Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan;19(1):112-120.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.73. Epub 2016 Jun 30.

Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists

Affiliations

Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists

Maren T Scheuner et al. Genet Med. 2017 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether electronic health record (EHR) tools improve documentation of pre- and postanalytic care processes for genetic tests ordered by nongeneticists.

Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled, pre-/postintervention study of EHR point-of-care tools (informational messages and template report) for three genetic tests. Chart review assessed documentation of genetic testing processes of care, with points assigned for each documented item. Multiple linear and logistic regressions assessed factors associated with documentation.

Results: Preimplementation, there were no significant site differences (P > 0.05). Postimplementation, mean documentation scores increased (5.9 (2.1) vs. 5.0 (2.2); P = 0.0001) and records with clinically meaningful documentation increased (score >5: 59 vs. 47%; P = 0.02) at the intervention versus the control site. Pre- and postimplementation, a score >5 was positively associated with abnormal test results (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.8-9.2) and trainee provider (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.6). Postimplementation, a score >5 was also positively associated with intervention site (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.1) and specialty clinic (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.6). There were also significantly fewer tests ordered after implementation (264/100,000 vs. 204/100,000; P = 0.03), with no significant change at the control site (280/100,000 vs. 257/100,000; P = 0.50).

Conclusions: EHR point-of-care tools improved documentation of genetic testing processes and decreased utilization of genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.Genet Med 19 1, 112-120.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med. 2013;15:258–267. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scheuner MT, Marshall N, Lanto A, et al. Delivery of clinical genetic consultative services in the Veterans Health Administration. Genet Med. 2014;16:609–619. - PubMed
    1. Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;299:1320–1334. - PubMed
    1. Burke W, Culver J, Pinsky L, et al. Genetic assessment of breast cancer risk in primary care practice. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A:349–356. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brierley KL, Campfield D, Ducaine W, et al. Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice. Conn Med. 2010;74:413–423. - PubMed

Publication types