Solutions for Unexpected Challenges Encountered when Integrating Research Genomics Results into the EHR

Background While there have been published reports detailing technical challenges of incorporating genetic test results into the electronic health record (EHR) with proposed solutions, less has been published about unanticipated sociotechnological or practical communication challenges involved in this process. Objectives This study was aimed to describe unanticipated issues that arose returning genetic research results through the EHR as part of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) 3 consortium, and provide lessons learned for future implementations Methods We sequenced 3,000 participants on a 109-gene panel and returned genetic results initially in person and/or by letter, with a later release directly into the EHR and patient portal. Results When results were returned through the EHR, multiple participants expressed confusion and contacted the health system, resulting in our institution temporarily freezing our return of research results. Discussion We determined the likely causes of this issue to be (1) the delay between enrollment and results return, (2) inability to personalize mass e-mail messages announcing new research test results in the EHR, (3) limited space for description of test results in the EHR, and (4) the requirement to list an ordering physician for research results in the EHR. For future return of results, we propose sending preparatory e-mails to participants, including screenshots of how they can expect to see their results presented in the EHR portal. Conclusion We hope our lessons learned can provide helpful guidance to other sites implementing research genetic results into the EHR and can encourage EHR developers to incorporate greater flexibility in the future.

[1]  Andrew Georgiou,et al.  Conceptual Challenges for Advancing the Socio-Technical Underpinnings of Health Informatics , 2010, The open medical informatics journal.

[2]  Adam A. Nishimura,et al.  Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials , 2013, BMC Medical Ethics.

[3]  Jeffrey C. Hall,et al.  The CLIPMERGE PGx Program: Clinical Implementation of Personalized Medicine Through Electronic Health Records and Genomics–Pharmacogenomics , 2013, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  Justin Starren,et al.  Crossing the omic chasm: a time for omic ancillary systems. , 2013, JAMA.

[5]  J. Ma,et al.  Capacity to Consent to Research in Patients with Acute Pain: A Pilot Study. , 2015, IRB.

[6]  C. McCarty,et al.  Long-Term Recall of Elements of Informed Consent: A Pilot Study Comparing Traditional and Computer-Based Consenting. , 2015, IRB.

[7]  Marc B Rosenman,et al.  Lessons Learned When Introducing Pharmacogenomic Panel Testing into Clinical Practice. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  Heidi L. Rehm,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing And Interpretation For The Emerge III Network , 2018, bioRxiv.

[9]  Keith Marsolo,et al.  Empowering genomic medicine by establishing critical sequencing result data flows: the eMERGE example , 2018, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. , 2019, American journal of human genetics.

[11]  Justin Starren,et al.  An ancillary genomics system to support the return of pharmacogenomic results , 2019, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..