A goal of the 3rd phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE3) Network was to examine the return of results (RoR) of actionable variants in more than 100 genes to consenting participants and their healthcare providers. Each of the 10 eMERGE sites developed plans for three essential elements of the RoR process: Disclosure to the participant, notification of the health care provider, and integration of results into the electronic health record (EHR). Procedures and protocols around these three elements were adapted as appropriate to individual site requirements and limitations. Detailed information about the RoR procedures at each site was obtained through structured telephone interviews and follow-up surveys with the clinical investigator leading or participating in the RoR process at each eMERGE3 institution. Because RoR processes at each of the 10 sites allowed for taking into account differences in population, disease focus and institutional requirements, significant heterogeneity of process was identified, including variability in the order in which patients and clinicians were notified and results were placed in the EHR. This heterogeneity in the process flow for eMERGE3 RoR reflects the “real world” of genomic medicine in which RoR procedures must be shaped by the needs of the patients and institutional environments.

Background: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common cardiovascular genetic disorder and, if left untreated, is associated with increased risk of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Although FH is common, fatal, and treatable, it is underdiagnosed and undertreated due to a lack of systematic methods to identify individuals with FH and limited uptake of cascade testing. Methods and Results: This mixed-method, multi-stage study will optimize, test, and implement innovative approaches for both FH identification and cascade testing in 3 aims. To improve identification of individuals with FH, in Aim 1, we will compare and refine automated phenotype-based and genomic approaches to identify individuals likely to have FH. To improve cascade testing uptake for at-risk individuals, in Aim 2, we will use a patient-centered design thinking process to optimize and develop novel, active family communication methods. Using a prospective, observational pragmatic trial, we will assess uptake and effectiveness of each family communication method on cascade testing. Guided by an implementation science framework, in Aim 3, we will develop a comprehensive guide to identify individuals with FH. Using the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will evaluate implementation outcomes including feasibility, acceptability, and perceived sustainability as well as health outcomes related to the optimized methods and tools developed in Aims 1 and 2. Conclusions: Data generated from this study will address barriers and gaps in care related to underdiagnosis of FH by developing and optimizing tools to improve FH identification and cascade testing.

Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems. This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation. The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine. N/A

Cascade testing (i.e., genetic testing of family members of individuals with disease) among families affected by hereditary cancer disorders, such as Lynch syndrome, is suboptimal and thus represents a missed opportunity in cancer prevention. We aimed to fill a gap in the literature by exploring multilevel barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cascade testing for Lynch syndrome. We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Integrated Behavioral Model among key stakeholders (n = 60): Patients with Lynch syndrome and relatives (n = 20), providers (n = 20), and administrators (n = 20). Transcripts were double-coded (20% sample) using template analysis in ATLAS.ti. Barriers identified included (i) low awareness about Lynch syndrome, (ii) psychosocial barriers, (iii) lack of provider follow-up, (iv) accessibility to genetic counseling, and (v) fear of discrimination. Facilitators included (i) motivation to engage in cascade testing and (ii) free genetic testing offered to relatives. Stakeholders also recommended strategies to overcome implementation barriers in the short-term (increasing education, preparing patients for communicating with relatives), medium-term (optimizing clinical workflow and staffing resources), and long-term (nationwide standardization). These findings indicate that modifiable, multilevel barriers to the implementation of cascade testing in Lynch syndrome are experienced across stakeholders. Understanding and targeting implementation barriers is imperative to achieving public health impact of precision health interventions such as cascade testing.

Population genomic screening has been demonstrated to detect at-risk individuals who would not be clinically identified otherwise. However, there are concerns about the increased utilization of unnecessary services and the associated increase in costs. The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) determine whether there is a difference in healthcare utilization and costs following disclosure of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) BRCA1/2 variant via a genomic screening program, and (2) measure the post-disclosure uptake of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-recommended risk management. We retrospectively reviewed electronic health record (EHR) and billing data from a female population of BRCA1/2 P/LP variant carriers without a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer enrolled in Geisinger’s MyCode genomic screening program with at least a one-year post-disclosure observation period. We identified 59 women for the study cohort out of 50,726 MyCode participants. We found no statistically significant differences in inpatient and outpatient utilization and average total costs between one-year pre- and one-year post-disclosure periods ($18,821 vs. $19,359, p = 0.76). During the first year post-disclosure, 49.2% of women had a genetic counseling visit, 45.8% had a mammography and 32.2% had an MRI. The uptake of mastectomy and oophorectomy was 3.5% and 11.8%, respectively, and 5% of patients received chemoprevention.

Introduction: DNA-based population screening has been proposed as a public health solution to identify individuals at risk for serious health conditions who otherwise may not present for medical care. The clinical utility and public health impact of DNA-based population screening is a subject of active investigation. Geisinger, an integrated healthcare delivery system, was one of the first healthcare systems to implement DNA screening programs (MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) and clinical DNA screening pilot) that leverage exome data to identify individuals at risk for developing conditions with potential clinical actionability. Here, we demonstrate the use of an implementation science framework, RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance), to conduct a post-hoc evaluation and report outcomes from these two programs to inform the potential impact of DNA-based population screening.Methods: Reach and Effectiveness outcomes were determined from the MyCode research program, while Adoption and Implementation outcomes were measured using the clinical DNA screening pilot. Reach was defined as the number of patients who were offered and consented to participate in MyCode. Effectiveness of DNA screening was measured by reviewing MyCode program publications and synthesizing findings from themes. Adoption was measured by the total number of DNA screening tests ordered by clinicians at the clinical pilot sites. Implementation was assessed by interviewing a subset of clinical pilot clinicians about the deployment of and recommended adaptations to the pilot that could inform future program dissemination.Results:Reach: As of August 2020, 68% (215,078/316,612) of individuals approached to participate in the MyCode program consented. Effectiveness: Published evidence reported from MyCode demonstrates that DNA screening identifies at-risk individuals more comprehensively than clinical ascertainment based on phenotypes or personal/family history. Adoption: From July 2018 to June 2021, a total of 1,026 clinical DNA screening tests were ordered by 60 clinicians across the three pilot clinic sites. Implementation: Interviews with 14 clinicians practicing at the pilot clinic sites revealed motivation to provide patients with DNA screening results and yielded future implementation strategies.Conclusion: The RE-AIM framework offers a pragmatic solution to organize, analyze, and report outcomes across differently resourced and designed precision health programs that include genomic sequencing and return of clinically actionable genomic information.