{"title":"基因组测序结果披露错误:新生儿科非遗传学专业医护人员与遗传学顾问的随机对照试验比较。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"26 9","pages":"Article 101198"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"26 9\",\"pages\":\"Article 101198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetics in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024001321\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024001321","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors
Purpose
We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.
Methods
Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.
Results
Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.
Conclusion
Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.
期刊介绍:
Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health.
GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.