scholarly journals Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Julian-Reynier ◽  
Irma Nippert ◽  
Jean-Marc Calefato ◽  
Hilary Harris ◽  
Ulf Kristoffersson ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Tozzo ◽  
Luciana Caenazzo ◽  
Daniele Rodriguez

Genetic testing in children raises many important ethical, legal, and social issues. One of the main concerns is the ethically inappropriate genetic testing of minors. Various European countries established professional guidelines which reflect the different countries perspectives regarding the main ethical issues involved. In this paper, we analyze the Italian and the British guidelines by highlighting differences and similarities. We discuss presymptomatic, predictive, and carrier testing because we consider them to be the more ethically problematic types of genetic testing in minors. In our opinion, national guidelines should take into account the different needs in clinical practice. At the same time, in the case of genetic testing the national and supranational protection of minors could be strengthened by approving guidelines based on a common framework of principles and values. We suggest that the Oviedo Convention could represent an example of such a common framework or, at least, it could lead to articulate it.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nada F. Khan ◽  
Helen P. Booth ◽  
Puja Myles ◽  
David Mullett ◽  
Arlene Gallagher ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Quality improvement (QI) initiatives are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and reduce prescribing errors. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) QI initiative uses routinely collected electronic primary care data to provide bespoke practice-level reports on prescribing safety. The aim of this study was to explore how the QI reports were used, barriers and facilitators to use, long-term culture change and perceived impact on patient care and practices systems as a result of receiving the reports. Methods A qualitative study using purposive sampling of practices contributing to the CPRD, semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. We interviewed general practitioners, pharmacists, practice managers and research nurses. Results We conducted 18 interviews, and organised themes summarising the use of QI reports in practice: receiving the report, facilitators and barriers to acting upon the reports, acting upon the report, and how the reports contribute to a quality culture. Effective dissemination of reports, and a positive attitude to audit and the perceived relevance of the clinical topic facilitated use. Lack of time and failure to see or act upon the reports meant they were not used. Factors influencing use of the reports included the structure of the report, ease of identifying cases, and perceptions about coding accuracy. GPs and pharmacists used the reports to conduct case reviews and directly contact patients to discuss unsafe prescribing and patient medication preferences. Finally, the reports contributed to the development of a quality culture within practices through promoting audit activity and acting as a reminder of good prescribing behaviours, promoting future patient safety initiatives, contributing to continuing professional development and improving local networks. Conclusions This study found the reports facilitated individual case review leading to an enhanced sense of quality culture in practices where they were utilised. Our findings demonstrate that the reports were generally considered useful and have been used to support patient safety and clinical practice in specific cases.


2022 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Kostopoulou ◽  
Kavleen Arora ◽  
Bence Pálfi

Abstract Background Cancer risk algorithms were introduced to clinical practice in the last decade, but they remain underused. We investigated whether General Practitioners (GPs) change their referral decisions in response to an unnamed algorithm, if decisions improve, and if changing decisions depends on having information about the algorithm and on whether GPs overestimated or underestimated risk. Methods 157 UK GPs were presented with 20 vignettes describing patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms. GPs gave their risk estimates and inclination to refer. They then saw the risk score of an unnamed algorithm and could update their responses. Half of the sample was given information about the algorithm’s derivation, validation, and accuracy. At the end, we measured their algorithm disposition. We analysed the data using multilevel regressions with random intercepts by GP and vignette. Results We find that, after receiving the algorithm’s estimate, GPs’ inclination to refer changes 26% of the time and their decisions switch entirely 3% of the time. Decisions become more consistent with the NICE 3% referral threshold (OR 1.45 [1.27, 1.65], p < .001). The algorithm’s impact is greatest when GPs have underestimated risk. Information about the algorithm does not have a discernible effect on decisions but it results in a more positive GP disposition towards the algorithm. GPs’ risk estimates become better calibrated over time, i.e., move closer to the algorithm. Conclusions Cancer risk algorithms have the potential to improve cancer referral decisions. Their use as learning tools to improve risk estimates is promising and should be further investigated.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Kafatos ◽  
Victoria Banks ◽  
Peter Burdon ◽  
David Neasham ◽  
Caroline Anger ◽  
...  

Background: The literature on biomarker testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Europe is scarce. This study aimed to estimate the percentage of mCRC patients from five European countries tested for biomarkers over time. Materials & methods: An oncology database was retrospectively analyzed; evaluated biomarkers were RAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI). The patients were drug treated during 2018 and tested for relevant biomarkers in 2013–2018. Results: RAS testing was conducted in >90% of mCRC patients from 2014 onwards. BRAF testing increased from 31% of mCRC patients in 2013 to 67% in 2018. MSI testing increased from 10 to 41%. There was no notable trend over time for RAS and BRAF mutation or MSI-high prevalence. Conclusion: Biomarker testing among patients diagnosed with mCRC was increased over time. This study demonstrates the quick uptake of biomarker testing in clinical practice. These findings are significant as biomarker-based drugs are becoming more common.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Salem D. Al Suwaidan ◽  
Aseel S. Alsuwaidan

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Conducting clinical research in accordance with the standards of regulatory authorities and within the guidelines of the good clinical practice (GCP) is a matter of concern.  It has been noticed that some increment in the conduction of clinical trials outside USA and European countries in the last two decades. The main objective of this study is to identify the magnitude of some obstacles that affect the conduction of clinical trials in accordance with the GCP.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Developing questionnaire in accordance with the criteria of the GCP would make assessment on how to buildup infrastructure including policy and procedures of the research institution. Recommendation of the study is to perform this questionnaire every other year to assess the progress and development of the research institution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> To identify good clinical researchers, what sort of obstacle(s) regarding conducting clinical trials, and from these obstacles how to resolve it and build up infrastructure for the research institution and also to establish the strategic plan for the research institution.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 48-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander T. Cohen ◽  
Ulrich Hoffmann ◽  
Philippe Hainaut ◽  
Sean Gaine ◽  
Cihan Ay ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
P Husslein ◽  
LC Roura ◽  
J Dudenhausen ◽  
H Helmer ◽  
R Frydman ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document