Our results indicate that adoption of systematic EHR-based SDH documentation may be feasible, but substantial barriers to adoption exist. Lessons from this study may inform primary care providers seeking to implement SDH-related efforts, and related health policies. Far more research is needed to address implementation barriers related to SDH documentation in EHRs.

As genome sequencing technology advances, research is needed to guide decision-making about what results can or should be offered to patients in different clinical settings. We conducted three focus groups with individuals who had prior preconception genetic testing experience to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening, compared to usual care. Using a discussion guide, a trained qualitative moderator facilitated the audio-recorded focus groups. Sixteen individuals participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts started with a grounded approach and subsequently focused on participants’ perceptions of the value of genetic information. Analysis uncovered two orientations toward genomic preconception carrier screening: “certain” individuals desiring all possible screening information; and “hesitant” individuals who were more cautious about its value. Participants revealed valuable information about barriers to screening: fear/anxiety about results; concerns about the method of returning results; concerns about screening necessity; and concerns about partner participation. All participants recommended offering choice to patients to enhance the value of screening and reduce barriers. Overall, two groups of likely users of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening demonstrated different perceptions of the advantages or disadvantages of screening, suggesting tailored approaches to education, consent, and counseling may be warranted with each group.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9851-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Genomic carrier screening can identify more disease-associated variants than existing carrier screening methodologies, but its utility from patients’ perspective is not yet established. A randomized controlled trial for preconception genomic carrier screening provided an opportunity to understand patients’ decisions about whether to accept or decline testing. We administered a survey to potential genomic carrier screening recipients who declined participation (N = 240) to evaluate their reasons for doing so. Two thirds of women declined participation. We identified major themes describing reasons these individuals declined to participate; the most common were time limitation, lack of interest, not wanting to know the information, and potential cause of worry or anxiety. Most women eligible for genomic carrier screening indicated that their reasons for opting out were due to logistical issues rather than opposing the rationale for testing. As expanded carrier screening and genomic sequencing become a more routine part of clinical care, it is anticipated there will be variable uptake from individuals for this testing. Thus, the advancement of clinical carrier screening from single genes, to expanded screening panels, to an exome- or genome-wide platform, will require approaches that respect individual choice to receive genetic testing for reproductive risk assessment.

In the originally published version of this article, Table 1 unfortunately included c.542G>A instead of c.542G>T. This mutation was correctly notated as c.

BackgroundThe recent growth of implementation research in care delivery systems has led to a renewed interest in methodological approaches that deliver not only intervention outcome data but also deep understanding of the complex dynamics underlying the implementation process. We suggest that an ethnographic approach to process evaluation, when informed by and integrated with quantitative data, can provide this nuanced insight into intervention outcomes. The specific methods used in such ethnographic process evaluations are rarely presented in detail; our objective is to stimulate a conversation around the successes and challenges of specific data collection methods in health care settings. We use the example of a translational clinical trial among 11 community clinics in Portland, OR that are implementing an evidence-based, health-information technology (HIT)-based intervention focused on patients with diabetes.DiscussionOur ethnographic process evaluation employed weekly diaries by clinic-based study employees, observation, informal and formal interviews, document review, surveys, and group discussions to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation success, provide insight into the quantitative study outcomes, and uncover lessons potentially transferable to other implementation projects. These methods captured the depth and breadth of factors contributing to intervention uptake, while minimizing disruption to clinic work and supporting mid-stream shifts in implementation strategies. A major challenge is the amount of dedicated researcher time required.SummaryThe deep understanding of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind intervention outcomes that can be gained through an ethnographic approach improves the credibility and transferability of study findings. We encourage others to share their own experiences with ethnography in implementation evaluation and health services research, and to consider adapting the methods and tools described here for their own research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0607-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Advances in technology and the promise of personalized health care are driving greater use of genome sequencing (GS) for a variety of clinical scenarios. As health systems consider adopting GS, they need to understand the impact of GS on the organization and cost of care. While research has documented a dramatic decrease in the cost of sequencing and interpreting GS, few studies have examined how GS impacts genetic counseling workloads. This study examined the time needed to provide genetic counseling for GS in the context of preconception carrier screening. Genetic counselors prospectively reported on the time spent in the results disclosure process with 107 study participants who were part of the NextGen study. We found that the median time for results disclosure was 64 min (ranged from 5 to 229 min). Preparation work was the most time-consuming activity. Qualitative data from journal entries, debrief interviews with genetic counselors, and detailed case conference notes provided information on factors influencing time for results disclosure and implications for practice. Results suggest that expanded carrier screening could require significant increases in genetic counseling time, unless we are able to generate new resources to reduce preparation work or develop other strategies such as the creation of new models to deliver this type of service.

With the expansion of carrier screening to general preconception and prenatal patient populations, most patients will receive negative results, which we define as indicating <25% risk of having a child with a genetic condition. Because there is limited experience with expanded carrier screening, it is important to understand how receiving negative results affects patients, especially as providers, payers, and policymakers consider whether to offer it. In this mixed-methods study, we asked preconception patients enrolled in the NextGen study about their expectations and experiences receiving negative expanded carrier screening results. Participants completed surveys at study enrollment (n=110 women, 51 male partners), after receiving carrier results (n=100 women, 38 male partners), after receiving secondary findings (n=98 women, 36 male partners), and 6 months after receiving results (n=95 women, 28 male partners). We also interviewed a subset of participants 12–24 months after receiving results (n=24 women, 12 male partners). We found minimal negative emotional impact and privacy concerns, increased confidence in reproductive plans, and few changes to health behaviors, although some patients made health decisions based on misunderstandings of their results. These findings suggest that expanded carrier screening causes minimal psychosocial harms, but systems are needed to reduce the risk of misinterpreting results.