Protocol for implementation of family health history collection and decision support into primary care using a computerized family health history system

Lori A Orlando, Elizabeth R Hauser, Carol Christianson, Karen P Powell, Adam H Buchanan, Blair Chesnut, Astrid B Agbaje, Vincent C Henrich, Geoffrey Ginsburg, Lori A Orlando, Elizabeth R Hauser, Carol Christianson, Karen P Powell, Adam H Buchanan, Blair Chesnut, Astrid B Agbaje, Vincent C Henrich, Geoffrey Ginsburg

Abstract

Background: The CDC's Family History Public Health Initiative encourages adoption and increase awareness of family health history. To meet these goals and develop a personalized medicine implementation science research agenda, the Genomedical Connection is using an implementation research (T3 research) framework to develop and integrate a self-administered computerized family history system with built-in decision support into 2 primary care clinics in North Carolina.

Methods/design: The family health history system collects a three generation family history on 48 conditions and provides decision support (pedigree and tabular family history, provider recommendation report and patient summary report) for 4 pilot conditions: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, and thrombosis. All adult English-speaking, non-adopted, patients scheduled for well-visits are invited to complete the family health system prior to their appointment. Decision support documents are entered into the medical record and available to provider's prior to the appointment. In order to optimize integration, components were piloted by stakeholders prior to and during implementation. Primary outcomes are change in appropriate testing for hereditary thrombophilia and screening for breast cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer one year after study enrollment. Secondary outcomes include implementation measures related to the benefits and burdens of the family health system and its impact on clinic workflow, patients' risk perception, and intention to change health related behaviors. Outcomes are assessed through chart review, patient surveys at baseline and follow-up, and provider surveys. Clinical validity of the decision support is calculated by comparing its recommendations to those made by a genetic counselor reviewing the same pedigree; and clinical utility is demonstrated through reclassification rates and changes in appropriate screening (the primary outcome).

Discussion: This study integrates a computerized family health history system within the context of a routine well-visit appointment to overcome many of the existing barriers to collection and use of family history information by primary care providers. Results of the implementation process, its acceptability to patients and providers, modifications necessary to optimize the system, and impact on clinical care can serve to guide future implementation projects for both family history and other tools of personalized medicine, such as health risk assessments.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram for patient recruitment and inclusion.

References

    1. Acton RT, Burst NM, Casebeer L, Ferguson SM, Greene P, Laird BL, Leviton L. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Alabama's primary care physicians regarding cancer genetics. Acad Med. 2000;75:850–852. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200008000-00021.
    1. Qureshi N, Wilson B, Santaguida P, Little J, Carroll J, Allanson J, Raina P. Family history and improving health. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2009. pp. 1–135.
    1. Watson EK, Shickle D, Qureshi N, Emery J, Austoker J. The 'new genetics' and primary care: GPs' views on their role and their educational needs. Fam Pract. 1999;16:420–425. doi: 10.1093/fampra/16.4.420.
    1. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Eaton C, Culpepper L. Family physician self-efficacy with screening for inherited cancer risk. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:130–132. doi: 10.1370/afm.60.
    1. Brown GW. Conceptual Models for Implementation Research. 2nd Annual NIH Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. 2009.
    1. Kerry SM, Bland JM. The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ. 1998;316:1455.
    1. Localio AR, Berlin JA, Ten Have TR, Kimmel SE. Adjustments for center in multicenter studies: an overview. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:112–123.
    1. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data.
    1. Park Y, Freedman AN, Gail MH, Pee D, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A, Pfeiffer RM. Validation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction model among white patients age 50 years and older. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:694–698. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.4813.
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. Online risk calculator available at
    1. Scheuner MT. Genetic evaluation for coronary artery disease. Genet Med. 2003;5:269–285. doi: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000079364.98247.26.
    1. Wilson BJ, Qureshi N, Santaguida P, Little J, Carroll JC, Allanson J, Raina P. Systematic Review: Family History in Risk Assessment for Common Diseases. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009.
    1. Cokkinides VE, Chao A, Smith RA, Vernon SW, Thun MJ. Correlates of underutilization of colorectal cancer screening among U.S. adults, age 50 years and older. Prev Med. 2003;36:85–91. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1127.
    1. Phillips KA, Kerlikowske K, Baker LC, Chang SW, Brown ML. Factors associated with women's adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Health Serv Res. 1998;33:29–53.
    1. Suther S, Goodson P. Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2003;5:70–76. doi: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000055201.16487.61.
    1. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner