Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) affect more than 3% of children and are attributable to single-gene mutations at more than 1000 loci. Traditional methods yield molecular diagnoses in less than one-half of children with NDD. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) can enable diagnosis of NDD, but their clinical and cost-effectiveness are unknown. One hundred families with 119 children affected by NDD received diagnostic WGS and/or WES of parent-child trios, wherein the sequencing approach was guided by acuity of illness. Forty-five percent received molecular diagnoses. An accelerated sequencing modality, rapid WGS, yielded diagnoses in 73% of families with acutely ill children (11 of 15). Forty percent of families with children with nonacute NDD, followed in ambulatory care clinics (34 of 85), received diagnoses: 33 by WES and 1 by staged WES then WGS. The cost of prior negative tests in the nonacute patients was $19,100 per family, suggesting sequencing to be cost-effective at up to $7640 per family. A change in clinical care or impression of the pathophysiology was reported in 49% of newly diagnosed families. If WES or WGS had been performed at symptom onset, genomic diagnoses may have been made 77 months earlier than occurred in this study. It is suggested that initial diagnostic evaluation of children with NDD should include trio WGS or WES, with extension of accelerated sequencing modalities to high-acuity patients.

Purpose: We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify primary-care providers' perceived barriers against provision of genetics services. Methods:We systematically searched PubMed and ERIC using key and Boolean term combinations for articles published from 2001 to 2012 that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Specific barriers were identified and aggregated into categories based on topic similarity. These categories were then grouped into themes.Results: Of the 4,174 citations identified by the search, 38 publications met inclusion criteria. There were 311 unique barriers that were classified into 38 categories across 4 themes: knowledge and skills; ethical, legal, and social implications; health-care systems; and scientific evidence. Barriers most frequently mentioned by primary-care providers included a lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic risk assessment, concern for patient anxiety, a lack of access to genetics, and a lack of time. Conclusion:Although studies reported that primary-care providers perceive genetics as being important, barriers to the integration of genetics medicine into routine patient care were identified. The promotion of practical guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored educational tools, and other systems-level strategies will assist primary-care providers in providing genetics services for their patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if a national pediatric primary care quality improvement collaborative (QIC) could improve and sustain adherence with process measures related to diagnosis and management of children with genetic disorders. METHODS: Thirteen practices in 11 states from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Quality Improvement Innovation Networks participated in a 6-month QIC that included regular educational opportunities, access to genetic professionals, and performance feedback. The QIC identified 11 aims related to improving diagnosis and management of children with genetic disorders. The practices evaluated adherence by reviewing patient records at baseline, monthly for 6 months (active improvement period), and then once 6 months after the QIC’s conclusion to check for sustainability. Random intercept binomial regression models with practice level random intercepts were used to compare adherence over time for each aim. RESULTS: During the active improvement period, statistically significant improvements in adherence were observed for 4 of the 7 aims achieving minimal data submission levels. For example, adherence improved for family histories created/maintained at health supervision visits documenting all components of the family history (6% vs 60%, P < .001), and for patients with specific genetic disorders who received recommended care (58% vs 85%, P < .001). All 4 of these aims also demonstrated statistically significant improvements during the sustainability period. CONCLUSIONS: A national QIC reveals promise in improving and sustaining adherence with process measures related to the diagnosis and management of genetic disorders. Future research should focus on patient outcome measures and the optimal number of aims to pursue in QICs.

No abstract

Low literacy is a problem in a large segment of our population. We tested the reading levels of a group of 100 randomly chosen clinic and hospitalized patients seen in an urban Veterans Administration Arthritis and Immunology Center. The standardized Jastak Wide Range Achievement Test, revised level 2 (WRAT‐R2), was utilized to determine the reading level appropriateness of Arthritis Foundation literature for this population. Arthritis Foundation literature by our testing with the McLaughlin's SMOG grading readability formula was found to be at the 8th‐ to 13th‐grade level. Nearly 51% of our patients read below the 10th‐grade level and 31% below the 7th‐grade level. The Arthritis Foundation literature reading level may be too advanced for a significant number of our patients. These results may also have implications for other patient education literature and other written materials such as instructions on prescriptions.