Navigating the impact of the 21st-Century Cures Act Final Rule: A national cross-sectional survey of US genetic counselors

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Chenery Lowe, Laura Duncan, Victoria Morris, Katherine Anderson, Laynie Dratch, Debra J. H. Mathews
{"title":"Navigating the impact of the 21st-Century Cures Act Final Rule: A national cross-sectional survey of US genetic counselors","authors":"Chenery Lowe,&nbsp;Laura Duncan,&nbsp;Victoria Morris,&nbsp;Katherine Anderson,&nbsp;Laynie Dratch,&nbsp;Debra J. H. Mathews","doi":"10.1002/jgc4.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule (Final Rule) increases patient access to their health records but raises concerns about distress and misunderstanding of automatically released results and documentation. Little is known about genetic counselors' (GCs') experiences with the Final Rule. In Fall 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of US GCs about the Final Rule's perceived impact on practice and assessed if being the ordering versus non-ordering provider for genetic testing affected perceptions of Final Rule-related changes. GCs (<i>n</i> = 102) reported demographic and workplace characteristics, institutional policy changes, workflow changes, and perceived patient harms and benefits due to the Final Rule. To compare ordering and non-ordering providers, we conducted Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and trend tests for ordinal variables. Open-response questions elicited examples of positive and negative patient impacts, the effects of patient characteristics, and practice changes in response to the Final Rule. Twenty-seven GCs were ordering providers and 66 were non-ordering providers. Relative to ordering providers, non-ordering providers expressed stronger agreement with statements indicating concern about the emotional impact on patients reviewing results or notes without support (<i>p</i> = 0.002, 33% vs. 51% strongly agree), patients misunderstanding or misinterpreting results (<i>p</i> = 0.025, 44% vs. 70% strongly agree), and patients contacting the inappropriate party to discuss results (<i>p</i> = 0.023, 19% vs. 48% strongly agree). Agreement with the statement “patients have more knowledge/context/questions at our disclosure session due to previous results review” also differed by ordering provider status (<i>p</i> = 0.007). In open responses, GCs expressed concerns about patients' strong emotional reactions, patients misinterpreting results, workflow disruptions, and widening health disparities. Benefits included patients' ability to be reassured, informed, or empowered earlier; ease of sharing health information; more efficient workflow due to the automatic release of results. These results emphasize the importance of clear communication within health systems and between patients and providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":54829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","volume":"34 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgc4.70005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Genetic Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgc4.70005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule (Final Rule) increases patient access to their health records but raises concerns about distress and misunderstanding of automatically released results and documentation. Little is known about genetic counselors' (GCs') experiences with the Final Rule. In Fall 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of US GCs about the Final Rule's perceived impact on practice and assessed if being the ordering versus non-ordering provider for genetic testing affected perceptions of Final Rule-related changes. GCs (n = 102) reported demographic and workplace characteristics, institutional policy changes, workflow changes, and perceived patient harms and benefits due to the Final Rule. To compare ordering and non-ordering providers, we conducted Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and trend tests for ordinal variables. Open-response questions elicited examples of positive and negative patient impacts, the effects of patient characteristics, and practice changes in response to the Final Rule. Twenty-seven GCs were ordering providers and 66 were non-ordering providers. Relative to ordering providers, non-ordering providers expressed stronger agreement with statements indicating concern about the emotional impact on patients reviewing results or notes without support (p = 0.002, 33% vs. 51% strongly agree), patients misunderstanding or misinterpreting results (p = 0.025, 44% vs. 70% strongly agree), and patients contacting the inappropriate party to discuss results (p = 0.023, 19% vs. 48% strongly agree). Agreement with the statement “patients have more knowledge/context/questions at our disclosure session due to previous results review” also differed by ordering provider status (p = 0.007). In open responses, GCs expressed concerns about patients' strong emotional reactions, patients misinterpreting results, workflow disruptions, and widening health disparities. Benefits included patients' ability to be reassured, informed, or empowered earlier; ease of sharing health information; more efficient workflow due to the automatic release of results. These results emphasize the importance of clear communication within health systems and between patients and providers.

Abstract Image

导航21世纪治愈法案最终规则的影响:美国遗传咨询师的全国横断面调查
21世纪治愈法案最终规则(最终规则)增加了患者对其健康记录的访问,但引起了对自动发布结果和文件的痛苦和误解的担忧。人们对遗传咨询师(GCs)在“最终规则”方面的经验知之甚少。在2023年秋季,我们对美国GCs进行了一项关于最终规则对实践的感知影响的横断面调查,并评估了作为基因检测的排序与非排序提供者是否影响了对最终规则相关变化的感知。GCs (n = 102)报告了人口统计学和工作场所特征、制度政策变化、工作流程变化以及最终规则对患者的伤害和益处。为了比较有序和非有序提供者,我们对分类变量进行了Fisher精确检验,对有序变量进行了趋势检验。开放式回答问题引出了积极和消极的患者影响的例子,患者特征的影响,以及响应最终规则的实践变化。27家GCs为订购供应商,66家为非订购供应商。与排序提供者相比,非排序提供者对以下陈述表达了更强的认同:关注患者在没有支持的情况下回顾结果或笔记时的情绪影响(p = 0.002, 33%对51%强烈同意),患者误解或误解结果(p = 0.025, 44%对70%强烈同意),以及患者联系不适当的一方讨论结果(p = 0.023, 19%对48%强烈同意)。“由于之前的结果审查,患者在我们的披露会议上有更多的知识/背景/问题”的说法的一致性也因订购提供者状态而异(p = 0.007)。在公开答复中,总务委员会对患者强烈的情绪反应、患者对结果的误解、工作流程中断和健康差距扩大表示担忧。益处包括患者能够更早地得到保证、知情或授权;便于共享卫生信息;由于结果的自动发布,更有效的工作流程。这些结果强调了卫生系统内部以及患者和提供者之间明确沟通的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Journal of Genetic Counseling GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
26.30%
发文量
113
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Genetic Counseling (JOGC), published for the National Society of Genetic Counselors, is a timely, international forum addressing all aspects of the discipline and practice of genetic counseling. The journal focuses on the critical questions and problems that arise at the interface between rapidly advancing technological developments and the concerns of individuals and communities at genetic risk. The publication provides genetic counselors, other clinicians and health educators, laboratory geneticists, bioethicists, legal scholars, social scientists, and other researchers with a premier resource on genetic counseling topics in national, international, and cross-national contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信