User login
Team-based Genetic Consultation: An Effective System of Care for Delivery of Precision Oncology Services
Objectives
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with genetics referrals are 1.5 times more likely to have multiple cancer screening and preventive procedures if they completed their genetic consultations, but only when completed under a VA traditional model staffed by a team of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors versus a VA nontraditional, centralized telehealth model staffed by genetic counselors working independently. We sought to understand the reasons for these differences in cancer screening and prevention uptake.
Methods
We reviewed randomly selected medical records of patients with cancer genetics referrals stratified by model (142 records from each model). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 genetics providers and 36 referring clinicians from 13 VA facilities using purposive sampling. We analyzed annotated medical records and interview transcripts using a rapid assessment process. We characterized annotations as personalized recommendations (eg, begin colonoscopy at age 30 then every 1-2 years), options (eg, consider bilateral mastectomy), and generic messages (eg, refer to guidelines or another provider).
Results
Cancer screening or prevention was documented in 80 traditional-model records (141 annotations) and 106 nontraditional-model records (143 annotations). Personalized recommendations comprised 69% (97/141) of annotations within traditional-model records and 30% (43/143) within nontraditional-model records. Generic messages comprised 17% (24/141) of annotations in traditional-model records and 51% (73/143) in nontraditional-model records. From interview data, referring clinicians expected a broad range of services from genetics providers, including management and screening recommendations, and stated their role was to follow through on recommendations made. Under the traditional model, geneticists formulated recommendations documented by genetic counselors. Under the nontraditional model, scope of practice limited how genetic counselors addressed cancer screening and prevention.
Conclusions/Impacts
Personalized recommendations were typical of traditional-model records, whereas nontraditional-model records usually had generic messages. Compared with the nontraditional model, the traditional model was more patient-centered and better meets expectations of referring clinicians, which might explain in part the differences in patient uptake of cancer screening and preventive procedures.
As the demand for genetic services grows, the VA should promote team-based care under the traditional model for a more patient-centered, coordinated, and effective system of care for precision oncology.
Objectives
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with genetics referrals are 1.5 times more likely to have multiple cancer screening and preventive procedures if they completed their genetic consultations, but only when completed under a VA traditional model staffed by a team of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors versus a VA nontraditional, centralized telehealth model staffed by genetic counselors working independently. We sought to understand the reasons for these differences in cancer screening and prevention uptake.
Methods
We reviewed randomly selected medical records of patients with cancer genetics referrals stratified by model (142 records from each model). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 genetics providers and 36 referring clinicians from 13 VA facilities using purposive sampling. We analyzed annotated medical records and interview transcripts using a rapid assessment process. We characterized annotations as personalized recommendations (eg, begin colonoscopy at age 30 then every 1-2 years), options (eg, consider bilateral mastectomy), and generic messages (eg, refer to guidelines or another provider).
Results
Cancer screening or prevention was documented in 80 traditional-model records (141 annotations) and 106 nontraditional-model records (143 annotations). Personalized recommendations comprised 69% (97/141) of annotations within traditional-model records and 30% (43/143) within nontraditional-model records. Generic messages comprised 17% (24/141) of annotations in traditional-model records and 51% (73/143) in nontraditional-model records. From interview data, referring clinicians expected a broad range of services from genetics providers, including management and screening recommendations, and stated their role was to follow through on recommendations made. Under the traditional model, geneticists formulated recommendations documented by genetic counselors. Under the nontraditional model, scope of practice limited how genetic counselors addressed cancer screening and prevention.
Conclusions/Impacts
Personalized recommendations were typical of traditional-model records, whereas nontraditional-model records usually had generic messages. Compared with the nontraditional model, the traditional model was more patient-centered and better meets expectations of referring clinicians, which might explain in part the differences in patient uptake of cancer screening and preventive procedures.
As the demand for genetic services grows, the VA should promote team-based care under the traditional model for a more patient-centered, coordinated, and effective system of care for precision oncology.
Objectives
US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with genetics referrals are 1.5 times more likely to have multiple cancer screening and preventive procedures if they completed their genetic consultations, but only when completed under a VA traditional model staffed by a team of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors versus a VA nontraditional, centralized telehealth model staffed by genetic counselors working independently. We sought to understand the reasons for these differences in cancer screening and prevention uptake.
Methods
We reviewed randomly selected medical records of patients with cancer genetics referrals stratified by model (142 records from each model). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 genetics providers and 36 referring clinicians from 13 VA facilities using purposive sampling. We analyzed annotated medical records and interview transcripts using a rapid assessment process. We characterized annotations as personalized recommendations (eg, begin colonoscopy at age 30 then every 1-2 years), options (eg, consider bilateral mastectomy), and generic messages (eg, refer to guidelines or another provider).
Results
Cancer screening or prevention was documented in 80 traditional-model records (141 annotations) and 106 nontraditional-model records (143 annotations). Personalized recommendations comprised 69% (97/141) of annotations within traditional-model records and 30% (43/143) within nontraditional-model records. Generic messages comprised 17% (24/141) of annotations in traditional-model records and 51% (73/143) in nontraditional-model records. From interview data, referring clinicians expected a broad range of services from genetics providers, including management and screening recommendations, and stated their role was to follow through on recommendations made. Under the traditional model, geneticists formulated recommendations documented by genetic counselors. Under the nontraditional model, scope of practice limited how genetic counselors addressed cancer screening and prevention.
Conclusions/Impacts
Personalized recommendations were typical of traditional-model records, whereas nontraditional-model records usually had generic messages. Compared with the nontraditional model, the traditional model was more patient-centered and better meets expectations of referring clinicians, which might explain in part the differences in patient uptake of cancer screening and preventive procedures.
As the demand for genetic services grows, the VA should promote team-based care under the traditional model for a more patient-centered, coordinated, and effective system of care for precision oncology.
New Delivery Models Improve Access to Germline Testing for Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer
Objectives
The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.
Methods
Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.
Results
We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).
Conclusions/Implications
Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8
Objectives
The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.
Methods
Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.
Results
We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).
Conclusions/Implications
Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8
Objectives
The VA Oncology Clinical Pathway for Prostate Cancer is the first to include both tumor and germline testing to inform treatment and clinical trial eligibility for advanced disease. Anticipating increased germline testing demand, new germline testing delivery models were created to augment the existing traditional model of referring patients to genetics providers (VA or non-VA) for germline testing. The new models include: a non-traditional model where oncology clinicians perform all pre- and post-test activities and consult genetics when needed, and a hybrid model where oncology clinicians obtain informed consent and place e-consults for germline test ordering, results disclosure, and genetics follow-up, as needed. We sought to assess germline testing by delivery model.
Methods
Data sources included the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) dashboard and NPOP-contracted germline testing laboratories. Patient inclusion criteria: living as of 5/2/2021 with VA oncology or urology visits after 5/2/2021. We used multivariate regression to assess associations between patient characteristics and germline testing between 5/3/2021 (pathway launch) and 5/2/2022, accounting for clustering of patients within ordering clinicians.
Results
We identified 16,041 patients from 129 VA facilities with average age 75 years (SD, 8.2; range, 36- 102), 28.7% Black and 60.0% White. Only 5.6% had germline testing ordered by 60 clinicians at 67 facilities with 52.2% of orders by the hybrid model, 32.1% the non-traditional model, and 15.4% the traditional model. Patient characteristics positively associated with germline testing included care at hybrid model (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 4.62-7.88) or non-traditional model facilities (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 4.24-7.56) compared to the traditional model, completing tumor molecular testing (OR, 5.80; 95%CI, 4.98-6.75), and Black compared with White race (OR, 1.24; 95%CI, 1.06-1.45). Compared to patients aged < 66 years, patients aged 66-75 years and 76-85 years were less likely to have germline testing (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.60-0.90; and OR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.53-0.84, respectively).
Conclusions/Implications
Though only a small percentage of patients with advanced prostate cancer had NPOP-supported germline testing since the pathway launch, the new delivery models were instrumental to improving access to germline testing. Ongoing evaluation will help to understand observed demographic differences in germline testing. Implementation and evaluation of strategies that promote adoption of the new germline testing delivery models is needed. 0922FED AVAHO_Abstracts.indd 15 8
Successful Recruitment of VA Patients in Precision Medicine Research Through Passive Recruitment Efforts
Background
We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.
Methods
We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.
Results
From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.
Implications
The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.
Background
We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.
Methods
We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.
Results
From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.
Implications
The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.
Background
We sought to evaluate passive recruitment efforts of VA patients into a precision medicine research program. Access to clinical trials and other research opportunities is important to discovering new disease treatments and better ways to detect, diagnose, and reduce disease risk. The WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) Study is a multi-site, pragmatic trial with webbased participation based at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) that aims to move breast cancer screening away from its current one-size-fitsall approach to one that is personalized based on each woman’s individual risk.
Methods
We created a hub and spoke recruitment model with the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) serving as the central hub of passive recruitment activities and eligible VA facilities that agreed to participate serving as the spoke recruitment sites. Eligible facilities had at least 3,000 women patients, VA clinical genetic services available, a site lead from the VA Women’s Health-Practice-Based Research Network, and mammography on site. Site participation involved permission for the research team to email eligible patients (women aged 40-74 without prior breast cancer diagnosis) about the WISDOM Study. We evaluated the effectiveness of the recruitment by assessing trends in enrollment and monitoring participation of VA patients in the WISDOM Study. Analysis: Pre/post frequencies of women consenting to participate in the WISDOM Study.
Results
From 5/24/2021 through 6/21/2021, we emailed 27,061 eligible VA patients from six participating VA facilities. Prior to the VA emailing, an average of 22 women per week consented to participating in the WISDOM Study and none were Veterans. After the first month of the VA emailing, an average of 186 women per week consented – a 7.5-fold increase. Additionally, during the first month of VA emailing, 81% of women registering with the WISDOM Study said they heard about the study from the VA.
Implications
The VA has recently approved of emailing as a method for recruiting research subjects. Our results demonstrate this is a feasible approach for precision medicine research, a growing area of research in VA and at academic affiliates.