Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetics in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.gim.2024.101198
{"title":"Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"26 9","pages":"Article 101198"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024001321","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

Methods

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

Results

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

Conclusion

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基因组测序结果披露错误:新生儿科非遗传学专业医护人员与遗传学顾问的随机对照试验比较。
目的:我们比较了遗传咨询师(GC)和经过培训的非遗传学医疗保健专业人员(NGHP)在SouthSeq基因组测序(GS)结果披露中的错误率,SouthSeq是一项在重症婴儿中使用GS的随机试验:方法: 我们对 400 多份记录的 GS 结果披露进行了分析,以找出主要错误和次要错误。我们使用费雪精确检验比较了 GC 和 NGHP 之间的错误率,并进行了定性内容分析以确定错误主题:结果:在 NGHP 披露的信息中,7.5% 发现了重大错误,而在 GC 披露的信息中没有发现重大错误。在 32.1% 的 NGHP 披露信息中发现了轻微错误,在 11.4% 的 GC 披露信息中发现了轻微错误。虽然大多数披露信息都没有错误,但在所有结果类型(阳性、阴性或不确定)中,NGHP 出现任何错误的可能性都明显高于 GC。常见的主要错误包括遗漏关键信息、夸大负面结果和过度解释不确定结果。最常见的次要错误是未披露阴性次要结果:结论:经过培训的 NGHP 在 GS 结果披露方面存在重大临床错误。对结果披露中的常见错误进行定性,可以发现教育中的不足,为未来基因组学培训和替代服务模式的发展提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Fetal fraction amplification within prenatal cfDNA screening enables detection of genome-wide copy-number variants at enhanced resolution. A germline PDGFRB splice site variant associated with infantile myofibromatosis and resistance to imatinib. High yield of monogenic short stature in children from Kurdistan, Iraq: a genetic testing algorithm for consanguineous families. The "Genetic Test Request": A genomic stewardship intervention for inpatient exome and genome orders at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Payer Perspectives on Genomic Testing in the United States: A systematic literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1