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 Feb;25(3):275-279.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.188. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom

Affiliations

Recontacting in clinical practice: an investigation of the views of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in the United Kingdom

Daniele Carrieri et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

This article explores the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and clinical scientists in genetics about the existence of a duty and/or responsibility to recontact former patients when the genetic information relevant to their health, or that of family members, changes in a potentially important manner. It is based on N=30 semi-structured interviews guided by vignettes of recontacting scenarios. The sample included healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom from different medical specialties (clinical genetics, other 'mainstream' specialties now offering genetic testing), and scientists from regional genetics laboratories. While viewing recontacting as desirable under certain circumstances, most respondents expressed concerns about its feasibility within the current constraints of the National Health Service (NHS). The main barriers identified were insufficient resources (time, staff, and suitable IT infrastructures) and lack of clarity about role boundaries and responsibilities. All of these are further complicated by genetic testing being increasingly offered by mainstream specialties. Reaching a consensus about roles and responsibilities of clinical specialties with regard to recontacting former patients in the light of evolving genetic information, and about what resources and infrastructures would be needed, was generally seen as a pre-requisite to developing guidelines about recontact.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment in

References

    1. Rosenthal ET, Bowles KR, Pruss D et al: Exceptions to the rule: Case studies in the prediction of pathogenicity for genetic variants in hereditary cancer genes. Clin Genet 2015; 88: 533–541. - PubMed
    1. Otten E, Plantinga M, Birnie E et al: Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 2014; 17: 668–678. - PubMed
    1. Fitzpatrick JL, Han C, Costa T, Huggins MJ: The duty to recontact: attitudes of service providers. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 64: 852–860. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sharpe NF: The duty to recontact: benefit and harm. Am J Hum Genet 1999; 65: 1201–1204. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pelias MZ: Duty to disclose in medical genetics: a legal perspective. Am J Med Genet 1991; 39: 347–354. - PubMed

Publication types