Representatives from almost 50 different clinical laboratories, professional associations, and societies came together this week to align efforts to expand the supply and retention of qualified laboratory scientists
FORT WORTH, TEXAS—Last week, representatives from a broad cross section of clinical laboratories, lab and pathology associations, public health laboratories, and lab regulatory bodies gathered specifically to identify ways to expand the number of skilled lab professionals.
COLA organized the “Workforce Action Alliance Summit,” a one-day gathering of key clinical laboratory stakeholders who share a common interest in developing initiatives that would directly increase the number of individuals choosing to pursue a career in laboratory medicine.
This is not a new problem, as the lack of trained laboratory scientists across all scientific disciplines has been acute for many years.
In a communication sent to invited participants, COLA’s CEO, Nancy Stratton, and COO, Kathy Nucifora, described the objective of the summit, writing:
“Clearly a call to collective action is required if we are to address the impending clinical laboratory workforce shortage. The past three years have demonstrated the significance of a resilient laboratory infrastructure, not only for the daily care of millions of Americans, but also during the global pandemic. The numerous efforts currently underway to resolve the shortage are unquestionably a component of the solution. Many, however, believe that these efforts are insufficient to close the gap between the projected number of new entrants into the profession, the rate at which those currently in the profession are departing, and the future demand for laboratory testing.”
Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report was a participant at COLA’S workforce summit. The Dark Report regularly profiles clinical laboratory organizations that have developed innovative and productive initiatives designed to increase the number of students choosing to train as medical technologists (MTs), clinical laboratory scientists (CLSs), medical laboratory technologists (MLTs) and other skilled lab positions.
In materials distributed at the summit, the ongoing gap between demand for skilled lab professionals and the supply was illustrated thusly:
“The US Department of Labor estimates 320,000 bachelors and associates degreed laboratory professionals are working in the United States. If each of those professionals worked a standard 40-year career, the natural annual attrition of 2.5% would require 8,000 new professionals to maintain their current numbers. This exceeds the current output of accredited educational programs by more than 1,000 annually.”
Case Studies of Success
Over the course of the day, participants at the summit heard about the successes of certain laboratory organizations designed to get more students into training programs, supported by the educational courses required for them to become certified in their chosen area of laboratory medicine. These case studies centered around several themes:
Obtaining funding specifically to establish an MT/CLS training program to increase the number of candidates in a region. One example involved ARUP Laboratories and its success at working with a local Congressional representative to get a $3 million federal grant funded as part of a larger legislative package.
The medical laboratory scientist (MLS) program at Saint Louis University (SLU) worked with Quest Diagnostics to launch an accelerated bachelor’s degree program. The 16-month program combines online academic courses with intensive hands-on learning and clinical experiences in Quest’s Lenexa, Kansas, laboratory. The first students in this accelerated degree program began their studies in the spring semester of 2023.
By rethinking the structure of its existing didactic and experiential learning structure, NorthShore University HealthSystem’s MLS program, located at Evanston Hospital north of Chicago, doubled its enrollment capacity.
During the afternoon, working groups addressed ways that lab organizations can collaborate to increase recruitment and retention of laboratory scientists across all disciplines of lab medicine. This input was synthesized into action planning for the three priorities that can lead to expanding the lab workforce.
By day’s end, several working groups were organized with specific next steps. COLA is taking the lead in managing this initiative and giving it momentum. All clinical laboratory professionals and pathologists are welcome to participate in the Workforce Action Alliance (WAA). Anyone wishing to learn more can contact COLA by clicking here, calling 800-981-9883, or by visiting https://education.cola.org/contact-us-page.
Both health systems will use their EHRs to track genetic testing data and plan to bring genetic data to primary care physicians
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups face a big challenge in how to get appropriate genetic and molecular data into electronic health record (EHR) systems in ways that are helpful for physicians. Precision medicine faces many barriers and this is one of the biggest. Aside from the sheer enormity of the data, there’s the question of making it useful and accessible for patient care. Thus, when two major healthcare systems resolve to accomplish this with their EHRs, laboratory managers and pathologists should take notice.
NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois and Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are working to make genetic testing part of primary care. And both reached similar conclusions regarding the best way for primary care physicians to make use of the information.
At NorthShore, two genetic testing programs—MedClueRx and the Genetic and Wellness Assessment—provide doctors with more information about how their patients metabolize certain drugs and whether or not their medical and family histories suggest they need further, more specific genetic testing.
“We’re not trying to make all of our primary care physicians into genomic experts. That is a difficult strategy that really isn’t scalable. But we’re giving them enough tools to help them feel comfortable,” Peter Hulick, MD, Director of the Center for Personalized Medicine at NorthShore, told Healthcare IT News.
Conversely, Geisinger has made genomic testing an automated part of primary care. When patients visit their primary care physicians, they are asked to sign a release and undergo whole genome sequencing. An article in For the Record describes Geisinger’s program:
“The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics classifies 59 genes as clinically actionable, with an additional 21 others recommended by Geisinger. If a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant is found in one of those 80 genes, the patient and the primary care provider are notified.”
William Andrew Faucett (left) is Director of Policy and Education, Office of the Chief Scientific Officer at Geisinger Health; and Peter Hulick, MD (right), is Director of the Center for Personalized Medicine at NorthShore University HealthSystem. Both are leading programs at their respective healthcare networks to improve precision medicine and primary care by including genetic testing data and accessibility to it in their patients’ EHRs. (Photo copyrights: Geisinger/NorthShore University HealthSystem.)
The EHR as the Way to Access Genetic Test Results
Both NorthShore and Geisinger selected their EHRs for making important genetic information accessible to primary care physicians, as well as an avenue for tracking that information over time.
Hulick told Healthcare IT News that NorthShore decided to make small changes to their existing Epic EHR that would enable seemingly simple but actually complex actions to take place. For example, tracking the results of a genetic test within the EHR. According to Hulick, making the genetic test results trackable creates a “variant repository,” also known as a Clinical Data Repository.
“Once you have that, you can start to link it to other information that’s known about the patient: family history status, etc.,” he explained. “And you can start to build an infrastructure around it and use some of the tools for clinical decision support that are used in other areas: drug/drug interactions, reminders for flu vaccinations, and you can start to build on those decision support tools but apply them to genomics.”
Like NorthShore, Geisinger is also using its EHR to make genetic testing information available to primary care physician when a problem variant is identified. They use EHR products from both Epic and Cerner and are working with both companies to streamline and simplify the processes related to genetic testing. When a potentially problematic variant is found, it is listed in the EHR’s problem list, similar to other health issues.
Geisinger has developed a reporting system called GenomeCOMPASS, which notifies patients of their results and provides related information. It also enables patients to connect with a geneticist. GenomeCOMPASS has a physician-facing side where primary care doctors receive the results and have access to more information.
Andrew Faucett, Senior Investigator (Professor) and Director of Policy and Education, Office of the Chief Scientific Officer at Geisinger, compares the interpretation of genetic testing to any other kind of medical testing. “If a patient gets an MRI, the primary care physicians doesn’t interpret it—the radiologist does,” adding, “Doctors want to help patients follow the recommendations of the experts,” he told For the Record.
The Unknown Factor
Even though researchers regularly make new discoveries in genomics, physicians practicing today have had little, if any, training on how to incorporate genetics into their patients’ care. Combine that lack of knowledge and training with the current lack of EHR interoperability and the challenges in using genetic testing for precision medicine multiply to a staggering degree.
One thing that is certain: the scientific community will continue to gather knowledge that can be applied to improving the health of patients. Medical pathology laboratories will play a critical role in both testing and helping ensure results are useful and accessible, now and in the future.
Genetic counselors struggle to explain direct-to-consumer genetic test data—or correct provider misinterpretations of results—while often encountering resistance and anger from patients who don’t accept their counseling
Healthcare consumers who want to know more about their family’s genealogy are purchasing direct-to-consumer (DTC) home genetic tests in record numbers. It is a trend that worries some medical laboratory professionals and certain federal government agencies.
MITTechnology Review (MIT) dubbed 2017, “The year consumer DNA testing blew up.” As a result of record-breaking sales of DTC genetic testing last year, about 12-million people have now been tested, MIT reported. “The inflection pointed started in the summer of 2016, and from there it’s gone into the stratosphere,” David Mittelman, PhD, Molecular Biophysics, told MIT.
Clearly, consumers are becoming comfortable with the concept of genetic testing on themselves and their family members. However, major issues—such as who owns genetic information and how patient privacy is protected—have yet to be resolved.
Dark Daily recently reported that more than 1.5 million kits were sold by Ancestry.com during the four-day Black Friday/Cyber Monday weekend prior to Christmas 2017. That e-briefing also explored related privacy issues and informed readers about efforts by federal lawmakers to explore genetic testing companies’ privacy and disclosure practices.
According to a news release, by the end of November, sales of AncestryDNA kits exceeded the total number of subscribers the Utah-based company had when it started the year. Now, more than seven million people are in Ancestry’s database.
Meanwhile, 23andMe, a personal genomics company established in 2006, has genotyped more than three million people worldwide. In addition to an ancestry test, it offers a health and ancestry service providing information on genetic health risks, carrier status, traits, wellness, and ancestry, according to the company’s website.
Experts Concerned About Privacy and Use of ‘Raw’ DNA Data
“2018 will bring a regular drumbeat of new experiences and enhancements across both DNA and family history,” Howard Hochhauser, Ancestry’s Interim Chief Executive Officer, predicted in the news release.
However, a recent study published in Translational Behavioral Medicine (TBM) which noted the robust sales of DTC genetic tests in 2017, also called attention to a new concern surrounding the impact of “raw” DNA interpretation results.
“People often enter the direct-to-consumer market for recreational purposes, such as learning about their ancestry. Yet, what we started seeing was that these same individuals subsequently come across third-party interpretation services where they proceeded to learn more about their ‘raw’ DNA made available by the ancestry testing companies,” stated Catharine Wang, PhD, Boston University (BU) Associate Professor of Community Health Sciences, and the study’s lead author, in a BU statement.
The study cited sales of DTC genetic tests at $99 million in 2017 and explored potential negative implications of consumers’ access to “raw” DNA data.
“We were especially interested in the downstream implications of receiving unexpected disease risk information from these newer services that subsequently lead consumers to seek out a genetic counselor’s consult,” Wang noted.
Catharine Wang, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Community Health Sciences at Boston University and lead author of the study, notes, “There are a lot of people saying, ‘I’m smart enough to make decisions; give me the information and get the doctors out of the way. But they’re making some serious decisions about their health after seeing only part of the picture.” (Photo copyright: Boston University Research.)
After Getting DNA Data, Consumers Turn to Interpretation Services, Genetic Counselors
The research team surveyed 85 genetic counselors. Fifty-three percent of them reported meeting with DTC test costumers who had accessed ‘raw’ DNA data and used genetic interpretation companies, which are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to get more information about themselves. However, results of the sessions were not always positive for either patients or counselors.
According to the study, counselors reported their biggest challenge as “undoing misinterpretations and correcting patient beliefs about their raw DNA results.”
The study noted, “When genetic counselors tried to clarify misunderstandings, patients were not only resistant but sometimes appeared hurt and frustrated that counselors were not taking their results seriously.”
Other negative experiences counselors reported while interpreting “raw” DNA test results for patients include:
“Time required to review and understand interpretation reports;
“Feeling ill equipped and uncomfortable providing the service;
“A lack of supportive organizational structure; and,
“[Having to] correct a patient’s misunderstanding, following a primary care physician’s misinterpretation of her raw DNA results.”
“Counselors expressed concern about the quality of the raw data and the clarity and usefulness of interpretation reports. Efforts to better support both consumers and genetic service providers are needed to maximize the effective translation of genome-based knowledge for population health,” the study authors concluded.
Providers Should Improve Ability to Help Patients with DTC Genetic Data
In a MedCity News blog post, Peter Hulick, MD, Director of Personalized Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, called for healthcare providers to assist patients who are dealing with new DTC genetic services and possible data overload.
“Findings show having widespread access to personal genetic information—without the knowledge of how to interpret results—can lead to problems ranging from misinterpretation to emotional distress,” he noted. “The medical community must work harder and smarter to incorporate this information into practice and empower patients as consumers and partners in healthcare decision-making.”
Anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders also should acknowledge and monitor consumers’ growing interest in these tests. Once patients’ have their DNA sequenced, the likelihood they will seek to know their predisposition to diseases is high and increasing. Thus, opportunities exist for medical laboratories to help physicians and consumers interpret DTC test results.
Market indicators support predictions of tougher financial times ahead for hospital-based clinical laboratories and pathology groups
New statistics for 2013 on employment in the healthcare and hospital sectors show the lowest rates of growth since 1990. This is a signal to pathologists and clinical laboratory executives that much belt-tightening is taking place by all types of providers.
For 2013, the healthcare sector added just 271,000 jobs. This was 2% less than the annual average since 1990, noted a recent report in Modern Healthcare. (more…)
Across the country, many hospital laboratory outreach programs continue to grow and prosper, despite a sour economy and higher rates of unemployment. That’s true in Chicago’s northern suburb of Evanston, Illinois, where the laboratory outreach program of Evanston Hospital enjoys solid rates of growth in specimen volume and revenue.
