The National Health Service in the UK is the first national healthcare system to offer genomic sequencing for rare disease diagnosis as routine care. Non-genetic medical specialists, including paediatricians, can now request genomic testing for certain clinical indications. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the preparedness and confidence of paediatricians providing genomic sequencing in England. In addition, we assessed current practice, perceived utility of testing, barriers and enablers, prior genomics education and training preferences.

A 26-item electronic survey for completion by paediatric specialists. Participants were recruited through national associations and a conference. Quantitative items were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Open-ended question responses were analysed by qualitative content analysis.

157 responses were included in the analysis. Only 49.0% reported feeling prepared for mainstreaming despite 75.0% reporting they had requested testing in the past 12 months, 47.7% indicating they had returned genomic sequencing results and 67.1% feeling genomic testing was useful. Mean confidence scores were lowest for tasks including using human phenotype ontology terminology on test request forms (3.9/10), interpreting genomic test results (4.8/10), discussing complex genomic results with patients and families (4.3/10) and integrating test results into patient care (4.7/10). Significantly higher average ranked genomic confidence was identified among those who had requested testing in the last 12 months compared with those who had not (Z=5.063, p<0.001, r=0.412). The most frequent barriers to mainstreaming were lack of training and knowledge (43.3%), determining patient eligibility (28.0%), lack of time (27.4%) and confidence (25.5%). Webinars (48.4%), followed by continued professional development meetings and/or conferences (38.9%), were the preferred mode of training.

Our data suggest that preparedness and confidence among paediatricians in genomics is currently lacking. Support from clinical genetics services, simplified referral forms and webinar training sessions could improve current practice.

Rapid advancements in genomic testing have revolutionised cancer care diagnostics and treatment. However, keeping pace with the evolving genomics knowledge is a challenge for oncologists who are not genomic experts. This detrimentally impacts on equitable patient access to related services and benefits which require training in genomics. In Australia, cancer incidence, survival, and mortality rates are significantly worse in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas compared to the least disadvantaged areas. Guided by implementation science methods, the research aimed to determine how to support oncologists with varying levels of genomic expertise to tailor optimal treatment decisions and deliver a high-quality service, across diverse geographical locations.

We used a novel approach combining clinician intuition and implementation science theory to co-design service interventions (i.e., service models) and associated implementation strategies to inform operationalisation. Phenomenology and principles of co-design guided two phases of data collection with two separate cohorts of oncologists delivering care to advanced cancer patients. Phase 1 interview data were coded thematically to develop the service models, while phase 2 focus group data were used to identify implementation strategies to support service model operationalisation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed phase 1 and 2 data analysis.

Phase 1 established three overarching themes and nine subthemes: (1) access - potential for inequitable patient access by centralising genomic expertise, (2) indicators for test use - identifying suitable patients for complex genomic profiling (CGP) testing, and (3) supporting use of results - confidence to discuss results, particularly from germline and somatic testing. Five challenges were prioritised, mapped to the CGP clinical pathway, and coded to 11 unique CFIR constructs. Across all five prioritised challenges, we recorded 19 intuitive and generated 21 theory-informed strategies. The development of three service models (i.e., centralised expert, local super user, and point of care resources) arose through considering these strategies in combination with the study teams' broader experiences with the iPREDICT trial. In phase 2, we identified 11 implementation challenges, mapped to 7 CFIR constructs, and 11 intuitive and 20 theory-informed strategies for service model operationalisation.

The service models generated from our study are currently being tested in a multi-centre implementation study to evaluate feasibility, effectiveness, acceptability, sustainability, and scalability.

Powerful new genomic technologies are transforming the way healthcare is delivered, shaping medical practice across all specialties. In this rapidly changing landscape, there is an urgent need to equip the clinical workforce with knowledge and skills to navigate the new healthcare terrain. Co-design of healthcare resources with end users is increasingly gaining traction as a method of ensuring that educational content and delivery are tailored to users' needs, increasing likelihood of use and resulting in better outcomes for patients. Here we describe the co-design and ongoing co-creation of GeNotes - an NHS England National Genomics Education flagship online resource providing genomics education at the point of patient care.

To understand the barriers to implementation of genomic medicine and the training needs of the diverse NHS workforce, we adopted a co-design approach with clinicians from both primary and secondary care who are uniquely placed to understand the context in which they are working and identify their own training needs. Concept design, initial user research and subsequent 'alpha' and 'private beta' phase user research was conducted in a series of co-design iterations employing a mixed methodology integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.

User evaluation data demonstrated excellent feedback across the tested domains (content, navigation, likelihood of use and recommendation to colleagues). We identified several key themes from user testing that shaped the resource's development.

The co-design approach to the development of this point-of-care genomics education resource for clinicians has allowed insight into the education needs, challenges and learning styles of end-users. The utility of this approach was supported by excellent user feedback across the tested domains, and we recommend it to others involved in developing healthcare resources in a fast-paced environment.

There are calls worldwide for the mainstreaming of genetic testing in breast cancer (BC) clinics, but health care professionals (HCPs) are not always familiar with nor confident about genetic counselling. TRUSTING (Talking about Risk & uncertainties of Testing in Genetics is an educational programme shown to significantly improve HCPs' knowledge, communication, self-confidence, and self-awareness. We rolled out TRUSTING workshops across the UK and probed their influence on mainstreaming within BC clinics.

1 surgeon, 3 oncologists, and 1 nurse specialist who had attended the original TRUSTING evaluation project were trained to facilitate the 8-hour programme in pairs. The participants (all health care professionals) attending their workshops completed 3 questionnaires: - 1) the Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale, 2) an 18-item multiple choice knowledge questionnaire about BRCA 1/2 gene testing, incidence and risk reducing interventions and 3) a 10-item questionnaire exploring self-confidence when advising patients and their families about these issues. Both knowledge and self-confidence were re-tested post workshop together with evaluation of the facilitators' approach and overall satisfaction with the event. Follow-up questionnaires 3-12 months later examined impact of workshops on HCPs' own practice and how mainstreaming was working in their clinics.

120 HCPs (61 surgeons; 41 nurses; 9 oncologists; 9 other) attended 12 workshops. Knowledge scores (mean change = 6.58; 95% CI 6.00 to 7.17; p<0.001), and self-confidence (mean change = 2.64; 95% CI 2.33 to 2.95; p<0.001) improved significantly post workshop. Ratings for the facilitators' approach were uniformly high (mean range 9.6 to 9.9 /10). Most delegates found the workshops useful, enjoyable, and informative and 98% would definitively recommend them to colleagues. Follow-up data (n = 72/96) showed that 57% believed attendance had improved their own practice when discussing genetic testing with their patients. When asked about mainstreaming more generally, 78% reported it was working well, 18% had not yet started, and 3% thought it was problematic in their centre.

Discussing the implications that having a pathogenic gene alteration has for patients' treatment and risk-reducing interventions is complex when patients are already coming to terms with a breast cancer diagnosis. Training facilitators enhanced the wider roll-out of the TRUSTING educational programme and is an effective means of helping HCPs now involved in the mainstreaming of genetic testing.

Low confidence in genomics knowledge among clinicians is a major barrier to the integration of genomics into mainstream medicine. Here, we assessed the genomics confidence of UK medical students approaching graduation.

We conducted a web-based nationwide survey of UK medical students in the final 2 years of study where participants rated their confidence in genomics concepts.

In total, 145 medical students across 19 medical schools participated. The amount of genomics teaching students reported receiving was positively associated with genomics confidence, with the amount of basic science teaching having the strongest influence. While confidence was high in core genomics principles, such as the difference between DNA, genes and chromosomes (95%), confidence dropped in clinical applications of genomics - only 50% reported a good understanding of the genetic contribution to disease and 28% reported good knowledge of clinically used genomic tests. Overall, 59% reported a poor understanding of variant interpretation; however, over half who reported receiving 'lots' of genomic medicine teaching reported a good understanding of this topic.

Gaps in genomics knowledge and drivers in confidence have been identified herein, highlighting the need for improvements in undergraduate genomics education to prepare future doctors to confidently practise in the genomics era.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is currently one of the most prevalent hereditary cancer conditions, accounting for 3% of all colorectal cancers and for up to 15% of those with DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, and it was one of the first historically identified. The understanding of the molecular carcinogenesis of LS tumors has progressed significantly in recent years. We aim to review the most recent advances in LS research and explore genotype-based approaches in surveillance, personalized cancer prevention, and treatment strategies.

PubMed was searched to identify relevant studies, conducted up to December 2023, investigating molecular carcinogenesis in LS, surveillance strategies, cancer prevention, and treatment in LS tumors.

Multigene panel sequencing is becoming the benchmark in the diagnosis of LS, allowing for the detection of a pathogenic constitutional variant in one of the MMR genes. Emerging data from randomized controlled trials suggest possible preventive roles of resistant starch and/or aspirin in LS. Vaccination with immunogenic frameshift peptides appears to be a promising approach for both the treatment and prevention of LS-associated cancers, as evidenced by pre-clinical and preliminary phase 1/2a studies.

Although robust diagnostic algorithms, including prompt testing of tumor tissue for MMR defects and referral for genetic counselling, currently exist for suspected LS in CRC patients, the indications for LS screening in cancer-free individuals still need to be refined and standardized. Investigation into additional genetic and non-genetic factors that may explain residual rates of interval cancers, even in properly screened populations, would allow for more tailored preventive strategies.

Moving away from traditional "one-size-fits-all" treatment to precision-based medicine has tremendously improved disease prognosis, accuracy of diagnosis, disease progression prediction, and targeted-treatment. The current cutting-edge of 5G network technology is enabling a growing trend in precision medicine to extend its utility and value to the smart healthcare system. The 5G network technology will bring together big data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to provide essential levels of connectivity to enable a new health ecosystem toward precision medicine. In the 5G-enabled health ecosystem, its applications involve predictive and preventative measurements which enable advances in patient personalization. This review aims to discuss the opportunities, challenges, and prospects posed to 5G network technology in moving forward to deliver personalized treatments and patient-centric care via a precision medicine approach.

Over the last decade, utilization of clinical genetics services has grown rapidly, putting increasing pressure on the workforce available to deliver genetic healthcare. To highlight the policy challenges facing Canadian health systems, a needs-based workforce requirements model was developed to determine the number of Canadian patients in 2030 for whom an assessment of hereditary cancer risk would be indicated according to current standards and the numbers of genetic counsellors, clinical geneticists and other physicians with expertise in genetics needed to provide care under a diverse set of scenarios. Our model projects that by 2030, a total of 90 specialist physicians and 326 genetic counsellors (1.7-fold and 1.6-fold increases from 2020, respectively) will be required to provide Canadians with indicated hereditary cancer services if current growth trends and care models remain unchanged. However, if the expansion in eligibility for hereditary cancer assessment accelerates, the need for healthcare providers with expertise in genetics would increase dramatically unless alternative care models are widely adopted. Increasing capacity through service delivery innovation, as well as mainstreaming of cancer genetics care, will be critical to Canadian health systems' ability to meet this challenge.