医学
基因检测
报销
心理干预
一致性
内科学
基因组医学
肾病科
观察研究
个性化医疗
考试(生物学)
重症监护医学
审计
医疗保健
医学诊断
诊断试验
梅德林
精密医学
家庭医学
基因组学
重要事件
多重连接依赖探针扩增
人类遗传学
肾脏疾病
生物信息学
多学科方法
队列
医学物理学
公共卫生
作者
Kushani Jayasinghe,Rigan Tytherleigh,Stephanie Best,Simon Bodek,Paula Bussa,Grainne H. Butler,Ainsley Campbell,Amy Clarke,Brendan Cusack,Elizabeth Donaldson,Yoni Elbaum,Clara Gaff,Russell Gear,Asheeta Gupta,Paul Andrew James,Lilian M. Johnstone,Peter G. Kerr,Emma I. Krzesinski,A Leaver,Benjamin Lazarus
标识
DOI:10.2215/cjn.0000001184
摘要
KEY POINTS: We evaluated a hub and spoke mainstreaming model to enable nephrologists to order genomic tests independently in their clinic across the state of Victoria. Over 1000 tests were ordered, with the diagnostic yield remaining similar regardless of ordered by local nephrologists or tertiary genomics services. A mainstreaming model proved feasible, scalable, and clinically effective, offering a practical framework for integrating genomics to routine kidney care. BACKGROUND: Genomic testing has substantial diagnostic and clinical value in nephrology, yet integrating testing into routine care requires service-level changes to ensure timely and equitable access. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study at four tertiary centers, with a pragmatic, quasi-experimental design to evaluate evidence-informed, service-level interventions to make genomic testing more accessible and routinely embedded within nephrology practice. We implemented a hub and spoke model which provided nephrologists with training, practical resources, and regular case-based discussions, to support test ordering and interpretation within their own clinics. Laboratory audits (June 2021-July 2024) evaluated how public reimbursement and implementation interventions influenced testing patterns. Three periods were compared: prefunding, postfunding, and postintervention. RESULTS: Across the study period, 1028 genomic tests were ordered (63% adults, 37% children; median age 32 years). Results were available for 1014 tests, with an overall diagnostic yield of 34%, which remained stable across all time points. The diagnostic yield was similar regardless of whether testing occurred at tertiary genomics services (249 of 772, 32%) or via local nephrologists (92 of 242, 38%). The number of unique providers ordering tests was higher (T1: 37, T2: 69, T3: 87). The proportion of testing in mainstream nephrology settings rose from 23% to 74%, while absolute testing numbers in multidisciplinary clinics remained consistent over the study period. CONCLUSION: Mainstreaming genomic testing in nephrology was feasible, scalable, and clinically effective. This model was associated with better access without compromising diagnostic yield and provides a practical framework for integrating genomic medicine into routine kidney care.