2017
DOI: 10.2217/pgs-2017-0027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Experience of Physicians in Pharmacogenomic Clinical Decision Support Within Eight German University Hospitals

Abstract: Physicians in German hospitals require additional education of both genetics and pharmacogenomics. They need to be provided with access to relevant pharmacogenomic CDSS.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“… # Identified design requirements Barriers and challenges Studies R1 Security and privacy • Secure storage of the PGx data • Unauthorised access to PGx data • Preserving patient privacy and confidentiality when outsourceing data [ 29 47 ] R2 Accessibility • Limited data sharing • Time lag to receive the results • Lack of infrastructure and standardised processes for storing, accessing PGx data •And reporting results efficiently • Communicate results to patients [ 29 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 48 – 59 ] R2 Interoperability • Difficulties of integrating PGx data with the EHR • Low degree of connectivity between different PGx resources • Lack of a link between several software-systems • Integrating PGx testing into existing services [ 29 , 43 , 45 – 48 , 50 , 52 – 55 , 58 – 61 ] R4 Traceability • Lack of transparency • Uncertainty of about the appropriate level of oversight • Lack of patient engagement in care decision making • Future use of patient PGx data • Who could have access to PGx data? [ 42 , 44 , 59 , 61 , 62 ] R5 Legal Compliance • Autonomy and informed consent issues • Risk of discrimination • Misuse of patient data • Legal uncertainty • Lack of accountability regarding PGx data ownership [ 30 , 33 , 35 38 , 50 , 61 , …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… # Identified design requirements Barriers and challenges Studies R1 Security and privacy • Secure storage of the PGx data • Unauthorised access to PGx data • Preserving patient privacy and confidentiality when outsourceing data [ 29 47 ] R2 Accessibility • Limited data sharing • Time lag to receive the results • Lack of infrastructure and standardised processes for storing, accessing PGx data •And reporting results efficiently • Communicate results to patients [ 29 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 48 – 59 ] R2 Interoperability • Difficulties of integrating PGx data with the EHR • Low degree of connectivity between different PGx resources • Lack of a link between several software-systems • Integrating PGx testing into existing services [ 29 , 43 , 45 – 48 , 50 , 52 – 55 , 58 – 61 ] R4 Traceability • Lack of transparency • Uncertainty of about the appropriate level of oversight • Lack of patient engagement in care decision making • Future use of patient PGx data • Who could have access to PGx data? [ 42 , 44 , 59 , 61 , 62 ] R5 Legal Compliance • Autonomy and informed consent issues • Risk of discrimination • Misuse of patient data • Legal uncertainty • Lack of accountability regarding PGx data ownership [ 30 , 33 , 35 38 , 50 , 61 , …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To address this issue, e.g., the MIRACUM consortium (Medical Informatics in Research and Care in University Medicine) has established a solution which focuses on the provision of IT and bioinformatics support for translation and visualization of data analyzed in MTBs. As part of this use case, they work on a generic, open-source framework that supports the analysis, interpretation and visualization of both clinical and *omics data [20]. Moreover, the HiGHmed consortium of the German Medical Informatics Initiative is developing a common cross-institutional reference architecture based on relevant standards such as IHE, openEHR and FHIR.…”
Section: B Tumor Boardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the MIRACUM conceptual phase, we have already performed an in-depth analysis of the clinician experiences and attitudes towards genome-guided therapy support [ 46 ] as well as analysis of activities, processes and IT solutions at all MIRACUM sites [ 47 ] to gain a comprehensive understanding of the requirements and the processes involved in MTBs across these institutions. Further, a comprehensive literature review was performed to learn from experiences of previous research towards the integration of pharmacogenomics testing and molecular-guided therapy decisions in clinical care environments [ 48 ].…”
Section: Use Casesmentioning
confidence: 99%