ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017
Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Service Outcomes for Germline Test Delivery for Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities for integrating genetic testing into a diagnostic workflow: heritable long QT syndrome as a model.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Review
- Integrating Germline Genetics Into Precision Oncology Practice in the Veterans Health Administration: Challenges and Opportunities.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2020Article
- From public health genomics to precision public health: a 20-year journey.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether electronic health record (EHR) tools improve documentation of pre- and postanalytic care processes for genetic tests ordered by nongeneticists.
methodsWe 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.
resultsPreimplementation, 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).
conclusionsEHR 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.