Aims: To determine the level of competence and confidence in general practice in relation to the management of familial cancers and to determine the impact of providing genetic educational outreach on confidence and competence. Methods: Confidence and competence in dealing with familial cancers was measured using a postal questionnaire sent to all general practitioners and practice nurses in 4 geographical areas in central England. In 2 areas, genetic educational outreach was provided to 10 randomly selected practices and a matched analysis of questionnaire responses before and after intervention was done to determine the impact of the intervention. Results: Respondents were more confident in dealing with patient queries around familial breast cancer risk than those around bowel cancer. This was inconsistent with the ability to correctly assign familial risk, with 48% incorrectly assigning a high-risk categorisation to a low-risk breast cancer scenario. Respondents who had taken part in the intervention reported more confidence in dealing with issues related to the management of patient queries around bowel cancer. Following intervention, participants were more likely to report feeling confident in knowing the relevant family history to collect (72.4% of respondents from participating practices compared to 56.1% from non-participating practices; OR 2.39, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.14–5.00) and in making a basic assessment of risk (72.4% compared to 38.9%; OR 3.65, p = 0.01, 95% CI 1.38–9.61). Conclusions: Providing genetic educational outreach has a positive impact upon how confident primary care staff feel in dealing with patient queries over familial cancers, particularly in relation to bowel cancer. Further research is needed to explore the impact of providing this service on other relevant outcomes such as appropriateness of referrals to genetic services.

Keywords:
Primary care, Community genetics services, Genetic counselling, Familial cancer, Competences
1.
Department of Health: Our Inheritance, our Future: Realising the Potential of Genetics in the NHS. CM 5791. Norwich, The Stationery Office, 2003.
2.
Walter FM, Kinmouth AL, Hyland F, Murrell P, Marteau TM, Todd C: Experiences and expectations of the new genetics in relation to familial risk of breast cancer: a comparison of the views of GPs and practice nurses. Fam Pract 2001;18:491–494.
3.
Hapgood R, Qureshi N, Allen J: Breast cancer genetics in primary care. Which GPs most accurately categorise patients at low risk? Eur J Gen Pract 2002;8:146–150.
4.
Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Eaton C, Culpepper L: Family physician self-efficacy with screening for inherited cancer risk. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:130–132.
5.
Modell M, Wonke B, Anionwu E: A multidisciplinary approach for improving service in primary care: randomised controlled trial of screening for haemoglobin disorders. Br Med J 1998;317:788–791.
6.
Hughes PM, Parker C, Payne S, Ingleton MC, Noble B: Evaluating an education programme in general palliative care for community nurses. Int J Palliat Nurs 2006;12:123–131.
7.
Cockburn J, Ruth D, Silagy C, et al: Randomised trial of three approaches for marketing smoking cessation programmes to Australian general practitioners. Br Med J 1992;304:691–694.
8.
Watson E, Clements A, Lucassen A, Yudkin P, Mackay J, Austoker J: Education improves general practitioner (GP) management of familial breast/ovarian cancer: findings from a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Med Genet 2002;39:779–781.
9.
Butzlaff M, Vollmar HC, Floer B, Koneczny N, Isfort J, Lange S: Learning with computerized guidelines in general practice? A randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 2003;21:183–188.
10.
Drury N, Bethea J, Guilbert P, Qureshi N: Genetics support to primary care practitioners – a demonstration project. J Genet Couns 2007;16:583–591.
11.
Qureshi N, Allen J, Hapgood R: A systematic review of educational outreach visits for non-prescribing interventions in general practice. Eur J Gen Pract 2002;8:31–36.
12.
Spiegal N, Murphy E, Kinmouth AL, Ross F, Bain J, Coates R: Managing change in general practice: a step by step guide. Br Med J 1992;304:231–234.
13.
Hogg W, Baskerville N, Nykiforuk C, Mallen D: Improved preventative care in family practices with outreach facilitation: understanding success and failure. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7:195–201.
14.
Qureshi N, Hapgood R, Armstrong S: Continuous medical education approaches for clinical genetics: a postal survey of general practitioners. J Med Genet 2002;39:e69.
15.
Shickle S, Hapgood R, Qureshi N: The genetics liaison nurse role as a means of educating and supporting primary care professionals. Fam Pract 2002;19:193–196.
16.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Familial Breast Cancer: The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care. Clinical Guideline 14. London, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.
17.
Qureshi N, Modell B, Modell M: Timeline: Raising the profile of genetics in primary care. Nat Rev Genet 2004;5:783–790.
18.
Buckley L, Goering P, Parikh S, Butterill D, Foo E: Applying a ‘stages of change’ model to enhance a traditional evaluation of a research transfer course. J Eval Clin Pract 2003;9:385–390.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.