4.6 Article

Identifying variation in models of care for the genomic-based diagnosis of inherited retinal dystrophies in the United Kingdom

Journal

EYE
Volume 30, Issue 7, Pages 966-971

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.74

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Fight for Sight [1801]
  2. Fight for Sight [1801/02] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Advances in genomic technologies are prompting a realignment of diagnostic and management pathways for rare inherited disease. New models of care are being developed as genomic-based diagnostic testing becomes increasingly relevant within more and more aspects of medicine. This study describes current care models for the provision of a genomic-based diagnosis for patients with inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) in UK clinical practice. Methods A structured telephone survey, conducted (in 2014) with all 23 UK Regional Genetics Centres and a sample of specialist ophthalmology centres (n=4), was used to describe models of service delivery and current levels of genomic-based diagnostic testing. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Responses to open-ended questions were summarised using thematic analysis. Results Of the 27 centres 10 of them saw IRD patients in 'generic' clinics and 17 centres offered ophthalmic-specific clinics. Extensive regional variation was observed in numbers of patients seen and in how care for the diagnosis and management of IRD was provided. Conclusions Understanding current practice is a necessary first step in the development and evaluation of complex interventions, such as care models for the genomic-based diagnosis of inherited eye conditions. Presented findings here relating to disparities in care provision are potentially linked to previously reported evidence of perceived unmet needs and expectations of IRD service users. This work provides a foundation for the integration of new care models in mainstream medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available