Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1233–1245

Evaluation of a Novel Electronic Genetic Screening and Clinical Decision Support Tool in Prenatal Clinical Settings

  • Emily A. Edelman
  • Bruce K. Lin
  • Teresa Doksum
  • Brian Drohan
  • Vaughn Edelson
  • Siobhan M. Dolan
  • Kevin Hughes
  • James O’Leary
  • Lisa Vasquez
  • Sara Copeland
  • Shelley L. Galvin
  • Nicole DeGroat
  • Setul Pardanani
  • W. Gregory Feero
  • Claire Adams
  • Renee Jones
  • Joan Scott
Article

Abstract

“The Pregnancy and Health Profile” (PHP) is a free prenatal genetic screening and clinical decision support (CDS) software tool for prenatal providers. PHP collects family health history (FHH) during intake and provides point-of-care risk assessment for providers and education for patients. This pilot study evaluated patient and provider responses to PHP and effects of using PHP in practice. PHP was implemented in four clinics. Surveys assessed provider confidence and knowledge and patient and provider satisfaction with PHP. Data on the implementation process were obtained through semi-structured interviews with administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Chi square test, Fisher’s exact test, paired t tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Of the 83 % (513/618) of patients that provided feedback, 97 % felt PHP was easy to use and 98 % easy to understand. Thirty percent (21/71) of participating physicians completed both pre- and post-implementation feedback surveys [13 obstetricians (OBs) and 8 family medicine physicians (FPs)]. Confidence in managing genetic risks significantly improved for OBs on 2/6 measures (p values ≤0.001) but not for FPs. Physician knowledge did not significantly change. Providers reported value in added patient engagement and reported mixed feedback about the CDS report. We identified key steps, resources, and staff support required to implement PHP in a clinical setting. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on the integration of patient-completed, electronically captured and CDS-enabled FHH software into primary prenatal practice. PHP is acceptable to patients and providers. Key to successful implementation in the future will be customization options and interoperability with electronic health records.

Keywords

Family health history Personalized risk assessment Clinical decision support Prenatal care Genetic screening 

Supplementary material

10995_2013_1358_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (214 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 215 kb)
10995_2013_1358_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (43 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 44 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Guttmacher, A. E., Collins, F. S., & Carmona, R. H. (2004). The family history–more important than ever. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(22), 2333–2336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pyeritz, R. E. (2012). The family history: the first genetic test, and still useful after all those years? Genetics in Medicine, 14(1), 3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ACOG. (2011). Committee Opinion No. 478: Family history as a risk assessment tool. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 117(3), 747–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattacharya, S., Raja, E. A., Mirazo, E. R., et al. (2010). Inherited predisposition to spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 115(6), 1125–1133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oyen, N., Poulsen, G., Boyd, H. A., et al. (2009). Recurrence of congenital heart defects in families. Circulation, 120(4), 295–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forty, L., Jones, L., Macgregor, S., et al. (2006). Familiality of postpartum depression in unipolar disorder: Results of a family study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(9), 1549–1553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hampel, H., Frankel, W. L., Martin, E., et al. (2005). Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). New England Journal of Medicine, 352(18), 1851–1860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ACOG. (2012). Practice bulletin: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. http://www.acog.org/~/media/List%20of%20Titles/PBListOfTitles.pdf.
  9. 9.
    Lin, B. K., Edelman, E. A., McInerney, J. D., et al. (2013). Personalizing prenatal care using family health history: Identifying and integrating a panel of conditions into a novel screening tool. Personalized Medicine, 10(3), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darcy, D., Tian, L., Taylor, J., et al. (2011). Cystic fibrosis carrier screening in obstetric clinical practice: Knowledge, practices, and barriers, a decade after publication of screening guidelines. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 15(7–8), 517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SACGHS. (2011). Genetics education and training: Report of the secretary’s advisory committee on genetics, health, and society. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nippert, I., Harris, H. J., Julian-Reynier, C., et al. (2011). Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1. Journal of Community Genetics, 2(1), 1–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffman, M. A., & Williams, M. S. (2011). Electronic medical records and personalized medicine. Human Genetics, 130(1), 33–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osheroff, J. A., Teich, J. M., Middleton, B., et al. (2007). A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(2), 141–145.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Litvin, C. B., Davis, K. S., Moran, W. P., et al. (2012). The use of clinical decision-support tools to facilitate geriatric education. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(6), 1145–1149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welch, B. M., & Kawamoto, K. (2013). Clinical decision support for genetically guided personalized medicine: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(2), 388–400.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubinstein, W. S., Acheson, L. S., O’Neill, S. M., et al. (2011). Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: A report from the family healthware impact trial. Genetics in Medicine, 13(11), 956–965.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozanne, E. M., Loberg, A., Hughes, S., et al. (2009). Identification and management of women at high risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome. The Breast Journal, 15(2), 155–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlando, L. A., Hauser, E. R., Christianson, C., et al. (2011). Protocol for implementation of family health history collection and decision support into primary care using a computerized family health history system. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 264.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NCHPEG. (2013). The pregnancy and health profile: A screening and risk assessment tool. Accessed July 15, 2013, from http://www.nchpeg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=410&Itemid=277.
  21. 21.
    Ralston, J. D., Carrell, D., Reid, R., et al. (2007). Patient web services integrated with a shared medical record: Patient use and satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(6), 798–806.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arar, N., Seo, J., Abboud, H. E., et al. (2011). Veterans’ experience in using the online surgeon general’s family health history tool. Personalized Medicine, 8(5), 523–532. doi:10.2217/pme.11.53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westman, J., Hampel, H., & Bradley, T. (2000). Efficacy of a touchscreen computer based family cancer history questionnaire and subsequent cancer risk assessment. Journal of Medical Genetics, 37(5), 354–360.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Facio, F. M., Feero, W. G., Linn, A., et al. (2010). Validation of my Family health Portrait for six common heritable conditions. Genetics in Medicine, 12(6), 370–375.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ACOG. (2013). ACOG Resource Center. Accessed February 4, 2013, from fromhttp://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Resource_Center.
  26. 26.
    van der Sijs, H., Aarts, J., Vulto, A., et al. (2006). Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(2), 138–147.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shah, N. R., Seger, A. C., Seger, D. L., et al. (2006). Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 5–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toriello, H. V., & Goldenberg, P. (2009). Evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines: Application to genetics. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 151C(3), 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson, B. J., Carroll, J. C., Allanson, J., et al. (2012). Family history tools in primary care: Does one size fit all? Public Health Genomics, 15(3–4), 181–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., et al. (2005). Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: A systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ, 330(7494), 765.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bauer, N. S., & Carroll, A. E. (2013). Downs SM. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: Understanding the acceptability of a computer decision support system in pediatric primary care.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    VanGeest, J. B., Johnson, T. P., & Welch, V. L. (2007). Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: A systematic review. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 30(4), 303–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruffin, M. T., Jr Nease, D. E., Sen, A., et al. (2011). Effect of preventive messages tailored to family history on health behaviors: The family healthware impact trial. The Annals of Family Medicine, 9(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Qureshi, N., Armstrong, S., Dhiman, P., et al. (2012). Effect of adding systematic family history enquiry to cardiovascular disease risk assessment in primary care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(4), 253–262.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    NIH. (2009). Family history and improving health. National Institutes of Health State of the Science Consensus Conference; Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily A. Edelman
    • 1
  • Bruce K. Lin
    • 2
  • Teresa Doksum
    • 3
  • Brian Drohan
    • 4
  • Vaughn Edelson
    • 5
  • Siobhan M. Dolan
    • 2
    • 6
  • Kevin Hughes
    • 4
  • James O’Leary
    • 5
  • Lisa Vasquez
    • 7
  • Sara Copeland
    • 7
  • Shelley L. Galvin
    • 8
  • Nicole DeGroat
    • 9
    • 12
  • Setul Pardanani
    • 6
  • W. Gregory Feero
    • 10
  • Claire Adams
    • 10
  • Renee Jones
    • 11
  • Joan Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.National Coalition for Health Professional Education in GeneticsLuthervilleUSA
  2. 2.March of DimesWhite PlainsUSA
  3. 3.Doksum ConsultingStonehamUSA
  4. 4.Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Genetic AllianceWashingtonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women’s HealthMontefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  7. 7.Genetic Services BranchHealth Resources and Services AdministrationRockvilleUSA
  8. 8.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMountain Area Health Education CenterAshevilleUSA
  9. 9.Montefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  10. 10.Maine Dartmouth Family Medicine ResidencyAugustaUSA
  11. 11.Ariosa DiagnosticsSan JoseUSA
  12. 12.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations