- and post-survey. Surveys were administered to breast surgeons, oncologists, oncology fellows, and radiation oncologists. Because of technical limitations and scheduling conflicts, Gastroenterology and Gynecology Oncology specialties were not surveyed. With the small sample size, there are limited conclusions that can be reached from the project. Perhaps most importantly, this pilot project was a “genetics icebreaker” and allowed an assessment of physician’s attitudes about genetic testing, variants of uncertain significance and implications for family testing.
Conclusion:
It is known, but perhaps not commonly talked about, that non-genetics professionals are ordering genetic testing. Such icebreakers may be increasingly important with more non-genetics professionals ordering oncology genetic testing. We plan to continue to survey providers at our community hospital to broaden patient discussion on this important topic, including departments that were missed in the original project.
Consistent with national trends, many physicians without formal training in genetics at our community teaching hospital (Detroit, MI) are ordering genetic testing for their patients. Many of these physicians, however, may not understand key differences between germline and somatic testing. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to improve physician knowledge about genetic testing.
Methods:
The project, conducted from 6/17/2024 to 12/31/2024, included three steps: 1.) a baseline survey completed at didactic lectures or tumor board; 2.) a brief genetics educational lecture on germline/somatic testing, findings of variants of uncertain significance, and family cascade testing; and 3.) a post-intervention survey. The two surveys were linked by a unique code Survey questions addressed the following topics: would the physician refer a patient with a variant of uncertain significance, would age/stage impact whether a physician would refer to genetics, would physicians educate patients about family cascade testing offered by genetic companies, and finally what guidelines are used for genetic testing (ex: NCCN/American Society of Breast Surgeons and American Society of Clinical Oncology).
Results:
Eighteen individuals filled out at least one the pre- and post-survey. Surveys were administered to breast surgeons, oncologists, oncology fellows, and radiation oncologists. Because of technical limitations and scheduling conflicts, Gastroenterology and Gynecology Oncology specialties were not surveyed. With the small sample size, there are limited conclusions that can be reached from the project. Perhaps most importantly, this pilot project was a “genetics icebreaker” and allowed an assessment of physician’s attitudes about genetic testing, variants of uncertain significance and implications for family testing.
Conclusion:
It is known, but perhaps not commonly talked about, that non-genetics professionals are ordering genetic testing. Such icebreakers may be increasingly important with more non-genetics professionals ordering oncology genetic testing. We plan to continue to survey providers at our community hospital to broaden patient discussion on this important topic, including departments that were missed in the original project.