Genetically Guided Precision Medicine Clinical Decision Support Tools: A Systematic Review

Darren Johnson, Guilherme Del Fiol, Kensaku Kawamoto, Katrina Romagnoli, Nathan Sanders, Grace Isaacson, Elden Jenkins, Marc Williams
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.23.23294506

Abstract

Objective Patient care using genetics presents complex challenges. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or recommendations at the point of care. This systematic review evaluated literature on CDS systems which have been implemented to support genetically guided precision medicine (GPM).

Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase, encompassing Jan 1st, 2011 to March 14th, 2023. The review included primary English peer-reviewed research articles studying humans, focused on use of computers to guide clinical decision making and delivering genetically guided, patient-specific assessments and/or recommendations to healthcare providers and/or patients.

Results The search yielded 3,832 unique articles. After screening, 41 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Alerts and reminders were the most common form of CDS used. 27 systems were integrated with the electronic health record; 2 of those used standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer. Three studies used a framework to analyze the implementation strategy.

Discussion Findings include limited use of standards-based approaches for genomic data transfer, system evaluations that do not employ formal frameworks, and inconsistencies in the methodologies used to assess genetic CDS systems and their impact on patient outcomes.

Conclusion We recommend that future research on CDS system implementation for genetically guided precision medicine should focus on implementing more CDS systems, utilization of standards-based approaches, user-centered design, exploration of alternative forms of CDS interventions, and use of formal frameworks to systematically evaluate genetic CDS systems and their effects on patient care.

Background

Genetic disorders, while individually rare, are collectively common [1]. These disorders affect between 2-10% of the population, occur in all medical specialties, and are more common in specific populations [2–5]. Genetically guided precision medicine (GPM) entails the delivery of individually tailored medical care that leverages information about each person’s unique characteristics, including clinical data, genetic test results, patient preferences, and family health history (FHx) [6–8]. GPM is expanding with advances in genomic tools and decreasing genetic testing costs [9–11]. Genomic testing can facilitate diagnosis and inform condition-specific clinical care [12–15]. However, evidence indicates that providers have limited proficiency, self-efficacy, and resources to guide decisions about when and how to order genetic tests, refer to specialists, or change treatment or surveillance based on genomic information [16–18]. As a result, genomic testing in clinical care is underutilized [19–21]. The challenges facing clinicians will continue to grow as the volume of information generated expands the evidence base for linking genetic variation with human disease [22]. For GPM to achieve the potential to tailor medical treatments and therapies to the individual characteristics of each patient, new approaches are needed to support integration of genomic medicine in clinical decision making, especially given the limited genomic specialist workforce [23].

The essential role of health information technology in overcoming the barriers that GPM faces is recognized [24–26]. A key challenge is the integration of genomic data into electronic health records (EHRs), as genomics data possess unique characteristics that set them apart from other types of clinical data. Genomic data are highly complex, voluminous, and dynamic, yet germline genetic test results do not change over an individual’s lifetime. These attributes require specialized approaches for storage, retrieval, and ongoing interpretation [27, 28]. Currently, genomic data are often poorly integrated into EHRs, resulting in suboptimal clinical use.

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have been proposed to address these barriers by facilitating the integration and utilization of data, including genomic data in clinical care [29]. CDS systems may support clinicians in ordering genetic testing and the management of care, preventing harmful or unnecessary interventions and decreasing delays in diagnosis, which can lead to excessive healthcare utilization and potentially inappropriate testing and treatment [30]. CDS systems can present information to users in a variety of ways, such as standalone systems (either electronic or paper) or systems which are integrated into the clinical workflow via the EHR [31]. CDS systems may be used asynchronously, meaning use would not be associated with a specific patient encounter, instead identifying individuals in need of a given service (e.g., vaccination, mammogram) as part of population health initiatives. CDS systems can also be used synchronously when presenting patient-specific information within the context of an encounter. By guiding assessments or recommendations at the point of care based on clinical management guidelines, best practices, and evidence [32], CDS systems have the potential to effectively influence changes in clinical care, thus facilitating the use of genomic data in clinical decision making [33].

In 2011, Welch and Kawamoto conducted a systematic review about genetic CDS systems, including prototypes and EHR-integrated CDS systems [35]. This review showed an abundance of CDS systems in prototype stage and stand alone CDS systems, with very few implemented outside of a pilot setting. Since this review, the use and evaluation of genetic CDS systems in clinical settings have proliferated, yet there has not been a review of studies summarizing the implementation, use, and evaluation of these in health care settings. To understand the evolution of the development and implementation of genomic CDS systems, we conducted a systematic review on genomic CDS systems which have been implemented in a clinical setting.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to integrate quantitative and qualitative evidence using the Rapid and Rigorous Qualitative Data Analysis (RADaR) technique [34] to examine elements surrounding implemented genomic clinical decision support (gCDS) tools. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: 416709).

Literature Search Strategy

A bioinformaticist (D.J.) consulted with a PhD researcher/medical librarian (K.M.R.) to search MEDLINE and Embase from January 1st, 2011 to March 14th, 2023 using a search strategy adapted from previous systematic reviews of CDS [35], genetic testing, genetic health services, and family history (FHx) (Supplementary appendix 1). The initial literature search was conducted on November 15, 2021 and an additional literature search was conducted on March 14, 2023 to capture additional citations. Both subject headings and text terms were used to search for CDS tools and genetic testing, including FHx. Reference lists of included articles and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched for additional references.

Study Selection

References were reviewed against the following inclusion criteria: primary English peer-reviewed research article studying humans, focused on the use of computers to guide clinical decision making and delivering genetically guided, patient-specific assessments and/or recommendations to healthcare providers and/or patients. Each stage of literature screening was conducted by two independent reviewers (D.J. and M.S.W./N.S./E.J./E.I./C.J./J.C.) using DistillerSR and a screening form. Titles and abstracts were screened to assess whether the articles met inclusion criteria. Conflicting decisions were discussed and resolved or moved to full text review. Full text review of included or conflicted abstracts was conducted such that articles included in the final systematic review met all inclusion criteria. Conflicted articles were discussed until consensus was reached or resolved by a third reviewer (M.S.W.).

Data abstraction

Quantitative and qualitative data extraction were completed on each of the articles that met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction items for all articles are described in Supplementary appendix 3.

Data Analysis

Using the abstracted attributes, the manuscripts were grouped into categories according to CDS type and clinical application area. The findings from these manuscripts were summarized through tables and narrative discussion. Notable themes and trends were identified and discussed. Reported barriers and facilitators were noted. Each article was classified according to the CDS taxonomy [36] and CDS critical success features [37]. A quantitative analysis of CDS trials to identify features critical to successful CDS tools was considered. However, due to a limited sample size of CDS trials and the lack of implementation data, this analysis was not feasible.

Results

The initial MEDLINE and Embase searches identified 3,832 unique potentially relevant articles. The title and abstract review excluded 3,438 articles. The remaining 394 underwent full text review, in which 353 were rejected. The PRISMA diagram (Fig. 1) articulates the inclusion process. This left 41 primary research articles for analysis that were published from January 1, 2011 to March 14, 2023 (Table 1) [38–78].

Fig 1:
Fig 1:

PRISMA diagram

View this table:
Table 1 Summary of primary research on CDS systems for genetically guided precision medicine

The described CDS tools were first categorized according to three areas of clinical focus: genetically-guided cancer management, pharmacogenomics (PGx), and other systems for precision medicine. CDS tools were further categorized by type of software architecture approach.

  • Stand Alone CDS: a stand alone CDS tool which utilizes information outside of the EHR and does not interact or exchange data with the EHR (14 articles).

  • EHR Proprietary: A CDS tool that works within the native EHR but does not report using industry interoperability standards for CDS or genomic data storage and transfer (25 articles).

  • EHR standards-based : A CDS tool that utilizes the native EHR and transfers genetic data using standard genomic data storage and transfer methods (2 articles).

CDS systems for genetically guided cancer management

Of the 41 articles summarized in Table 1, genetically guided cancer management was the focus of 13 articles. These included four manuscripts related to the MeTree system [38–41], a family health history FHx-based risk assessment which provides FHx-driven CDS for several conditions including cancer [42], six manuscripts on other FHx-driven CDS tools for cancer management [43–48], and single manuscripts on the following subjects: population health EHR FHx-driven CDS [49] and genetically matching clinical trial patients [50].

CDS for pharmacogenomics

CDS to support PGx implementation was the focus of 23 of the implemented CDS systems (Table 1). Large research groups (eMERGE, PREDICT, U-PGx) composed of several institutions were responsible for 3 studies [60, 62, 66]. These papers highlighted cross institutional problems including data standards and privacy. Single site/organization implementation was described in 14 articles [50–59, 61, 64–65, 68–72] and clinical workflow and information presentation were highlighted as both barriers and facilitators. The remaining papers included implementations with a focus on the role of pharmacists [63], experiences learned from transitioning from single-gene testing to panel based testing [73], and experiences of providers with the implemented systems [67].

Other CDS systems for genetically guided precision medicine

Five primary research articles focused on other clinical domains including two condition-specific tools designed within an institution: one directed towards anesthesiologists to help with management of patients at risk for malignant hyperthermia [75] and another for autism diagnosis and treatment [74]. A third study described a pregnancy genomic family planning tool using FHx as a driver for the CDS [76]. A fourth study using a pregnancy support tool to manage prenatal genetic risks using FHx [77]. Last, a study by Marwaha et al. described a tool using facial phenotyping to assist with diagnosis of genetic syndromes [78].

CDS type and critical features

Point of care alerts were the most common mechanism to deliver interventions, used in 32 of the gCDS systems (Table 2). Barriers to the implementation of alerts were described in 17 of the gCDS systems including alert fatigue, difficult integration with EHR, and lack of understanding of genetic information presented with the alert. Facilitators to the implementation of alerts were also mentioned in 14 of the gCDS systems including lack of interruption of clinical workflow, integration with EHR, and access to point-of-care information. There was little work reported on designing tools to work as expert systems (e.g., diagnostic decision support) or for workflow support (e.g., support in genetic test ordering, clinical documentation). Lack of genetic data standards was mentioned several times as a barrier to multi-departmental and multi-institutional cooperation.

View this table:
Table 02 Summary of CDS taxonomy [36], CDS architecture, information used to drive CDS, and CDS critical features [37]

Standards in genetic support systems

Of the 41 articles, only 3 reported using standards-based approaches for storing and transmitting genetic information: GARDE (FHx information using FHIR) [45], U-PGx (allowed information to be transmitted via several standards including FHIR and HL7) [60], and eMERGE (HL7 Version 2) [62]. All other systems either used proprietary approaches within vendor-based EHRs (e.g., Epic, Cerner) for data transfer, or created a unique local data repository external to the EHR as a part of the CDS architecture. 27 systems were integrated with the EHR, 3 of which reported a standards-based approach. The remaining 14 systems were considered stand-alone CDS systems.

User centered design for genetic clinical decision support systems

Of the 30 user-centered design strategies from implementation experts [79], there were only two studies (Table 3) that adopted over 50% of the strategies (i.e., define target user, examine automatically generated data). Many studies did not report any category of user-centered design, potentially indicating a lack of understanding or use of user-centered design principles. Researchers may not be reporting on processes which help design the CDS prior to implementation.

View this table:
Table 03 Summary of user centered design strategies for genetic CDS [79]

Implementation Framework

Of the 41 articles, 2 described the use of an implementation framework to develop, implement, and evaluate the CDS system (Table 4). Implementation frameworks used included RE-AIM [39–41] and PRISM [56]. MeTree utilized RE-AIM to evaluate uptake and implementation processes. Pre-implementation measures included site visits, staff surveys, and qualitative interviews to assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators. MeTree evaluated the population representation to measure effects on all races within the community. Surveys and interviews to assess adoption of MeTree showed positive responses to change commitment but low positive levels of change efficacy [38–41]. Implementation surveys helped identify needs for patients to understand how to access laboratory test results. Aquilante’s biobank research utilized the PRISM methodology and praised the ease of use for the final CDS system, even though the process took several years of multi-stakeholder engagements, analysis of clinical workflows, and iterative designs [56]. Other articles described implemented CDS systems with no formal application of implementation frameworks for measuring outcomes related to implementation.

View this table:
Table 04 Summary of implementation frameworks utilized for genetic clinical decision support systems

Facilitators and barriers for genetic CDS implementation

The facilitators for gCDS systems include implementation of point of care alerts (29 articles), genetic data integration within EHR (23 articles), providing evidence-based and personalized recommendations for diagnosis (21 articles), multi-disciplinary teams developing the CDS (12 articles), patient-facing component of CDS (9 articles), guideline accessibility (6 articles), institutional support (5 articles), and physician champions (5 articles).

The barriers identified in the review include lack of standards for storing and transmitting genetic information (26 articles), lack of genetic data integration within the EHR (20 articles), lack of understanding of genetic information by the clinician (18 articles), alert fatigue (16 articles), cost to healthcare system with inadequate information or analysis on cost-benefit (15 articles), clinical workflow disruptions (14 articles), lack of access to genetic personnel (7 articles), and lack of patient engagement materials (4 articles).

Trend analysis

The publication volume on CDS for GPM was relatively constant throughout the timeline of the review. The major foci of the literature in this domain have been on pharmacogenomics, FHx CDS, and CDS for cancer management.

Discussion

As the field of precision medicine diagnostics continues to grow rapidly, there is a pressing need for more research on how to effectively harness CDS to integrate these discoveries into everyday clinical practice. For instance, even in the realm of FHx-driven CDS, which is arguably the most established area of research concerning CDS for GPM, implementations of FHx-driven CDS tools have primarily focused on hereditary cancer management. Genotype driven tools have primarily focused on PGx applications. This indicates that there is still a considerable knowledge gap in applying genotype and FHx data for GPM in many clinical specialties. Within this review, there were only 5 implementations not related to cancer or PGx. The topics of these implementations are not trivial, relating to pregnancy and family planning, autism, using phenotype information to predict genetic disease, and malignant hyperthermia risk. Given the limited literature available on any specific topic within this field, it is crucial to invest in further research to expand and deepen our understanding of what generalizable principles for gCDS can be utilized to facilitate implementation across a broad set of GPM domains.

Clinicians without formal training in genetics are usually the first to encounter patients with genetic conditions. gCDS can help clinicians recognize a genetic condition and initiate condition-specific management. gCDS systems can potentially improve and support uptake of genetic services, but the impact on influencing clinical decisions has not been measured well. The results of our systematic review indicate that while there is growing interest in implementing gCDS systems for GPM, major challenges still need to be addressed including the lack of use of standards-based approaches to integrate CDS with EHR systems, limited clinical trials using a rigorous study design, and underuse of implementation frameworks and outcomes assessment in the evaluation of CDS implementations.

We observed a strong reliance on point of care alerts as the primary CDS type. Studies reported alerts as both facilitators and barriers to successful implementation. The characteristics that facilitate implementation include proper integration into the workflow (MeTree [38–41], GatorPGx [55], Genetic Wellness Assessment [46]) and minimization of interruptions (MeTree). Interruptive alerts are often viewed as a barrier, whereas those that seamlessly integrate into the workflow act as facilitators. The lack of more sophisticated CDS, such as expert systems and CDS that provide workflow support, speaks to the difficulty in creating an effective multi-disciplinary team which would have the knowledge necessary to design the systems. However, the high rate of usage for successful gCDS features would indicate the previous research done by Kawamoto et al. [37] on the topic may have been effective in reaching those designing CDS tools.

The lack of user-centered design reported in the articles is noteworthy given the necessity of user input and feedback throughout the iterative process of creating a successful gCDS system. Our review found that few gCDS tools evaluate workflow integration through clinician input to the process, or conducted usability tests. Future studies should follow user-centered design approaches in the design and implementation of gCDS. This recommendation was reached independently by participants in the Genomic Medicine XIII meeting (GMXIII) that proposed a research agenda to support the development and implementation of genomics-based clinical informatics tools and resources [80]. One of the meeting’s short term research priorities was “Developing user-friendly clinician- and patient-centered genomics-based tools and workflows”. By emphasizing strategies that have a more positive impact, such as integrating alerts and reminders into the workflow and utilizing user-centered design principles, the effectiveness of CDS tools can be enhanced ultimately improving patient outcomes in GPM. User-centered design can also aid integration, allowing gCDS tools to be compatible with existing health information systems, such as EHRs, laboratory information systems, and fit within the clinical workflow. User-centered design principles can help to establish the specific needs for data exchange and system interfaces, enabling seamless integration and promoting the effective use of genomic data across the healthcare ecosystem. In addition, these design principles promote evidence-based practice by encouraging the development of gCDS systems based on the best available evidence.

Implementation frameworks can also play a role in the development of CDS systems for GPM. These frameworks provide a structured approach that guides the design, integration, and evaluation of gCDS systems within the healthcare setting. Studies that used implementation framework [38–41, 56] facilitated stakeholder engagement by identifying and engaging key stakeholders, including healthcare providers, patients, administrators, and IT professionals, in the development and adoption of gCDS tools. This collaborative approach ensures that the system meets the needs of all users and promotes its acceptance and utilization. gCDS systems which didn’t use implementation frameworks may have resolved specific barriers mentioned in the gCDS systems with their use, but this could not be assessed from the published results.

Implementation frameworks also facilitate evaluation and continuous improvement by providing a roadmap for assessing the impact of gCDS tools on clinical practice, patient outcomes, and healthcare costs. This evaluation process enables ongoing refinement and improvement of the system, ensuring that it continues to meet the evolving needs of clinicians and patients. The need for evaluation of the implementation of gCDS and other information systems to support GPM was endorsed in both the short and long-term research recommended by GMXIII. [80]

Our review revealed that the lack of use of standards for genomic data integration and representation remains a barrier to the incorporation of genetic information into EHRs and gCDS systems. Despite the previously highlighted importance of adopting standards [27, 28] including prioritization in the recommendations from GMXIII, they are not being widely incorporated. Data standardization is mentioned in nearly all of the implementations, yet only three mentioned a specific data standard. Several articles mentioned the cost and resource constraints associated with implementing standards could deter smaller institutions from adopting them [49,53,56,60]. The issue of resource constraints affecting equitable implementation of gCDS and other information systems was highlighted in the recommendations of GMXIII. Implementations like the GatorPGx [55] and Family Healthware [42, 43] call for standards as a way to promote data accuracy and consistency. Multi-institution projects (U-PGx, PREDICT, eMERGE) also cited data standards as a way to enable the scalability of gCDS systems, allowing them to be more easily implemented in diverse healthcare settings.

Strengths and limitations

Use of a validated and systematic approach to the literature review was the major strength of this study. While the conclusions are necessarily subjective, they correspond to recommendations for the research agenda independently developed through an expert consensus process at the GMXIII meeting. In addition to the mentions in the text, Figure 2 maps the conclusions from the review to the recommendations from GMXIII.

Fig 2:
Fig 2:

GMXIII recommendations, systematic review mapping results to recommendations.

In terms of limitations, this study does not provide a quantitative meta-analysis of the impact of CDS interventions for GPM. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the limited number of outcome studies in this field and the heterogeneous nature of the various interventions and clinical domains. Second, we only included manuscripts written in English, which may have led to some relevant manuscripts being excluded. Third, we only looked at published manuscripts, which excluded any tools that were developed for the commercial market and have been implemented but may not have published results of any evaluations that performed on these systems.

Conclusion

Genetic disorders affect a significant portion of the population and present challenges for healthcare providers who may lack the necessary proficiency or confidence to effectively utilize genetic testing in clinical care. As genomic CDS tools advance and the cost of genetic testing decreases, GPM offers the potential to tailor medical treatments to individual patient characteristics. However, barriers persist in integrating genomic data into EHRs and CDS systems, which are critical for managing genetic testing and optimizing patient outcomes. Our systematic review of gCDS systems demonstrates that more systems are being implemented in healthcare systems, but also highlights the need for improvements in the integration of standard genomic data and the evaluation of these systems to maximize their potential in clinical practice.

To address these challenges, future research is needed to explore the use of user-centered design, unified standards-based approaches for developing gCDS tools, and implementation frameworks in the design, implementation, and evaluation of these tools. By promoting stakeholder engagement, data management, interoperability, evidence-based practice, and continuous improvement [38–41, 56], implementation frameworks can facilitate the successful adoption and utilization of genomic CDS tools in healthcare settings ultimately ensuring healthcare professionals will be better equipped to make informed decisions and improve patient care by incorporating the latest advancements in genomics into their practice.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. Raghuveer Puttagunda (Geisinger Health Systems), Connor Jenkins (Rocky Vista Medical School) for their abstract review. We also thank Zachari Salvati (Geisinger Health Systems) for his continual input and review of the manuscript.

The authors have no competing interests to disclose

This project was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Health’s National Human Genome Research Institute R01HG011799

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Global Genes - Rare Facts 2019 [updated March 14]. Available from: https://globalgenes.org/rare-facts/.
  2. 2.↵
    Baird PA, Anderson TW, Newcombe HB, Lowry RB. Genetic disorders in children and young adults: a population study. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42(5):677–693.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.
    Boycott KM, Lau LP, Cutillo CM, Austin CP. International collaborative actions and transparency to understand, diagnose, and develop therapies for rare diseases. EMBO Mol Med. 2019;11(5):e10486. doi:10.15252/emmm.201910486
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.
    Boycott KM, Vanstone MR, Bulman DE, MacKenzie AE. Rare-disease genetics in the era of next-generation sequencing: discovery to translation. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(10):681–691. doi:10.1038/nrg3555
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Verma IC, Puri RD. Global burden of genetic disease and the role of genetic screening. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;20(5):354–363. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2015.07.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Hirata H, Niida A, Kakiuchi N, et al. The Evolving Genomic Landscape of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Under Chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Res. 2021;81(19):4926–4938. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-0653
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.
    Bick D, Jones M, Taylor SL, Taft RJ, Belmont J. Case for genome sequencing in infants and children with rare, undiagnosed or genetic diseases. J Med Genet. 2019;56(12):783–791. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106111
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Baldacchino I, Pace NP, Vassallo J. Screening for monogenic diabetes in primary care. Prim Care Diabetes. 2020;14(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2019.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Hildebrand MS, Dahl HH, Damiano JA, Smith RJ, Scheffer IE, Berkovic SF. Recent advances in the molecular genetics of epilepsy. J Med Genet. 2013;50(5):271–279. doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101448
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    Tsang MH, Leung GK, Ho AC, et al. Exome sequencing identifies molecular diagnosis in children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsia Open. 2018;4(1):63–72. Published 2018 Dec 6. doi:10.1002/epi4.12282
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Sánchez Fernández I, Loddenkemper T, Gaínza-Lein M, Sheidley BR, Poduri A. Diagnostic yield of genetic tests in epilepsy: A meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness study [published online ahead of print, 2019 Jan 4]. Neurology. 2019;92(5):e418–e428. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000006850
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Aspromonte MC, Bellini M, Gasparini A, et al. Characterization of intellectual disability and autism comorbidity through gene panel sequencing. Hum Mutat. 2020;41(6):1183. doi:10.1002/humu.24012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.
    Chérot E, Keren B, Dubourg C, et al. Using medical exome sequencing to identify the causes of neurodevelopmental disorders: Experience of 2 clinical units and 216 patients. Clin Genet. 2018;93(3):567–576. doi:10.1111/cge.13102
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.
    Yamamoto T, Imaizumi T, Yamamoto-Shimojima K, et al. Genomic backgrounds of Japanese patients with undiagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders. Brain Dev. 2019;41(9):776–782. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2019.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Srivastava S, Love-Nichols JA, Dies KA, et al. Meta-analysis and multidisciplinary consensus statement: exome sequencing is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders [published correction appears in Genet Med. 2020 Oct;22(10):1731-1732]. Genet Med. 2019;21(11):2413–2421. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0554-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Haspel RL. Genomic Pathology: Training for New Technology. Genomic Applications in Pathology: Springer; 2019. p. 129–40.
  17. 17.
    Ward ET, Kostick KM, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2019;27(1):53–64. doi:10.1097/HRP.0000000000000203
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Vassy JL, Korf BR, Green RC. How to know when physicians are ready for genomic medicine. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(287):287fs19. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa2401
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Baldacchino I, Pace NP, Vassallo J. Screening for monogenic diabetes in primary care. Prim Care Diabetes. 2020;14(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2019.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.
    McCarthy AM. Persistent Underutilization of BRCA1/2 Testing Suggest the Need for New Approaches to Genetic Testing Delivery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(8):751–753. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Connor JA, Hinton RB, Miller EM, Sund KL, Ruschman JG, Ware SM. Genetic testing practices in infants with congenital heart disease. Congenit Heart Dis. 2014;9(2):158–167. doi:10.1111/chd.12112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Ramos EM, Din-Lovinescu C, Berg JS, et al. Characterizing genetic variants for clinical action. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;166C(1):93-104. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31386
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    Raspa M, Moultrie R, Toth D, Haque SN. Barriers and Facilitators to Genetic Service Delivery Models: Scoping Review. Interact J Med Res. 2021;10(1):e23523. Published 2021 Feb 25. doi:10.2196/23523
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Marsolo K, Spooner SA. Clinical genomics in the world of the electronic health record. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2013;15(10):786–91. Epub 2013/07/13. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.88. PubMed PMID: 23846403; PMCID: PMC4096770.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    Shirts BH, Salama JS, Aronson SJ, et al. CSER and eMERGE: current and potential state of the display of genetic information in the electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(6):1231–1242. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv065
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Abul-Husn NS, Kenny EE. Personalized Medicine and the Power of Electronic Health Records. Cell. 2019;177(1):58–69. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Williams MS, Taylor CO, Walton NA, et al. Genomic Information for Clinicians in the Electronic Health Record: Lessons Learned From the Clinical Genome Resource Project and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network. Front Genet. 2019;10:1059. Published 2019 Oct 29. doi:10.3389/fgene.2019.01059
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    Walton NA, Johnson, Darren K., Chamala, Srikar, et al. Genomic Data in the Electronic Health Record. In: Tsongalis GJ, editor. Advances in Molecular Pathology: Elsevier; 2019.
  29. 29.↵
    Campbell IM, Karavite DJ, Mcmanus ML, et al. Clinical decision support with a comprehensive in-EHR patient tracking system improves genetic testing follow up. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023;30(7):1274–1283. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad070
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Abrahams E, Ginsburg GS, Silver M. The personalized medicine coalition: goals and strategies. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2005;5:345–55
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, et al. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:141–5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Kawamoto K, Lobach DF, Willard HF, et al. A national clinical decision support infrastructure to enable the widespread and consistent practice of genomic and personalized medicine. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 2009;9:17
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    Downing GJ, Boyle SN, Brinner KM, et al. Information management to enable personalized medicine: stakeholder roles in building clinical decision support. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 2009;9:44
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Watkins DC. Rapid and rigourous qualitative data analysis: The “RADaR” technique for applied research. Epub 2017. Doi: 10.1177/1609406917712131
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Welch BM, Kawamoto K. Clinical decision support for genetically guided personalized medicine: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Mar-Apr;20(2):388–400. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000892. Epub 2012 Aug 25. PMID: 22922173; PMCID: PMC3638177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Wright A, Sittig DF, Ash JS, et al. Development and evaluation of a comprehensive clinical decision support taxonomy: comparison of front-end tools in commercial and internally developed electronic health record systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):232–242. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000113
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765. doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Orlando LA, Buchanan AH, Hahn SE, et al. Development and validation of a primary care-based family health history and decision support program (MeTree). N C Med J. 2013;74(4):287–296.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Wu RR, Orlando LA, Himmel TL, et al. Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:111. Published 2013 Aug 6. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-111
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    Wu RR, Myers RA, Sperber N, et al. Implementation, adoption, and utility of family health history risk assessment in diverse care settings: evaluating implementation processes and impact with an implementation framework. Genet Med. 2019;21(2):331–338. doi:10.1038/s41436-018-0049-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Wu RR, Myers RA, Neuner J, et al. Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1486. Published 2022 Dec 6. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08879-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Rubinstein WS, Acheson LS, O’Neill SM, et al. Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Genet Med. 2011;13(11):956–965. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182241d88
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Zazove P, Plegue MA, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT 4th. Prompting Primary Care Providers about Increased Patient Risk As a Result of Family History: Does It Work?. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(3):334–342. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2015.03.140149
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.
    Cunningham AP, Antoniou AC, Easton DF. Clinical software development for the Web: lessons learned from the BOADICEA project. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:30. Published 2012 Apr 10. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-30
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Del Fiol G, Kohlmann W, Bradshaw RL, et al. Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support Platform to Manage Patients Who Meet Guideline-Based Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Familial Cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:1–9. doi:10.1200/CCI.19.00120
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Lemke AA, Thompson J, Hulick PJ, et al. Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record-integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment. J Community Genet. 2020;11(3):339–350. doi:10.1007/s12687-020-00454-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Wurtmann EJ, Baldinger S, Olet S, Daley A, Swenson KK. An Electronic Health Record Tool Increases Genetic Counseling Referral of Individuals at Hereditary Cancer Risk: An Intervention Study [published online ahead of print, 2022 Jul 27]. Public Health Genomics. 2022;1–7. doi:10.1159/000525447
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Doerr M, Edelman E, Gabitzsch E, Eng C, Teng K. Formative evaluation of clinician experience with integrating family history-based clinical decision support into clinical practice. J Pers Med. 2014;4(2):115–136. Published 2014 Mar 26. doi:10.3390/jpm4020115
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    Yin K, Zhou J, Singh P, Wang J, Braun D, Hughes KS. Search Behavior Regarding Cancer Susceptibility Genes Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Gene-Specific Penetrance: Content Analysis. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(3):e28527. Published 2021 Jul 13. doi:10.2196/28527
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    Zeng J, Shufean MA, Khotskaya Y, et al. OCTANE: Oncology Clinical Trial Annotation Engine. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–11. doi:10.1200/CCI.18.00145
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.
    Gill PS, Yu FB, Porter-Gill PA, et al. Implementing Pharmacogenomics Testing: Single Center Experience at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. J Pers Med. 2021;11(5):394. Published 2021 May 11. doi:10.3390/jpm11050394
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Manzi SF, Fusaro VA, Chadwick L, et al. Creating a scalable clinical pharmacogenomics service with automated interpretation and medical record result integration - experience from a pediatric tertiary care facility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):74–80. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw052
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    Hinderer M, Boeker M, Wagner SA, et al. The experience of physicians in pharmacogenomic clinical decision support within eight German university hospitals. Pharmacogenomics. 2017;18(8):773–785. doi:10.2217/pgs-2017-0027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.
    Zastrozhin M, Skryabin V, Sorokin A, et al. Using a pharmacogenetic clinical decision support system to improve psychopharmacotherapy dosing in patients with affective disorders. Drug Metab Pers Ther. 2020;35(4):10.1515/dmpt-2019-0033. Published 2020 Sep 1. doi:10.1515/dmpt-2019-0033
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Marrero RJ, Cicali EJ, Arwood MJ, et al. How to Transition from Single-Gene Pharmacogenetic Testing to Preemptive Panel-Based Testing: A Tutorial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(3):557–565. doi:10.1002/cpt.1912
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    Aquilante CL, Kao DP, Trinkley KE, et al. Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics via a health system-wide research biobank: the University of Colorado experience. Pharmacogenomics. 2020;21(6):375–386. doi:10.2217/pgs-2020-0007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.
    Borden BA, Galecki P, Wellmann R, et al. Assessment of provider-perceived barriers to clinical use of pharmacogenomics during participation in an institutional implementation study. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2019;29(2):31–38. doi:10.1097/FPC.0000000000000362
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.
    Hernandez W, Danahey K, Pei X, et al. Pharmacogenomic genotypes define genetic ancestry in patients and enable population-specific genomic implementation. Pharmacogenomics J. 2020;20(1):126–135. doi:10.1038/s41397-019-0095-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    Natasha Petry, Baye J, Aifaoui A, et al. Implementation of wide-scale pharmacogenetic testing in primary care. Pharmacogenomics. 2019;20(12):903–913. doi:10.2217/pgs-2019-0043
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Blagec K, Koopmann R, Crommentuijn-van Rhenen M, et al. Implementing pharmacogenomics decision support across seven European countries: The Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics (U-PGx) project. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(7):893–898. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    Danahey K, Borden BA, Furner B, et al. Simplifying the use of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice: Building the genomic prescribing system. J Biomed Inform. 2017;75:110–121. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2017.09.012
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    Rasmussen-Torvik LJ, Stallings SC, Gordon AS, et al. Design and anticipated outcomes of the eMERGE-PGx project: a multicenter pilot for preemptive pharmacogenomics in electronic health record systems. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96(4):482–489. doi:10.1038/clpt.2014.137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    Owusu-Obeng A, Weitzel KW, Hatton RC, et al. Emerging roles for pharmacists in clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(10):1102–1112. doi:10.1002/phar.1481
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    Bielinski SJ, Olson JE, Pathak J, et al. Preemptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right time-using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(1):25–33. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.10.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    Goldspiel BR, Flegel WA, DiPatrizio G, et al. Integrating pharmacogenetic information and clinical decision support into the electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):522–528. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001873
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    Pulley JM, Denny JC, Peterson JF, et al. Operational implementation of prospective genotyping for personalized medicine: the design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT project. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(1):87–95. doi:10.1038/clpt.2011.371
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    Caraballo PJ, Hodge LS, Bielinski SJ, et al. Multidisciplinary model to implement pharmacogenomics at the point of care. Genet Med. 2017;19(4):421–429. doi:10.1038/gim.2016.120
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    Obeng AO, Kaszemacher T, Abul-Husn NS, et al. Implementing Algorithm-Guided Warfarin Dosing in an Ethnically Diverse Patient Population Using Electronic Health Records and Preemptive CYP2C9 and VKORC1 Genetic Testing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100(5):427–430. doi:10.1002/cpt.425
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    Ramsey LB, Prows CA, Zhang K, et al. Implementation of Pharmacogenetics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center: Lessons Learned Over 14 Years of Personalizing Medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(1):49–52. doi:10.1002/cpt.1165
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.
    Bell GC, Crews KR, Wilkinson MR, et al. Development and use of active clinical decision support for preemptive pharmacogenomics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e1):e93–e99. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.
    Wick JA, Schmidlen T, Grande K, et al. Implementing comprehensive pharmacogenomics in a community hospital-associated primary care setting. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2023;63(1):188-192. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2022.09.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.↵
    Peterson JF, Bowton E, Field JR, et al. Electronic health record design and implementation for pharmacogenomics: a local perspective. Genet Med. 2013;15(10):833–841. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    Cicali EJ, Weitzel KW, Elsey AR, et al. Challenges and lessons learned from clinical pharmacogenetic implementation of multiple gene-drug pairs across ambulatory care settings. Genet Med. 2019;21(10):2264–2274. doi:10.1038/s41436-019-0500-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. 74.↵
    Way H, Williams G, Hausman-Cohen S, Reeder J. Genomics as a Clinical Decision Support Tool: Successful Proof of Concept for Improved ASD Outcomes. J Pers Med. 2021;11(7):596. Published 2021 Jun 24. doi:10.3390/jpm11070596
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    Baye JF, Petry NJ, Jacobson SL, et al. Malignant hyperthermia susceptibility: utilization of genetic results in an electronic medical record to increase safety. Pharmacogenomics. 2020;21(17):1207–1215. doi:10.2217/pgs-2020-0088
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    Edelman EA, Lin BK, Doksum T, et al. Evaluation of a novel electronic genetic screening and clinical decision support tool in prenatal clinical settings. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(5):1233–1245. doi:10.1007/s10995-013-1358-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    Reumkens K, Tummers MHE, Severijns Y, et al. Reproductive decision-making in the context of hereditary cancer: the effects of an online decision aid on informed decision-making. J Community Genet. 2021;12(1):101–110. doi:10.1007/s12687-020-00484-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.↵
    Marwaha A, Chitayat D, Meyn MS, Mendoza-Londono R, Chad L. The point-of-care use of a facial phenotyping tool in the genetics clinic: Enhancing diagnosis and education with machine learning. Am J Med Genet A. 2021;185(4):1151–1158. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.62092
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.↵
    Dopp AR, Parisi KE, Munson SA, Lyon AR. A glossary of user-centered design strategies for implementation experts. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(6):1057–1064. doi:10.1093/tbm/iby119
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    Wiley K, Findley L, Goldrich M, et al. A research agenda to support the development and implementation of genomics-based clinical informatics tools and resources. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(8):1342–1349. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac057
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted August 24, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Genetically Guided Precision Medicine Clinical Decision Support Tools: A Systematic Review
Darren Johnson, Guilherme Del Fiol, Kensaku Kawamoto, Katrina Romagnoli, Nathan Sanders, Grace Isaacson, Elden Jenkins, Marc Williams
medRxiv 2023.08.23.23294506; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.23.23294506
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area