The outcome of this research will be a demonstration that family health history (FHH) risk data can be used efficiently to deliver more effective healthcare in geographically and ethnically diverse clinical care environments. Although FHH is a standard component of the medical interview its widespread adoption is hindered by three major barriers: (1) a dearth of standard collection methods; (2) the absence of health care provider access to complete FHH information; and (3) the need for clinical guidance for the interpretation and use of FHH. In addition, the time constraints of the busy provider and poor integration of FHH with paper medical records or electronic medical records (EMR) impede its widespread use. The investigators hypothesize that patient-driven and electronic collection of FHH for risk stratification will promote more informed decision-making by patients and providers, and improves adherence to risk-stratified preventive care guidelines. The study team will use an implementation sciences approach to integrate an innovative FHH system that collects FHH from patients. Intermountain Healthcare will provide the information technology expertise with EMR design to develop an innovative solution to a storage model standard for FHH data as well as a centralized standards-compliant open clinical decision support (OpenCDS) rule development architecture to analyze FHH and to generate evidence-based, individualized, disease risk, preventive care recommendations for both patients and providers.
Five health care delivery organizations will participate in this demonstration project: Duke University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the Air Force, Essentia Health, and the University of North Texas Health Science Center. The study will take place in 'real world' clinical, socio-cultural, and demographically diverse (rural, underserved, academic, family medicine) care clinics (n=34) in 5 states (CA, MN, NC, WI, TX) that include genomic medicine 'early adopter' and 'naïve' sites, as well as those that are EMR-enabled and others that are not. The study team will recruit a minimum of 7000 English or Spanish speaking adults over a 3-year period and will capture process metrics and outcomes that are measured in the course of usual care. The goals are: 1) To optimize the collection of patient entered FHH in diverse clinical environments for coronary heart disease, thrombosis, and selected cancers, 2) to export FHH data to an OpenCDS platform and return CDS results to providers and patients (and to EMRs where relevant) and to explore the integration of genetic risk and FHH data at selected sites, 3) to assess the clinical and personal utility of FHH using a pragmatic observational study design to assess reach, adoption, integrity, exposure, and sustainability, and to capture, analyze, and report effectiveness outcomes at each stakeholder level: patient, provider, and clinic/system, and 4) to take a leadership role in the dissemination of guidelines for FHH intervention across in diverse practice settings.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
2,620
Software program collecting family health history and generating clinical decision support for risk-based preventive care
David Grant Medical Center
Fairfield, California, United States
Essentia Institute of Rural Health
Duluth, Minnesota, United States
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina, United States
University of North Texas Health Science Center
Fort Worth, Texas, United States
Medical College of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Number of Participants With Uptake of Genetic Counseling for Those at Risk of Hereditary Conditions at 1 Year
How many patients identified as meeting criteria for genetic counseling, how many providers ordered genetic counseling, and how many patients adhere to the provider recommendation at 1 year.
Time frame: Baseline, 3 and 12 months
Number of Participants Reporting Satisfaction When Using the MeTree Tool
The study will assess satisfaction associated with using the MeTree tool via 3 months survey after completing the family health history collection. The participant were asked their level of satisfaction with their experience using the web-based portal to enter information for their provider before their appointment
Time frame: 3 months
Number of Participants Reporting Comfort When Using the MeTree Tool
The study will assess comfort associated with using the MeTree tool via 3 months survey after completing the family health history collection. The participant were asked if the MeTree program was easy to use
Time frame: 3 months
Number of Participants Reporting Anxiety When Using the MeTree Tool
The study will assess anxiety associated with using the MeTree tool via 3 months survey after completing the family health history collection. The participant were asked if answering the questions made them anxious
Time frame: 3 months
Number of Participants Reporting Preparedness When Using the MeTree Tool
The study will assess preparedness associated with using the MeTree tool via 3 months survey after completing the family health history collection. The participants were asked if they had enough information about some people in their family when completing MeTree
Time frame: 3 months
Number of Physicians Who Gave Their Perceptions of Satisfaction and the MeTree Tool's Impact on Work Load
Evaluate physicians' perceptions of satisfaction, the MeTree tool's impact on work load and its effectiveness via survey and informal interviews at 3 months.
Time frame: 3 months
Number of Providers Who Were Successfully Using MeTree in Their Clinical Work Flow
Evaluate which providers were successfully using MeTree in their clinical work flow and which patients are successfully using MeTree for their care. (surveys, monitoring of clinical workflow, patient recruitment reflects underlying clinic population)
Time frame: 1 year
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.