Publications

PURPOSE

We evaluated a template for molecular genetic test reports that was developed as a strategy to reduce communication errors between the laboratory and ordering clinician.

METHODS

We surveyed 1,600 primary care physicians to assess satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness of genetic test reports developed using our template and reports developed by clinical laboratories. Mean score differences of responses between the reports were compared using t-tests. Two-way analysis of variance evaluated the effect of template versus standard reports and the influence of physician characteristics.

RESULTS

There were 396 (24%) respondents. Template reports had higher scores than the standard reports for each survey item. The gender and specialty of the physician did not influence scores; however, younger physicians gave higher scores regardless of report type. There was significant interaction between report type and whether physicians ordered or reviewed any genetic tests (none versus at least one) in the past year, P = 0.005.

CONCLUSION

For each survey item assessing satisfaction, ease of use, and effectiveness, physicians gave higher ratings to genetic test reports developed with the template than standard reports used by clinical laboratories. Physicians least familiar with genetic test reports, and possibly having the greatest need for better communication, were best served by the template reports.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD) and to develop a simple method of predicting disease behaviour. Unclassifiable ILD patients were identified from an ongoing longitudinal cohort. Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed after a multidisciplinary review did not secure a specific ILD diagnosis. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF ILDs. Independent predictors of mortality were determined using Cox proportional-hazards analysis to identify subgroups with distinct disease behaviour. Unclassifiable ILD was diagnosed in 10% of the ILD cohort (132 out of 1370 patients). The most common reason for being unclassifiable was missing histopathological assessment due to a high risk of surgical lung biopsy. Demographic and physiological features of unclassifiable ILD were intermediate between IPF and non-IPF disease controls. Unclassifiable ILD had longer survival rates when compared to IPF on adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 0.62, p = 0.04) and similar survival compared to non-IPF ILDs (hazard ratio 1.54, p = 0.12). Independent predictors of survival in unclassifiable ILD included diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (p = 0.001) and a radiological fibrosis score (p = 0.02). Unclassifiable ILD represents approximately 10% of ILD cases and has a heterogeneous clinical course, which can be predicted using clinical and radiological variables.