Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundGenomic medicine is rapidly changing routine clinical care in a range of specialties. Effective clinical governance is essential for safe implementation of emerging clinical practice, including genomic medicine. Frameworks exist for national implementation of genomics but lack the granularity needed by hospitals to guide local implementation of national policy.We aimed to identify if a framework suitable to support the safe, effective implementation and use of genomic medicine at a hospital level exists.MethodsA systematic search using scoping review methodology was performed, searching three databases (Medline, Embase and PubMed), from 2009 to 2022, to identify structured approaches to the clinical governance of genomics at a meso (hospital/hospital consortia) level.ResultsNo frameworks were identified that provided a holistic clinical governance approach to hospital-level implementation of genomics. Eight publications included components relevant to the implementation of genomics. While the clinical governance components included in the eight publications varied, all identified one or more of the following as important to effective implementation: optimal leadership of genomic care; ensuring an effective workforce; ensuring safe, effective clinical practice; the importance of quality metrics and the criticality of consumer partnerships. No publication explicitly discussed risk management, but all identified processes which would serve to minimise risk.ConclusionsInstitutional-level change is essential for the implementation of genomic medicine throughout a health system. Yet, there is a lack of evidence-based frameworks to support integrated clinical governance of genomic medicine and its implementation by hospitals and their executive leaders. Our results can contribute to the design of an approach which supports hospital planning and decision-making by integrating all elements of clinical governance. Without this, implementation will be piecemeal, access to genomic medicine across a health system inequitable, and patients may receive inefficient, ineffective, slow and potentially unsafe care.

IntroductionAs routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting.Methods and analysisFamilies enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3–6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals’ perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews.Ethics and disseminationThis project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.

The communication of risk is a central activity in clinical genetics, with genetic health professionals encouraging the dissemination of relevant information by individuals to their at-risk family members. To understand the process by which communication occurs as well as its outcomes, a systematic review of actual communication in families about genetic risk was conducted. Findings from 29 papers meeting the inclusion criteria were summarised and are presented narratively. Family communication about genetic risk is described as a deliberative process, in which: sense is made of personal risk; the vulnerability and receptivity of the family member is assessed; decisions are made about what will be conveyed; and the right time to disclose is selected. The communication strategy adopted will depend on these factors and varies within families as well as between families. Inherent in these processes are conflicting senses of responsibility: to provide potentially valuable information and to prevent harm that may arise from this knowledge. However, the research ‘outcomes’ of communication have been professionally determined (number of relatives reported as informed, uptake of testing, knowledge of the recipient) and are typically unrelated to the concerns of the family member. The impact of communication on the individual, family members, and family relationships is of concern to the individual conveying the information, but this is largely self-reported. Currently, there is insufficient information to inform the development of theoretically and empirically based practice to foster ‘good’ communication. The implications for future research are discussed.

Organisations and governments seeking to implement genomics into clinical practice face numerous challenges across multiple, diverse aspects of the health care system. It is not sufficient to tackle any one aspect in isolation: to create a system that supports genomic medicine, they must be addressed simultaneously. The growing body of global knowledge can guide decision-making, but each jurisdiction or organisation needs a model for genomic (or personalised) medicine that is tailored to its unique context, its priorities and the funds available. Poor decisions could greatly reduce the benefits that could potentially arise from genomic medicine. Demonstration projects enable models to be tested, providing valuable evidence and experience for subsequent implementation. Here, we present the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance demonstration project as an exemplar of a collaborative, holistic approach to phased implementation of genomics across multiple autonomous institutions. The approach and lessons learned may assist others in determining how best to integrate genomics into their healthcare system.

The clinical utility of rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) for critically unwell infants and children has been well demonstrated. Parental capacity for informed consent has been questioned, yet limited empirical data exists to guide clinical service delivery. In an Australian nationwide clinical implementation project offering rGS for critically unwell infants and children, parents made a decision about testing in under a day on average. This study reports parents’ experiences of decision making for rGS within this rapid timeframe to inform pre-test counselling procedures for future practice. A nationwide sample of 30 parents, whose children were amongst the first to receive rGS, were interviewed. We found that framing and delivery of rGS require careful consideration to support autonomous decision making and avoid implicit coercion in a stressful intensive care setting. Many parents described feeling ‘special’ and ‘lucky’ that they were receiving access to expensive and typically time-consuming genomic sequencing. Thematic analysis revealed a spectrum of complexity for decision making about rGS. Some parents consented quickly and were resistant to pre-test counselling. Others had a range of concerns and described deliberating about their decision, which they felt rushed to make. This research identifies tensions between the medical imperative of rGS and parents’ decision making, which need to be addressed as rGS becomes routine clinical care.

The delivery of rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) to critically unwell children in intensive care occurs at a time of immense pressure and stress for parents. Contact with families after result disclosure, particularly after hospital discharge, presents an opportunity to meet their psychological, medical and information needs as they evolve. This study explores the preferences and perspectives of health professionals and parents of genetics follow up after rGS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 parents, seven genetic counsellors (GCs) and four intensive care physicians with experience in rGS. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Current practices surrounding genetics follow up after rGS were highly variable, resulting in some families not receiving the ongoing care they needed. Reasons identified by families for wanting follow-up care represented only a subset of those identified by health professionals. While GCs routinely provided their details to allow parents to initiate further contact, this was not always sufficient for follow-up care. Health professionals identified both organisational and psychosocial barriers to conducting follow up. As rGS transforms the diagnostic pathway in rare disease, there is a need for a co-designed, standardised but flexible model for follow-up care with genetics professionals so that families’ evolving needs are met.

To systematically investigate the longer-term clinical and health economic impacts of genomic sequencing for rare-disease diagnoses. We collected information on continuing diagnostic investigation, changes in management, cascade testing, and parental reproductive outcomes in 80 infants who underwent singleton whole-exome sequencing (WES). The median duration of follow-up following result disclosure was 473 days. Changes in clinical management due to diagnostic WES results led to a cost saving of AU$1,578 per quality-adjusted life year gained, without increased hospital service use. Uninformative WES results contributed to the diagnosis of non-Mendelian conditions in seven infants. Further usual diagnostic investigations in those with ongoing suspicion of a genetic condition yielded no new diagnoses, while WES data reanalysis yielded four. Reanalysis at 18 months was more cost-effective than every 6 months. The parents of diagnosed children had eight more ongoing pregnancies than those without a diagnosis. Taking the costs and benefits of cascade testing and reproductive service use into account, there was an additional cost of AU$8,118 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to genomic sequencing. These data strengthen the case for the early use of genomic testing in the diagnostic trajectory, and can guide laboratory policy on periodic WES data reanalysis.

Background The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (the Alliance) is a collaboration of leading hospitals, research and academic organisations, supported by its member organisations and the Victorian Government. The Alliance was set up by its members in 2013 to steer the translation of genomics, making it an integral part of health care in Victoria, Australia. The Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed soon after, to give input and advice across the program. This was to ensure consideration of community values, perspectives and priorities, and knowledge translation for patient care. The CAG was charged with providing a strong community voice for the duration of the program. Appointed members were experienced consumer advocates with developed connections to the community. Main body The Alliance progressed from an initial Demonstration Project (2013–2015) to a multifaceted program (2016–2020). The CAG worked strategically to help address complex issues, for example, communication, privacy, informed consent, ethics, patient experience, measurement and evaluation standards and policies, data storage and re-use of genomic data. Many aspects of translating genomics into routine care have been tackled, such as communicating with patients invited to have genomic testing, or their caregivers, and obtaining informed consent, clinical questions across 16 areas of health care, training and education of health and laboratory professionals, genomic data management and data-sharing. Evidence generated around clinical utility and cost-effectiveness led to government funding of testing for complex genetic conditions in children. Conclusion The CAG activities, recorded in a CAG-inspired Activity register, span the full spectrum of information sharing and consultation to co-design and partnership. The CAG were involved at multiple levels of participation and in all tiers of activity including governance, development of policies and procedures, program planning and evaluation. Working relationships were built up and a level of trust instilled to advance the Alliance work program in ensuring an effective patient-care model of delivery of genomics. CAG input into project deliverables has been tangible. Less tangible contributions included presentations at external meetings and conferences, direct interactions at meetings with Alliance members, interactions with visitors and external experts, taking part in consultations with experts, state and federal government. Plain English summary Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance was established in 2013 to steer genomics into health care in Victoria, Australia. The Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed soon after to provide advice and insights from the patient perspective. The CAG has added value to the Alliance’s complex research-to-clinical service program of work over eight years to date. Following an explanation of the program, the CAG members identified priority areas and mechanisms for their involvement. Areas that members were involved in included: communication, visual identity and website, patient portal and its evaluation, information management, consent processes, laboratory requirements, tools for patient experience and quality of life measures, predictive health issues study, storage and sharing of data, databases, CAG Communication Plan, the Patient Guide, role with Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, implementation plan, workshop to upskill patient advocates, financial and strategic planning. Members also presented on the role of the CAG at conferences and symposia. The balanced, trusting relationship that developed between the CAG, the Program Team and its governance structure was of great value to and an achievement for the Alliance. CAG input into project deliverables and impact was recorded in a CAG inspired Activity Register and has been very tangible. Their less tangible contribution to the project is also important. Contributions included presentations at external meetings, direct interactions at annual meetings with Alliance members, interactions with visitors and external experts, taking part in consultations with experts, state and federal government. These provided opportunities to influence mindsets.

The purpose of the study was to implement and prospectively evaluate the outcomes of a rapid genomic diagnosis program at two pediatric tertiary centers. Rapid singleton whole-exome sequencing (rWES) was performed in acutely unwell pediatric patients with suspected monogenic disorders. Laboratory and clinical barriers to implementation were addressed through continuous multidisciplinary review of process parameters. Diagnostic and clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of rWES were assessed. Of 40 enrolled patients, 21 (52.5%) received a diagnosis, with median time to report of 16 days (range 9–109 days). A result was provided during the first hospital admission in 28 of 36 inpatients (78%). Clinical management changed in 12 of the 21 diagnosed patients (57%), including the provision of lifesaving treatment, avoidance of invasive biopsies, and palliative care guidance. The cost per diagnosis was AU$13,388 (US$10,453). Additional cost savings from avoidance of planned tests and procedures and reduced length of stay are estimated to be around AU$543,178 (US$424,101). The clear relative advantage of rWES, joint clinical and laboratory leadership, and the creation of a multidisciplinary “rapid team” were key to successful implementation. Rapid genomic testing in acute pediatrics is not only feasible but also cost-effective, and has high diagnostic and clinical utility. It requires a whole-of-system approach for successful implementation.

Background Genomic testing has reached the point where, technically at least, it can be cheaper to undertake panel-, exome- or whole genome testing than it is to sequence a single gene. An attribute of these approaches is that information gleaned will often have uncertain significance. In addition to the challenges this presents for pre-test counseling and informed consent, a further consideration emerges over how - ethically - we should conceive of and respond to this uncertainty. To date, the ethical aspects of uncertainty in genomics have remained under-explored. Discussion In this paper, we draft a conceptual and ethical response to the question of how to conceive of and respond to uncertainty in genomic medicine. After introducing the problem, we articulate a concept of ‘genomic uncertainty’. Drawing on this, together with exemplar clinical cases and related empirical literature, we then critique the presumption that uncertainty is always problematic and something to be avoided, or eradicated. We conclude by outlining an ‘ethics of genomic uncertainty’; describing how we might handle uncertainty in genomic medicine. This involves fostering resilience, welfare, autonomy and solidarity. Conclusions Uncertainty will be an inherent aspect of clinical practice in genomics for some time to come. Genomic testing should not be offered with the explicit aim to reduce uncertainty. Rather, uncertainty should be appraised, adapted to and communicated about as part of the process of offering and providing genomic information.