Utilization of health information technology among cancer genetic counselors

Abstract

Background Health information technology (IT) is becoming increasingly utilized by cancer genetic counselors (CGCs). We sought to understand the current engagement, satisfaction, and opportunities to adopt new health IT tools among CGCs. Methods We conducted a mixed‐mode survey among 128 board‐certified CGCs using both closed‐ and open‐ended questions. We then evaluated the utilization and satisfaction among 10 types of health IT tools, including the following: cancer screening tool, family health history (FHx) collection tools, electronic health records (EHRs), telegenetics software, pedigree drawing software, genetic risk assessment tools, gene test panel ordering tools, electronic patient education tools, patient communication tools, and family communication tools. Results Seven of 10 health IT tools were used by a minority of CGCs. The vast majority of respondents reported using EHRs (95.2%) and genetic risk assessment tools (88.6%). Genetic test panel ordering software had the highest satisfaction rate (very satisfied and satisfied) at 80.0%, followed by genetic risk assessment tools (77.1%). EHRs had the highest dissatisfaction rate among CGCs at 18.3%. Dissatisfaction with a health IT tool was associated with desire to change: EHRs ( p < .001), cancer screening tools ( p = .010), genetic risk assessment tools ( p = .024), and family history collection tools ( p = .026). We found that nearly half of CGCs were considering adopting or changing their FHx tool (49.2%), cancer screening tool (44.9%), and pedigree drawing tool (41.8%). Conclusion Overall, CGCs reported high levels of satisfaction among commonly used health IT tools. Tools that enable the collection of FHx, cancer screening tools, and pedigree drawing software represent the greatest opportunities for research and development.

Room for improvement in capturing cancer family history in a gynecologic oncology outpatient setting

“…We have planned a prospective randomized trial utilizing health information technology to collect CFH versus standard of care (face-to-face collection by a medical provider), as our data demonstrate that there is ample room for improvement. Health information technology has been shown to successfully improve clinical documentation, workflows, quality of care, patient safety, communication, and clinical decision support ( Ritchie et al, 2020 , Committee opinion no, 2015 ). With the growing recognition that it is critically important to identify individuals with cancer-associated pathogenic variants, medical providers must review the quality of the CFH they collect, as we have done in this study, and use these results to drive innovation in patient care and preventative medicine.…”

Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results

“…Increasing the number and size of training programs for genetic counselors and medical geneticists is critical 43,44 . Additionally, the development of innovative service delivery models that leverage digital tools (such as chatbots and health information technology) may help increase access to genetic services, maximizing the efficiency of genetics professionals 45‐50 . Telegenetics has also become a popular option to reach more patients while simultaneously decreasing wait time and increasing patient volume 51‐54 …”

Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool – ItRunsInMyFamily – with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals

“…Collecting FHx before patients meet with their providers saves time during an office visit and results in more complete, standardized, and accurate FHx information [17]. Web technology such as ItRuns provides patients and providers easy access to FHx collection and evaluation to determine whether a patient meets the thresholds that warrant a referral for cancer genetic consultation [28, 29]. CPG criteria selected to implement in ItRuns were represented in an ontology-driven rule system and reviewed by a cancer genetic counselor and a clinical oncologist [24].…”