Growth in perceived clinical genetics competency among primary care providers participating in genomic population health screening

Limited competency in genetics among primary care providers (PCPs) is a barrier to use of genetic information in healthcare. Formal genetics lessons require time and interest, and knowledge wanes. We hypothesized another path to competency: participation in our PCP-centered adult clinical genomic population health screening program. We asked participating Family Medicine PCPs about their perceptions of growth in their genetics competency. An anonymous, voluntary, cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed to PCPs offering the screening. Results were compiled after 3 weeks. PCPs rated several program resources for value and provided open-ended feedback. Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed that genetics is important to their practice. Eighty-seven percent felt that their knowledge of clinical genetics topics had grown. Eighty-seven percent perceived increased confidence in offering genetic testing and in discussing common genetic results with patients. Respondents gained appreciation for the scope of clinical utility that genetic information offers patients. Each education resource rated at least 3.75 out of 5 for contributing to genetics knowledge. The case-specific Genomic Medicine Action Plan rated highest in educational value, 4.5 out of 5. Most responding PCPs offering genomic population health screening perceived growth in their genetic competency and found hands-on, case-based resources most useful.

The survey instrument is available in the online supplementary material. Raw survey response data is available upon request to RSW.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Family Medicine providers who voluntarily participate in genomic population health screening and who responded to the survey. RSW and AWR received salaries from the University of Vermont and the UVM Health Network Medical Group.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

   Christina A. Hansen

2. Department of Family Medicine, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

   Aaron W. Reiter

3. Departments of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine and Pediatrics, Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

   Robert S. Wildin

Contributions

Conceptualization: C.A.H., A.W.R.; methodology, data curation, validation: R.S.W and C.A.H; analysis and writing—original draft: C.A.H.; writing—review and editing: R.S.W.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert S. Wildin.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human subjects

The survey met criteria for an operational quality improvement activity according to the policy defining activities which constitute research at the University of Vermont/University of Vermont Medical Center. This project did not require IRB review nor informed consent because it did not meet the definition of a research activity under 45 CFR 46.102(d).

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions