Kate P Shane-Carson, Douglas Smith, Angie Smith, Caroline Seeley
{"title":"回顾性图表分析,以确定面向患者的数字风险分层工具与社区肿瘤诊所遗传性癌症遗传风险评估分诊的临床筛查人员相结合的影响。","authors":"Kate P Shane-Carson, Douglas Smith, Angie Smith, Caroline Seeley","doi":"10.1007/s12687-023-00687-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of adding a clinical screener to the patient-facing digital risk stratification tool triage process for the identification of patients eligible for a genetic risk assessment for hereditary cancer. Digital risk stratification entries were retrospectively reviewed to determine the overall number of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. These were also analyzed to determine how many patients were re-contacted by the clinical screener, and how many of those recontacted patients met criteria after their personal and family history was revised by the clinical screener. There was an 89.9% digital risk stratification triage tool completion rate, with 22.6% requiring contact from the clinical screener. Of the 640 patients who completed the digital tool, 5.9% met criteria for testing after their personal and/or family history was revised by the clinical screener. Overall, 51.1% of patients met criteria for a genetic risk assessment. The addition of a clinical screener further increased identification of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. About half of patients who met criteria after being contacted by the clinical screener met criteria based on their personal diagnosis of cancer alone. Incorporation of a clinical screener to the digital screening process may serve to reduce barriers to patient completion of the tool and increase rates of patient identification for cancer genetic services.</p>","PeriodicalId":46965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"25-31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10857995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective chart analysis to determine the impact of a patient-facing digital risk stratification tool combined with a clinical screener for hereditary cancer genetic risk assessment triage in a community oncology clinic.\",\"authors\":\"Kate P Shane-Carson, Douglas Smith, Angie Smith, Caroline Seeley\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12687-023-00687-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of adding a clinical screener to the patient-facing digital risk stratification tool triage process for the identification of patients eligible for a genetic risk assessment for hereditary cancer. Digital risk stratification entries were retrospectively reviewed to determine the overall number of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. These were also analyzed to determine how many patients were re-contacted by the clinical screener, and how many of those recontacted patients met criteria after their personal and family history was revised by the clinical screener. There was an 89.9% digital risk stratification triage tool completion rate, with 22.6% requiring contact from the clinical screener. Of the 640 patients who completed the digital tool, 5.9% met criteria for testing after their personal and/or family history was revised by the clinical screener. Overall, 51.1% of patients met criteria for a genetic risk assessment. The addition of a clinical screener further increased identification of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. About half of patients who met criteria after being contacted by the clinical screener met criteria based on their personal diagnosis of cancer alone. Incorporation of a clinical screener to the digital screening process may serve to reduce barriers to patient completion of the tool and increase rates of patient identification for cancer genetic services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46965,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Community Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"25-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10857995/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Community Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00687-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00687-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Retrospective chart analysis to determine the impact of a patient-facing digital risk stratification tool combined with a clinical screener for hereditary cancer genetic risk assessment triage in a community oncology clinic.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of adding a clinical screener to the patient-facing digital risk stratification tool triage process for the identification of patients eligible for a genetic risk assessment for hereditary cancer. Digital risk stratification entries were retrospectively reviewed to determine the overall number of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. These were also analyzed to determine how many patients were re-contacted by the clinical screener, and how many of those recontacted patients met criteria after their personal and family history was revised by the clinical screener. There was an 89.9% digital risk stratification triage tool completion rate, with 22.6% requiring contact from the clinical screener. Of the 640 patients who completed the digital tool, 5.9% met criteria for testing after their personal and/or family history was revised by the clinical screener. Overall, 51.1% of patients met criteria for a genetic risk assessment. The addition of a clinical screener further increased identification of patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. About half of patients who met criteria after being contacted by the clinical screener met criteria based on their personal diagnosis of cancer alone. Incorporation of a clinical screener to the digital screening process may serve to reduce barriers to patient completion of the tool and increase rates of patient identification for cancer genetic services.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Community Genetics is an international forum for research in the ever-expanding field of community genetics, the art and science of applying medical genetics to human communities for the benefit of their individuals.
Community genetics comprises all activities which identify persons at increased genetic risk and has an interest in assessing this risk, in order to enable those at risk to make informed decisions. Community genetics services thus encompass such activities as genetic screening, registration of genetic conditions in the population, routine preconceptional and prenatal genetic consultations, public education on genetic issues, and public debate on related ethical issues.
The Journal of Community Genetics has a multidisciplinary scope. It covers medical genetics, epidemiology, genetics in primary care, public health aspects of genetics, and ethical, legal, social and economic issues. Its intention is to serve as a forum for community genetics worldwide, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.
The journal features original research papers, reviews, short communications, program reports, news, and correspondence. Program reports describe illustrative projects in the field of community genetics, e.g., design and progress of an educational program or the protocol and achievement of a gene bank. Case reports describing individual patients are not accepted.