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.

Given the integral role primary care pediatricians (PCPs) play in caring for children with genetic conditions, we aimed to identify current practices of PCPs regarding genetic patients, their attitudes toward genetic medical care and their choices regarding family history taking. We conducted an on-line survey of a national convenience sample of PCPs associated with the American Academy of Pediatrics' Quality Improvement Innovation Networks. Eighty-eight respondents (29% response rate) were included in the analysis. Seventy-four (86%) reported ordering genetic based tests three or less times annually. Eleven (13%) strongly agreed that they discuss with patients the potential risks, benefits, and limitations of genetic tests. Forty-three (49%) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel competent in providing healthcare to patients related to genetics and genomics. Perceived competence was not associated with more recent training (P = 0.29), number of genetic tests ordered annually (P = 0.84) or mean number of weekly patient encounters (P = 0.15). 100% of participants stated that taking a family history is important. 27 (31%) agreed or strongly agreed that they gather a minimum of a three-generation family history. Forty-one of the 63 participants with an electronic health record (65%) reported their system was fair or poor in its ability to easily capture a three-generation family history. PCPs interested in quality improvement reported variation in care practices for children with genetic diseases and a majority did not feel competent to provide genetic related healthcare. Research should focus on improving the care and diagnosis of children with genetic disorders and enhanced integration of genetic medicine into routine primary preventative care.

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.

Quality Improvement Success Stories are published by the American Diabetes Association in collaboration with the American College of Physicians and the National Diabetes Education Program. This series is intended to highlight best practices and strategies from programs and clinics that have successfully improved the quality of care for people with diabetes or related conditions. Each article in the series is reviewed and follows a standard format developed by the editors of Clinical Diabetes. The following article describes an effort to reduce iatrogenic insulin-associated hypoglycemia at the University of Chicago Medical Center, in Chicago, IL.