Publications by authors named "Debra Lochner Doyle"

11 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Correction: Regional models of genetic services in the United States.

Genet Med 2020 01;22(1):241

University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0662-3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6944641PMC
January 2020

Regional models of genetic services in the United States.

Genet Med 2020 02 6;22(2):381-388. Epub 2019 Sep 6.

University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Purpose: To outline structures for regional genetic services support centers that improve access to clinical genetic services.

Methods: A workgroup (WG) and advisory committee (AC) (1) conducted a comprehensive review of existing models for delivering health care through a regional infrastructure, especially for genetic conditions; (2) analyzed data from a needs assessment conducted by the National Coordinating Center (NCC) to determine important components of a regional genetic services support center; and (3) prioritized components of a regional genetic services support system.

Results: Analysis of identified priorities and existing regional systems led to development of eight models for regional genetic services support centers. A hybrid model was recommended that included an active role for patients and families, national data development and collection, promotion of efficient and quality genetic clinical practices, healthcare professional support for nongeneticists, and technical assistance to healthcare professionals.

Conclusion: Given the challenges in improving access to genetic services, especially for underserved populations, regional models for genetic services support centers offer an opportunity to improve access to genetic services to local populations. Although a regional model can facilitate access, some systemic issues exist-e.g., distribution of a workforce trained in genetics-that regional genetic services support centers cannot resolve.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0648-1DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7000321PMC
February 2020

Identification of oral clefts as a risk factor for hearing loss during newborn hearing screening.

J Early Hear Detect Interv 2018 ;3(1):21-28

Screening and Genetics Unit, Washington State Department of Health, Shoreline, WA.

Objective: This study assessed whether children with oral clefts are appropriately classified as at-risk for hearing loss at the time of newborn hearing screening and describes their screening and diagnostic results.

Design: Birth certificates were used to identify children with cleft lip and palate or isolated cleft palate born in Washington State from 2008-2013. These were cross-referenced with the state's Early Hearing Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention (EHDDI) database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations.

Results: Birth records identified 235 children with cleft lip and palate and 116 with isolated cleft palate. Six children were listed as having both diagnoses. Only 138 (39%) of these children were designated as having a craniofacial anomaly in the EHDDI database. Children who were misclassified were less likely to have referred on initial hearing screening, OR 0.3, 95% CI [0.2, 0.5]. Misclassification of risk factor status was also associated with delayed hearing screening past 30 days of age or unknown age at screening, OR 4.4, 95% CI [1.5, 13.3], p-value 0.008. Of 50 children with diagnostic results; 25 (50%) had hearing loss: 18 conductive, 2 mixed, and 5 unspecified.

Conclusion: A majority of children with oral clefts were misclassified regarding risk factor for hearing loss in the EHDDI database.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002157PMC
January 2018

Proposed outcomes measures for state public health genomic programs.

Genet Med 2018 09 4;20(9):995-1003. Epub 2018 Jan 4.

Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Purpose: To assess the implementation of evidence-based genomic medicine and its population-level impact on health outcomes and to promote public health genetics interventions, in 2015 the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed an action collaborative, the Genomics and Public Health Action Collaborative (GPHAC). This group engaged key stakeholders from public/population health agencies, along with experts in the fields of health disparities, health literacy, implementation science, medical genetics, and patient advocacy.

Methods: In this paper, we present the efforts to identify performance objectives and outcome metrics. Specific attention is placed on measures related to hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome and Lynch syndrome (LS), two conditions with existing evidence-based genomic applications that can have immediate impact on morbidity and mortality.

Results: Our assessment revealed few existing outcome measures. Therefore, using an implementation research framework, 38 outcome measures were crafted.

Conclusion: Evidence-based public health requires outcome metrics, yet few exist for genomics. Therefore, we have proposed performance objectives that states might use and provided examples of a few state-level activities already under way, which are designed to collect outcome measures for HBOC and LS.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.229DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6388766PMC
September 2018

2013 Review and Update of the Genetic Counseling Practice Based Competencies by a Task Force of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling.

J Genet Couns 2016 10 23;25(5):868-79. Epub 2016 Jun 23.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

The first practice based competencies (PBCs) for the field of genetic counseling were adopted by the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC), 1996. Since that time, there has been significant growth in established and new work settings (clinical and non-clinical) and changes in service delivery models and the roles of genetic counselors. These changes prompted the ABGC to appoint a PBC Task Force in 2011 to review the PBCs with respect to their current relevance and to revise and update them as necessary. There are four domains in the revised PBCs: (I) Genetics Expertise and Analysis (II) Interpersonal, Psychosocial and Counseling Skills (III) Education and (IV) Professional Development and Practice. There are 22 competencies, each clarified with learning objectives or samples of activities and skills; a glossary is included. New competencies were added that address genomics, genetic testing and genetic counselors' roles in risk assessment, education, supervision, conducting research and presenting research options to patients. With PBCs serving as the pre-defined abilities or outcomes of training, graduating genetic counselors will be well prepared to enter the field with a minimum level of skills and abilities. A description of the Task Force's work, key changes and the 2013 PBCs are presented herein.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-9984-3DOI Listing
October 2016

Stakeholder perspectives on decision-analytic modeling frameworks to assess genetic services policy.

Genet Med 2013 Jan 26;15(1):84-7. Epub 2012 Jul 26.

Center for Genomics and Healthcare Equality, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Purpose: Genetic services policymakers and insurers often make coverage decisions in the absence of complete evidence of clinical utility and under budget constraints. We evaluated genetic services stakeholder opinions on the potential usefulness of decision-analytic modeling to inform coverage decisions, and asked them to identify genetic tests for decision-analytic modeling studies.

Methods: We presented an overview of decision-analytic modeling to members of the Western States Genetic Services Collaborative Reimbursement Work Group and state Medicaid representatives and conducted directed content analysis and an anonymous survey to gauge their attitudes toward decision-analytic modeling. Participants also identified and prioritized genetic services for prospective decision-analytic evaluation.

Results: Participants expressed dissatisfaction with current processes for evaluating insurance coverage of genetic services. Some participants expressed uncertainty about their comprehension of decision-analytic modeling techniques. All stakeholders reported openness to using decision-analytic modeling for genetic services assessments. Participants were most interested in application of decision-analytic concepts to multiple-disorder testing platforms, such as next-generation sequencing and chromosomal microarray.

Conclusion: Decision-analytic modeling approaches may provide a useful decision tool to genetic services stakeholders and Medicaid decision-makers.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.92DOI Listing
January 2013

Billing for medical genetics and genetic counseling services: a national survey.

J Genet Couns 2010 Feb 7;19(1):38-43. Epub 2009 Oct 7.

Genetic Services Section, Washington State Department of Health, 20435 72nd Ave S, Suite 200, Kent, WA 98032, USA.

In January 2007 the American Medical Association added a new Current Procedural Terminology(R) (CPT) code, 96040, for "Medical Genetics and Genetic Counseling Services." In order to identify the impact of having this new code and to identify issues with implementation of the code, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) CPT(R) Working Group surveyed NSGC members using an internet-based survey tool. The majority of respondents (94%) reported being aware of the new code and over half of the respondents (69%) said they were billing for genetic counseling. Approximately 24% of those billing reported using 96040. Many facilities are not using this code and the reported success of billing using 96040 is highly varied. Continued education may be beneficial to encourage reimbursement for 96040 and follow up is needed to assess the ongoing implementation and impact of the new CPT(R) code.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9249-5DOI Listing
February 2010

Standardized human pedigree nomenclature: update and assessment of the recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

J Genet Couns 2008 Oct 16;17(5):424-33. Epub 2008 Sep 16.

Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Box 357720, Seattle, WA 98195-7720, USA.

In 1995, the Pedigree Standardization Task Force (PSTF) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) proposed a system of pedigree nomenclature. Recently, the PSTF (now called the Pedigree Standardization Work Group or PSWG) sought evidence that the published symbols met the needs of health professionals, were incorporated into health professional training and were utilized in publications. We searched PubMed and reference lists of select publications, reviewed the Instructions for Authors of several journals, searched the websites of professional societies, sought comment from the membership of the NSGC, and looked at recommendations and training practices of various health professional organizations. Many journals still do not cite specific standards for pedigrees, but those found cited the PSTF nomenclature. We did not find significant objections or alternatives to the 1995 nomenclature. Based on our review, we propose only a few minor stylistic changes to the pedigree symbols. The pedigree nomenclature of the NSGC is the only consistently acknowledged standard for drawing a family health history. We recommend regular and continued review of these pedigree standards to determine if additional symbols are needed to accommodate changes in clinical practice to ensure that the symbols continue to meet the needs of health professionals and researchers as well as adhere to evolving ethical and privacy standards. All health professionals, trainees, and researchers should be made aware of the utility of using a common pedigree nomenclature in clinical practice and publication. This will become particularly important as electronic medical records become more widely utilized.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9169-9DOI Listing
October 2008

Genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

J Genet Couns 2005 Jun;14(3):165-81

Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM). The recommendations are the opinions of the multidisciplinary Inherited Pregnancy Loss Working Group (IPLWG), with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, maternal fetal medicine, internal medicine, infectious disease, cytogenetics, and coagulation disorders. The IPLWG defines RM as three or more clinically recognized consecutive or non-consecutive pregnancy losses occurring prior to fetal viability (<24 weeks gestation). These recommendations are provided to assist genetic counselors and other health care providers in clinical decision-making, as well as to promote consistency of patient care, guide the allocation of medical resources, and increase awareness of the psychosocial and cultural issues experienced by couples with RM. The IPLWG was convened with support from the March of Dimes Western Washington State Chapter and the University of Washington Division of Medical Genetics. The recommendations are U.S. Preventive Task Force Class III, and are based on clinical experiences, review of pertinent English-language published articles, and reports of expert committees. This document reviews the suspected causes of RM, provides indications for genetic evaluation and testing, addresses psychosocial and cultural considerations, and provides professional and patient resources. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of medical management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the circumstances of a specific case, should always supersede these recommendations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-3241-5DOI Listing
June 2005

Prevalence of secondary conditions among people with disabilities.

Am J Public Health 2004 Mar;94(3):443-5

Center for Disability Policy and Research, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

We analyzed data from 2075 respondents to the disability supplement of the 2001 Washington State Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey to describe population prevalence of secondary conditions among adults with disabilities. Eighty-seven percent of respondents with disabilities and 49% without disabilities reported at least 1 secondary condition. Adjusted odds ratios for disability for 14 of 16 conditions were positive and significant. The association of disability with substantial disparities in common conditions shows a need for increased access to general and targeted prevention interventions to improve health.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448273PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.3.443DOI Listing
March 2004

Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

J Genet Couns 2002 Apr;11(2):97-119

Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples (related as second cousins or closer) and their offspring with the goals of1. providing preconception reproductive options2. improving pregnancy outcome and identifying reproductive choices3. reducing morbidity and mortality in the 1st years of life, and4. respecting psychosocial and multicultural issues.The recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group (the Consanguinity Working Group (CWG)) with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, biochemical genetics, genetic epidemiology, pediatrics, perinatology, and public health genetics, which was convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The consensus of the CWG and NSGC reviewers is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples. Consanguineous couples should be offered similar genetic screening as suggested for any couple of their ethnic group. During pregnancy, consanguineous couples should be offered maternal-fetal serum marker screening and high-resolution fetal ultrasonography. Newborns should be screened for impaired hearing and detection of treatable inborn errors of metabolism. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014593404915DOI Listing
April 2002