Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 810-816

  Hazin, Ribhi ^a   Brothers, Kyle B ^b   Malin, Bradley A ^c,d   Koenig, Barbara A ^e   Sanderson, Saskia C ^f   Rothstein, Mark A ^b   Williams, Marc S ^g   Clayton, Ellen W ^c   Kullo, Iftikhar J ^h  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g GEISINGER HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^h MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical decision support, electronic health records; ethical, legal, and social implications; genomics; personalized medicine

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER SECURITY; CONSULTATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EMPOWERMENT; FAMILY HISTORY; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETIC RISK; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH DISPARITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MOBILE PHONE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIVACY; REVIEW; TEXT MESSAGING; UNITED STATES;

COMPUTER SECURITY; CONFIDENTIALITY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOMICS; HEALTH LITERACY; HEALTH RECORDS, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; PATIENT ACCESS TO RECORDS;

EID: 84885127320     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.117     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Green ED, Guyer MS; National Human Genome Research Institute. Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature 2011;470:204-213.
2. McGuire AL, Cho MK, McGuire SE, Caulfield T. Medicine. The future of personal genomics. Science 2007;317:1687.
3. Hoffman MA, Williams MS. Electronic medical records and personalized medicine. Hum Genet 2011;130:33-39.
4. Worthey EA, Mayer AN, Syverson GD, et al. Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genet Med 2011;13:255-262.
5. Mardis ER, Wilson RK. Cancer genome sequencing: a review. Hum Mol Genet 2009;18(R2):R163-R168.
6. Mardis ER. Cancer genomics identifies determinants of tumor biology. Genome Biol 2010;11:211.
7. Cheng L, Lu W, Kulkarni B, et al. Analysis of chemotherapy response programs in ovarian cancers by the next-generation sequencing technologies. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:159-169.
8. Kreso A, O'Brien CA, van Galen P, et al. Variable clonal repopulation dynamics influence chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer. Science 2013;339:543-548.
9. Link DC, Schuettpelz LG, Shen D, et al. Identification of a novel TP53 cancer susceptibility mutation through whole-genome sequencing of a patient with therapy-related AML. JAMA 2011;305:1568-1576.
10. McDermott U, Downing JR, Stratton MR. Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:340-350.
11. Iyer G, Hanrahan AJ, Milowsky MI, et al. Genome sequencing identifies a basis for everolimus sensitivity. Science 2012;338:221.
12. Kullo IJ, Jarvik G P, Manolio TA, Williams MS, Roden DM. Leveraging the electronic health record to implement genomic medicine. Genet Med 2013;15:270-271.
13. Manolio TA, Chisholm RL, Ozenberger B, et al. Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet Med 2013;15:258-267.
14. Evans J P. Health care in the age of genetic medicine. JAMA 2007;298:2670-2672.
15. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1628-1638.
16. Ash JS, McCormack JL, Sittig D F, Wright A, McMullen C, Bates DW. Standard practices for computerized clinical decision support in community hospitals: a national survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:980-987.
17. Marcotte L, Seidman J, Trudel K, et al. Achieving meaningful use of health information technology: a guide for physicians to the EHR incentive programs. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:731-736.
18. de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BW, et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1921-1929.
19. Berg JS, Adams M, Nassar N, et al. An informatics approach to analyzing the incidentalome. Genet Med 2013;15:36-44.
20. Sax U, Schmidt S. Integration of genomic data in electronic health records-opportunities and dilemmas. Methods Inf Med 2005;44:546-550.
21. McClellan KA, Avard D, Simard J, Knoppers BM. Personalized medicine and access to health care: potential for inequitable access? Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:143-147.
22. Collins F. Opportunities and challenges for the NIH-an interview with Francis Collins. Interview by Robert Steinbrook. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1321-1323.
23. Personalized health care. 2008. http://www.hhs.gov/myhealthcare/. Accessed 18 December 2012.
24. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Whole Genome Sequencing and You. 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXamRS85hXU&hd=1.
25. Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:461-470.
26. About ABGC. http://www.abgc.net/ABGC/AmericanBoardof GeneticCounselors. asp. Accessed 2 April 2013.
27. Giarelli E, Reiff M. Genomic literacy and competent practice: call for research on genetics in nursing education. Nurs Clin North Am 2012;47:529-545.
28. Galbraith KL. What's so meaningful about meaningful use? Hastings Cent Rep 2013;43:15-17.
29. Juengst ET, Flatt MA, Settersten RA Jr. Personalized genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Cent Rep 2012;42:34-40.
30. Brierley KL, Blouch E, Cogswell W, et al. Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications. Cancer J 2012;18:303-309.
31. Thurston VC, Wales PS, Bell MA, Torbeck L, Brokaw JJ. The current status of medical genetics instruction in US and Canadian medical schools. Acad Med 2007;82:441-445.
32. Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, et al. Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2012;21:151-161.
33. Hofman KJ, Tambor ES, Chase GA, Geller G, Faden RR, Holtzman NA. Physicians' knowledge of genetics and genetic tests. Acad Med 1993;68:625-632.
34. Fargher EA, Eddy C, Newman W, et al. Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS. Pharmacogenomics 2007;8:1511-1519.
35. Starren J, Williams MS, Bottinger E P. Crossing the omic chasm: a time for omic ancillary systems. JAMA 2013;309:1237-1238.
36. Westbrook MJ, Wright M F, Van Driest SL, et al. Mapping the incidentalome: estimating incidental findings generated through clinical pharmacogenomics testing. Genet Med 2013;15:325-331.
37. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L, et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010;375:1749-1751.
38. Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 2012;14:393-398.
39. Leventhal KG, Tuong W, Peshkin BN, et al. "Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer. J Genet Couns 2013;22:138-151.
40. Scheuner MT, Edelen MO, Hilborne LH, Lubin IM. Effective communication of molecular genetic test results to primary care providers. Genet Med 2013;15:444-449.
41. Scheuner MT, Hilborne L, Brown J, Lubin IM; members of the RAND Molecular Genetic Test Report Advisory Board. A report template for molecular genetic tests designed to improve communication between the clinician and laboratory. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012;16:761-769.
42. Bitton A, Flier LA, Jha AK. Health information technology in the era of care delivery reform: to what end? JAMA 2012;307:2593-2594.
43. Health Information Exchange (HIE): Interoperability Basics Training Course. http://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/interoperability-basics- training-courses. Accessed 11 March 2013.
44. Ruotsalainen P, Blobel B, Nykänen P, Seppälä A, Sorvari H. Framework model and principles for trusted information sharing in pervasive health. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011;169:497-501.
45. Boxwala AA, Kim J, Grillo JM, Ohno-Machado L. Using statistical and machine learning to help institutions detect suspicious access to electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:498-505.
46. Rothstein MA. The Hippocratic bargain and health information technology. J Law Med Ethics 2010;38:7-13.
47. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15(10):294-300.
48. Gottesman O, Kuivaniemi H, Tromp G, et al. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future. Genet Med 2013;.
49. Scott C T, Caulfield T, Borgelt E, Illes J. Personal medicine-the new banking crisis. Nat Biotechnol 2012;30:141-147.
50. Pulley JM, Denny JC, Peterson J F, et al. Operational implementation of prospective genotyping for personalized medicine: the design of the Vanderbilt PREDICT project. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:87-95.
51. Hicks JK, Crews KR, Hoffman JM, et al. A clinician-driven automated system for integration of pharmacogenetic interpretations into an electronic medical record. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:563-566.
52. O'Donnell PH, Bush A, Spitz J, et al. The 1200 patients project: creating a new medical model system for clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012;92:446-449.
53. Chen ES, Melton GB, Engelstad ME, Sarkar IN. Standardizing Clinical Document Names Using the HL7/LOINC Document Ontology and LOINC Codes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2010;2010:101-105.
54. Facio FM, Sapp JC, Linn A, Biesecker LG. Approaches to informed consent for hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating clinical genomics research. BMC Med Genomics 2012;5:45.
55. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:36-43.
56. Facio FM, Brooks S, Loewenstein J, Green S, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1213-1217.
57. Allyse M, Michie M. Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol 2013;31:439-441.
58. Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36(2):280-285, 212.
59. Clayton EW, McGuire AL. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med 2012;14:473-477.
60. Richardson HS, Cho MK. Secondary researchers' duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account. Genet Med 2012;14:467-472.
61. Wolf SM. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet Med 2012;14:355-357.
62. Morreim EH. The clinical investigator as fiduciary: discarding a misguided idea. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:586-598.
63. Ossorio P. Taking aims seriously: repository research and limits on the duty to return individual research findings. Genet Med 2012;14:461-466.
64. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006;296:212-215.
65. Pyeritz RE. The coming explosion in genetic testing-is there a duty to recontact? N Engl J Med 2011;365:1367-1369.
66. Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling (PDQ): Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/risk- assessment-and-counseling/HealthProfessional/page6. Accessed 28 March 2013.
67. Offit K, Groeger E, Turner S, Wadsworth EA, Weiser MA. The "duty to warn" a patient's family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA 2004;292:1469-1473.
68. Rothstein MA, Siegal G. Health information technology and physicians' duty to notify patients of new medical developments. Hous J Health L Policy 2012;12(2):93-136.
69. Safran C, Bloomrosen M, Hammond WE, et al. Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:1-9.
70. Bunnik EM, Schermer MH, Janssens AC. Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues. BMC Med Ethics 2011;12:11.
71. Diergaarde B, Bowen DJ, Ludman EJ, Culver JO, Press N, Burke W. Genetic information: special or not? Responses from focus groups with members of a health maintenance organization. Am J Med Genet A 2007;143:564-569.
72. Rothstein MA. Putting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in context. Genet Med 2008;10:655-656.
73. Allain DC, Friedman S, Senter L. Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Fam Cancer 2012;11:637-644.
74. Klitzman R. Exclusion of genetic information from the medical record: ethical and medical dilemmas. JAMA 2010;304:1120-1121.
75. Chan EM, Lam PE, Mitchell JC. Understanding the challenges with medical data segmentation for privacy. Health Tech'13, 2013. https://www.usenix. org/conference/healthtech13/understanding-challenges-medical-data-segmentation- privacy.
76. Rothstein MA. Currents in contemporary bioethics. Access to sensitive information in segmented electronic health records. J Law Med Ethics 2012;40:394-400.
77. Professional disclosures of familial genetic information. The American Society of Human Genetics Social Issues Subcommittee on Familial Disclosure. Am J Hum Genet 1998:62(2):474-483.