A decision-making framework for genomic testing in paediatric nephrology.

AIM: Technological advances and increased access have led to genomics expanding beyond the genetics clinic. Consequently, nephrologists can now order genomic testing for their patients. Consistent decision-making around patient and test selection is required to ensure equitable access while maximising the utility of genomic testing. However, there are currently no frameworks to guide decision-making for testing in this context. We aimed to develop an ethical decision-making framework for genomic testing in paediatric nephrology. METHODS: A three-stage approach was used: (i) review of the literature on decision-making for genomic testing in nephrology and other disciplines; (ii) ethnographic observation of approaches to genomic testing in the general nephrology and renal genetics clinics at an Australian paediatric hospital; (iii) review and revision of the framework with key stakeholders, including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, paediatric nephrologists and families from the renal genetics service. The initial framework was modified until consensus from key stakeholders was reached. RESULTS: A decision-making framework was created with questions designed to explore the impact of genomic testing on patient management, clinical validity, patient characteristics, alternatives to genomic testing, genetic counselling, resource availability, implications for family members, psychosocial considerations, patient autonomy, research, support services and insurance. Case studies were developed to demonstrate the framework's application. CONCLUSIONS: This framework was designed to guide decisions around patient selection for genomic testing in nephrology in the Australian health-care setting, with potential utility in other institutions and medical disciplines. It may help facilitate consistent approaches to genomic testing, to maximise equity and utility.

Co-designing interventions to 'live well': experiences and perceptions of the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease (GUaRD) community.

The Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease community faces a range of hurdles to live their 'best life' including physical, social and psychological barriers. They are also resilient and experiential experts with insight into what works and what could work for them. In this study, we aimed to identify and prioritise practical interventions the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease community report could help them to 'live well'. Using a three-stage approach, we first analysed data from a year-long Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease journal study to record all the practical interventions reported, either trialled or proposed. Second, after grouping the interventions (n = 19) into four themes (support for individuals with GUaRD; support for carers of people with GUaRD; education/employment; transition), we presented the interventions to members of the GUaRD community (people with GUaRD, their carers and peer support group members) across three focus groups (n = 13). Focus group transcripts were analysed for refinements to the interventions, barriers and/or enablers to enacting them and for any additional interventions suggested. From this analysis, the interventions were grouped to identify specific actionable activities (n = 8). Finally, these eight interventions were discussed in a workshop with the GUaRD Community Advisory Group and prioritised using the APEASE framework. Prioritised interventions targeted a range of stakeholders and included creating a lived experience video library, supporting peer support groups with grant applications, and educating clinicians about referring to peer support groups. Further research is now required to test these findings before trialling and evaluating an intervention to measure the impact on the GUaRD community.