Solutions for Unexpected Challenges Encountered when Integrating Research Genomics Results into the EHRFunding This study was funded by National Human Genome Research Institute, grant no.: U01HG8673.
Background While there have been published reports detailing technical challenges of incorporating genetic test results into the electronic health record (EHR) with proposed solutions, less has been published about unanticipated sociotechnological or practical communication challenges involved in this process.
Objectives This study was aimed to describe unanticipated issues that arose returning genetic research results through the EHR as part of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) 3 consortium, and provide lessons learned for future implementations
Methods We sequenced 3,000 participants on a 109-gene panel and returned genetic results initially in person and/or by letter, with a later release directly into the EHR and patient portal.
Results When results were returned through the EHR, multiple participants expressed confusion and contacted the health system, resulting in our institution temporarily freezing our return of research results.
Discussion We determined the likely causes of this issue to be (1) the delay between enrollment and results return, (2) inability to personalize mass e-mail messages announcing new research test results in the EHR, (3) limited space for description of test results in the EHR, and (4) the requirement to list an ordering physician for research results in the EHR. For future return of results, we propose sending preparatory e-mails to participants, including screenshots of how they can expect to see their results presented in the EHR portal.
Conclusion We hope our lessons learned can provide helpful guidance to other sites implementing research genetic results into the EHR and can encourage EHR developers to incorporate greater flexibility in the future.
The described work was conducted with input from all authors. L.V.R. and L.J.R.T. prepared the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
This work was reviewed and approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board.
Received: 01 April 2020
Accepted: 18 September 2020
13 November 2020 (online)
© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Gottesman O, Scott SA, Ellis SB. et al. The CLIPMERGE PGx Program: clinical implementation of personalized medicine through electronic health records and genomics-pharmacogenomics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 94 (02) 214-217
- 2 Rasmussen LV, Smith ME, Almaraz F. et al. An ancillary genomics system to support the return of pharmacogenomic results. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (04) 306-310
- 3 Rosenman MB, Decker B, Levy KD, Holmes AM, Pratt VM, Eadon MT. Lessons learned when introducing pharmacogenomic panel testing into clinical practice. Value Health 2017; 20 (01) 54-59
- 4 Starren J, Williams MS, Bottinger EP. Crossing the omic chasm: a time for omic ancillary systems. JAMA 2013; 309 (12) 1237-1238
- 5 Whetton S, Georgiou A. Conceptual challenges for advancing the socio-technical underpinnings of health informatics. Open Med Inform J 2010; 4: 221-224
- 6 eMERGE Consortium. Electronic address: [email protected], eMERGE Consortium. Harmonizing clinical sequencing and interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. Am J Hum Genet 2019; 105 (03) 588-605
- 7 Aronson S, Babb L, Ames D. eMERGE Network EHRI Working Group. et al. Empowering genomic medicine by establishing critical sequencing result data flows: the eMERGE example. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (10) 1375-1381
- 8 McCarty CA, Berg R, Waudby C, Foth W, Kitchner T, Cross D. Long-term recall of elements of informed consent: a pilot study comparing traditional and computer-based consenting. IRB 2015; 37 (01) 1-5
- 9 Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013; 14: 28