Display options
Share it on

J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2019 Jun;2(3):214-221. doi: 10.1002/jac5.1062. Epub 2018 Nov 22.

A Practical First Step Using Needs Assessment and a Survey Approach to Implementing a Clinical Pharmacogenomics Consult Service.

Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP

Angela Zakinova, Janel R Long-Boyle, Deborah French, Rhiannon Croci, Leslie Wilson, Kathryn A Phillips, Deanna L Kroetz, Jaekyu Shin, Bani Tamraz

Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
  2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
  3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
  4. Department of Health Informatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
  5. UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
  6. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

PMID: 32391517 PMCID: PMC7207007 DOI: 10.1002/jac5.1062

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Genetic-guided selection of non-oncologic medications is not commonly practiced in general, and at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Health, specifically. Understanding the unique position of clinicians with respect to clinical pharmacogenetics (PG) at a specific institution or practice is fundamental for implementing a successful PG consult service.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicians' current practices, needs, and interests with respect to clinical PG at UCSF Health, a large tertiary academic medical center.

METHODS: A list of 42 target medications with clinical PG recommendations was complied. Clinical specialties that routinely used the target medications were identified. A 12-question survey focused on practice of PG for target medications was developed. Pharmacists and physicians were surveyed anonymously in several clinical specialties. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: Of the 396 clinicians surveyed, 76 physicians and 59 pharmacists participated, resulting in 27% and 50% average response rates, respectively. The current use of PG in clinical practice for physicians and pharmacists was 29% and 32%, respectively, however this number varied across clinical specialties from 0% to 80%. Of clinicians whom reported they do not currently apply PG, 63% of physicians and 54% of pharmacists expressed interest in integrating PG. However, the level of interest varied from 20% to 100% across specialties. Of the respondents, 64% of physicians and 56% of pharmacists elected to provide contact information to investigators to further discuss their interest related to clinical PG.

CONCLUSIONS: While PG is not uniformly practiced at UCSF Health, there is considerable interest in utilizing PG by the respondents. Our approach was successful at identifying clinicians and services interested in PG for specific drug-gene pairs. This work has set a foundation for next steps to advance PG integration at UCSF Health. Clinicians can adopt our approach as preliminary work to build a clinical PG program at their institutions.

Keywords: Pharmacogenetics; clinical pharmacy service; genetic testing; pharmacists; physicians; surveys and questionnaires

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Mar;91(3):450-8 - PubMed
  2. Genet Med. 2014 Mar;16(3):251-7 - PubMed
  3. N Biotechnol. 2012 Sep 15;29(6):751-6 - PubMed
  4. Clin Genet. 2012 Oct;82(4):388-94 - PubMed
  5. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014 Mar;166C(1):45-55 - PubMed
  6. Am J Med. 2016 Oct;129(10):1093-1099.e1 - PubMed
  7. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014 Mar;166C(1):56-67 - PubMed
  8. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 Jan;89(1):25-33 - PubMed
  9. Eval Health Prof. 2013 Mar;36(1):106-26 - PubMed
  10. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013 Mar;17(3):219-25 - PubMed
  11. Pharmacogenomics J. 2016 Aug;16(4):393-8 - PubMed
  12. Pharmacogenomics. 2013 Nov;14(15):1833-47 - PubMed
  13. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 May;83(5):781-7 - PubMed
  14. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):522-8 - PubMed
  15. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Oct;92(4):446-9 - PubMed
  16. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Mar;89(3):464-7 - PubMed
  17. Am J Med Genet A. 2014 Feb;164A(2):449-55 - PubMed
  18. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2014 Jul 10;7:145-62 - PubMed
  19. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Aug;34(8):771-93 - PubMed
  20. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Jan;93(1):33-5 - PubMed
  21. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 Feb 12;77(1):10 - PubMed
  22. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Jul;92(1):87-95 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support