Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38903755›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024

Delivery of a national prenatal exome sequencing service in England: a mixed methods study exploring healthcare professionals' views and experiences.

Michelle Peter, Rhiannon Mellis, Hannah McInnes-Dean, Morgan Daniel, Holly Walton, Jane Fisher, Kerry Leeson-Beevers, Stephanie Allen, Emma L Baple, Ana Beleza-Meireles and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Implementation of a National Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Michelle PeterNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Rhiannon MellisNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Hannah McInnes-DeanNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Morgan DanielNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Holly WaltonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jane FisherAntenatal Results and Choices, London, United Kingdom.
Kerry Leeson-BeeversAlström Syndrome UK, Torquay, United Kingdom.
Stephanie AllenWest Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Central and South Genomic Laboratory Hub, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Emma L BapleRILD Wellcome Wolfson Centre, University of Exeter Medical School, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Ana Beleza-MeirelesBristol Regional Genetics Service, St Michael's Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Marta BertoliNorthern Genetics Service, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Jennifer CampbellDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Natalie CanhamLiverpool Centre for Genomic Medicine, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Deirdre CilliersOxford Centre for Genomic Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jan CobbenFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College & North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, London, United Kingdom.
Jacqueline EasonNottingham Regional Genetics Service, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Victoria HarrisonWessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Muriel Holder-EspinasseClinical Genetics Department, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alison MaleNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sahar MansourSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alec McEwanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Soo-Mi ParkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Audrey SmithManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alison StewartSheffield Clinical Genomics Service, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Dagmar TaponQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Pradeep VasudevanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Denise WilliamsClinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Wing Han WuNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Lyn S ChittyNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Melissa HillNorth Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England, requiring the coordination of care from specialist genetics, fetal medicine (FM) and laboratory services. This mixed methods study explored the experiences of professionals involved in delivering the pES service during the first 2 years of its delivery in the NHS. Methods: A survey ( Results: Overall, professionals were positive about the pES service with 77% rating it as Good or Excellent. A number of benefits were reported, including the increased opportunity for receiving actionable results for parental decision-making, improving equity of access to genomic tests and fostering close relationships between FM and genetics departments. Nonetheless, there was evidence that the shift to offering pES in a clinical setting had brought some challenges, such as additional clinic time, administrative processes, perceived lack of autonomy in decision-making regarding pES eligibility and difficulty engaging with peripheral maternity units. Concerns were also raised about the lack of confidence and gaps in genomics knowledge amongst non-genetics professionals - especially midwives. However, the findings also highlighted value in both FM, obstetric and genetics professionals benefiting from further training with a focus on recognising and managing prenatally diagnosed genetic conditions. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals are enthusiastic about the benefits of pES, and through multi-collaborative working, have developed relationships that have contributed to effective communication across specialisms. Although limitations on resources and variation in knowledge about pES have impacted service delivery, professionals were hopeful that improvements to infrastructure and the upskilling of all professionals involved in the pathway would optimise the benefits of pES for both parents and professionals.

Indexed as

genetic servicesgenomic medicine servicegenomic sequencinghealthcare professionalsprenatal diagnosisprenatal exome sequencingservice evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38903755
PMCPMC11188373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.