Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record

Abstract

Introduction:

Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient’s self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire.

Methods:

We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record.

Results:

Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients’ risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient’s family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire.

Conclusions:

Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Keywords

medical history taking family health history hereditary cancer syndromes genetic counseling

Introduction

Capturing family health history is a simple and cost-effective way to identify individuals at increased risk for cancer.^1,2 Recognizing individuals with higher familial risk can help prevent or detect cancer earlier and reduce cancer morbidity and mortality.^3-6 “High risk” individuals may benefit from individualized care ranging from enhanced cancer education to earlier cancer surveillance, and in some cases, chemoprevention or prophylactic surgery.^7-9

In primary care settings, there are several barriers to collecting family health history.¹⁰ Self-reported histories can be limited, inaccurate, or static.^11,12 Patients often relay information in an unprepared manner during an office visit.¹³ Physicians admit they lack the knowledge to assess risk for diseases based on family history.^14-17 Furthermore, physicians are often only focused on the primary indication of the appointment, are overwhelmed with competing demands, and constrained for time.¹⁸ These complex factors make it difficult to identify familial health risks for the patient and determine whether referral for genetic counseling would be beneficial.

A robust family health history can be an indicator of risk for certain diseases and is used in guidelines for determining when to initiate screening.⁶ However, there is large variability between how clinicians collect the information, how it is recorded in the medical record, how often it is updated, and how patients and physicians perceive the significance of family history.^10,19 Due to these discrepancies, patients with familial risk for cancer are often missed and do not receive individualized care.¹

Providing patients with pre-emptive education on the value of family history has been shown to improve the accuracy of the reported information to an extent that a significant number of patients receive modified screening recommendations.²⁰ Previous studies suggest that disease-focused questionnaires provide a more accurate picture of a patient’s familial risk.^20,21 Several family health history collection tools have been created, but few have been validated for widespread adoption and remain under-utilized.^22-24

A practice improvement project was implemented to determine the impact of scaling family history awareness utilizing a family cancer questionnaire within a non-selected, general medicine population and to streamline referrals to genetic counseling. A retrospective chart review was conducted to compare the questionnaire responses to the information in the electronic medical record (EMR).

Methods

A cancer-focused questionnaire was created and distributed to patients attending family medicine appointments. The Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) was created using Input Health (a company specializing in patient-input health tools). The questionnaire collected information about personal and family history of cancers. It was distributed on a tablet device from June 20 to August 1, 2018, to patients over the age of 18 in the family medicine waiting room after check-in. Risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome was estimated using a scoring methodology. The scoring system was created by a genetic counselor based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines,^7,8 Amsterdam criteria,²⁵ and revised Bethesda criteria.²⁶ Scores were divided into 3 ranges (low, medium, or high) based on the amount, type, and age of onset of cancers in their personal and family history. For example, a personal or family history of breast cancer was 1 point and cancers with onset under the age of 50 were 2 points. Those that met NCCN criteria for further genetic risk evaluation were assigned at least medium risk.⁷ Patients categorized as high risk met criteria for further genetic evaluation based on multiple facets of their personal and/or family history. This scoring system was used to indicate which patients reported a significant family history and subsequently offer a consultation with a genetic counselor. As this was not a validated risk score, we did not communicate scores to the patients.

The following cancers were surveyed in the HCQ: breast, ovarian, cervical, uterine, colon, pancreas, prostate, melanoma, sarcoma, gastric, kidney, leukemia, brain, adrenal cortical carcinoma, and thyroid. These specific cancers were chosen because they included those diagnoses identified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for potential discussion with patients being evaluated for hereditary cancer risk.^7,8 Cervical was included in an attempt to prompt patient consideration of whether a family member’s gynecologic cancer diagnosis maybe have been ovarian, cervical, or uterine.

Permission to conduct retrospective chart review was given by the Institutional Review Board (ID:18-006277). The HCQ was treated as the baseline when comparing the patient charts. The data were extracted and coded by 3 of the authors. A subset of all the data was coded together to check for inter-rater reliability. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus. The institution’s electronic medical record (EMR) provider at the time was Cerner Power Chart. The chart review looked at 4 different areas of the EMR:

“Patient’s history” tab: the repository of family history within the EMR

Patient “family history”: information provided by the patient

The most recent “family medicine comprehensive note”: the equivalent of a complete history and physical

The oldest “family medicine comprehensive note”

Additional information was recorded when looking at the family medicine comprehensive notes:

If the family history of cancer was addressed

If direct action was taken because of family history

Fisher’s exact test was used for statistical analysis. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During a period of 3 weeks, 320 patients were approached in the waiting room prior to their Family Medicine appointment and offered the opportunity to fill out the hereditary cancer questionnaire (HCQ). Of those patients, 314 successfully completed the questionnaire with an average time of 3 min and 15 s. Patient characteristics are detailed in Table 1. The questionnaire was designed to be brief if there was little family history of cancer; the quickest time was 24 s. If patients did not have enough time to fill out the questionnaire before they were called into their appointment, they were allowed to take the tablet with them and fill it out during or after their visit. The longest questionnaire time was 1 h and 35 min. There were 213 patients classified as “Low-Risk” status, 76 patients classified as “Medium-Risk” status, and 25 patients classified as “High-Risk” status based on their score.

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics.

Characteristics	Total: 314
Female	180
Male	134
Average age	59.2 (youngest 18-oldest 95)

After the scores were calculated, the information provided through the questionnaire was compared to the recorded family history in the EMR. Family history in a patient’s EMR was frequently different than what they inputted in the HCQ. The HCQ repeatedly recorded cancers that were absent in the patient’s EMR. There were also some instances where cancers were mentioned in one or more areas of the chart, but not all. Another example of these inconsistencies was that some cancers were not included on the HCQ as it focused on cancers that were more likely to be hereditary, rather than environmental. Patients listed these other unspecified cancers as “other” on the HCQ. Lastly, there were some occurrences when a cancer was mentioned in EMR but not in the HCQ.

Across all areas of the EMR, those with significant family history of cancer, classified as “medium risk” or “high risk,” were more likely than those classified as “low risk” to have inconsistencies between histories in the EMR and HCQ.

Table 2 displays the comparison between the HCQ results and the “patient’s history” tab of the EMR. Histories were consistent across the 2 methods for over 56% of “low risk” individuals, but only 22.9% of “medium risk” individuals, and 0% of “high risk” individuals. Out of the 23 “high risk” individuals with available data in the “patient’s history” tab, none had consistent history between the HCQ and EMR data.

Table 2.

Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) Responses Compared to the “Patient’s History” Tab in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR).

Risk category (n)	Missing	Chart history not the same as HCQ	Chart history same information as HCQ	P-value (vs low)
Low risk (179)	34/213 (16.0%)	78/179 (43.6%)	101/179 (56.4%)	N/A
Medium risk (61)	15/76 (19.7%)	47/61 (77.1%)	14/61 (22.9%)	P < .001
High risk (23)	2/25 (8.0%)	23/23 (100.0%)	0/23 (0%)	P < .001

Table 3 displays data for the HCQ results compared to the patient-provided “family history” tab in the EMR. The results are similar to those in Table 2 as inconsistencies between the HCQ and EMR data are more frequent among those with higher risk. Family histories were consistent between the HCQ and EMR for almost 54% of “low risk” individuals, but only 25.7% of “medium risk” individuals and 4.6% of “high risk” individuals.

Table 3.

HCQ Responses Compared to the Patient-Provided “Family History” in the EMR.

Risk category (n)	Missing	Patient provided family history not the same as HCQ	Patient provided family history same information as HCQ	P-value (vs low)
Low risk (182)	31/213 (14.6%)	84/182 (46.2%)	98/182 (53.9%)	N/A
Medium risk (70)	6/76 (7.9%)	52/70 (74.3%)	18/70 (25.7%)	P < .001
High risk (22)	3/25 (12%)	21/22 (95.5%)	1/22 (4.6%)	P < .001

Table 4 shows the comparison between the HCQ results and the most recent “family medicine comprehensive note” in the EMR. Again, histories across the 2 methods were more frequently consistent among those classified as “low risk” compared to those classified as “medium risk” and “high risk.” For this area of the EMR, 54.5% of “low risk” individuals, 25% of “medium risk” individuals, and only 8% of “high risk” individuals had consistent histories compared to the HCQ answers.

Table 4.

HCQ Responses Compared to the Most Recent “Family Medicine Comprehensive Note” in the EMR. No Data was Missing in This Area of the EMR.

Risk category (n)	Recent family med comp notes not the same as HCQ	Recent family med comp notes same information as HCQ	P-value (vs low)
Low risk (213)	97/213 (45.5%)	116/213 (54.4%)	N/A
Medium risk (76)	57/76 (75.0%)	19/76 (25.0%)	P < .001
High risk (25)	23/25 (92.0%)	2/25 (8.0%)	P < .001

Finally, Table 5 displays data for the comparison between the HCQ and the oldest “family medicine comprehensive note” in the EMR, and remains consistent with previous findings. Family histories were consistent between the HCQ and EMR for 47% of “low risk” individuals, 15.8% of “medium risk” individuals, and 8% of “high risk” individuals.

Table 5.

HCQ Responses Compared to the Oldest “Family Medicine Comprehensive Note” in the EMR. No Data was Missing in This Area of the EMR.

Risk category (n)	Oldest family med comp notes not the same as HCQ	Oldest family med comp notes same information as HCQ	P-value (vs low)
Low risk (213)	113/213 (53.0%)	100/213 (47.0%)	N/A
Medium risk (76)	64/76 (84.2%)	12/76 (15.8%)	P < .001
High risk (25)	23/25 (92.0%)	2/25 (8.0%)	P < .001

Within the EMR itself, there were substantial deviations between the 4 sections studied. This pattern also increased as risk level increased. For the “patient’s history” tab and patient provided “family history” sections, data on the patient’s extended family were almost never included. The family medicine comprehensive notes included this information more often, but it was not common. For example, an aunt with cancer was recorded for 32 different patients in the HCQ, yet it was only mentioned twice in the “patient’s history” section, 0 times in the patient provided “family history” section, and 9 times in the most recent “family medicine comprehensive note.” There were also several instances where areas of a patient’s chart were not recorded or left blank. As seen in Table 2 above, the “patient’s history” section was not recorded in 51 out of 314 total cases (16.2%). Similarly, as seen in Table 3, patient provided “family history” was absent in 40 out of 314 total cases (12.7%). The “family medicine comprehensive note” sections were complete for all 314 participants.

Results from genetic counseling referral and genetic testing will be reported elsewhere.

Discussion

The EMR notes had more details about types of cancer, onsets of cancer, and greater specification of which family member had the cancer. If a cancer was noted in a family medicine comprehensive note, the healthcare provider could better document nuance, such as questions on onset or primary. Another study found similar findings for free text sections of the EMR.²⁷

However, the HCQ often provided more information about a patient’s family history of cancer. It had other benefits such as the ability to flag patients for referral to genetic counseling. This is difficult to accomplish by searching through patients’ EMR as it requires the physician to have time to look in several different locations and have up to date knowledge of guidelines. Advancements in Natural Language Processing code may help extract and interpret text notes in the EMR to document a better family history.^28-30 While the HCQ accuracy had limitations as well, it appeared to be a better source of information to determine who should be referred to genetic counseling.

The HCQ often had more instances of cancer reported than the EMR, possibly because it focused on cancer specifically, rather than all familial disease. However, the HCQ did not always have more information than the EMR. This could be because of several reasons, most likely because the questionnaire was offered on the spot without opportunity to gather more information from family members and it only asked about certain types of cancers. Further research is needed to determine if giving patients a family health history tool in advance would provide more complete information as they would have more time to complete the questionnaire and call relatives to confirm family history.

By understanding the differences between the medical chart and questionnaire responses, we can see where recording family health history in the medical record can be improved. With this information, we can understand how often there are variances in the information collected versus what is seen by the provider during the visit. We can identify and remove barriers and improve physician education to capture familial forms of diseases sooner in patients and their families.

This study has several limitations. The cohort was recruited from only 1 tertiary care medical center that may not represent all patient populations. Furthermore, only 1 EMR provider was observed, and other systems may not have the same challenges. Additional research is needed to confirm whether these results occur in other populations and if another tool may be more useful in assessing family history for genetic referral.³¹ However, another study found that even with a short family history questionnaire, primary care physicians would be hesitant to adopt it.³²

There are several family history tools available with unique features.^22-24,33-37 The HCQ in this project was different than the other tools because it focused specifically on cancers^20,21 and provided a threshold scoring system for easy identification of those who should be referred to genetic counseling.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, it is apparent that one of the barriers to identifying familial cancer risk is medical chart documentation. This was especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant histories. Physicians have a variety of places to look for family health history, but not all those locations have the same information. Therefore, physicians do not have a complete picture of their patient’s hereditary risk. Having one main place to input family history information into the EMR may alleviate some of this problem. However, even in a single location within EMR, family history may not be complete or up to date. If family history is addressed, many physicians may not know how to quantify hereditary risk for referral to genetic evaluation. Future research is needed to validate a similar scoring system based on guidelines and to determine if this method could be implemented to automate referrals. A focused family cancer history tool with clear indicators for referral, given to patients with advanced notice and adequate time to complete, may help improve medical record documentation of family history that could lead to better guidance for physicians to enhance prevention and early detection of cancer.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319211069756 – Supplemental material for Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319211069756 for Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record by Kristin Clift, Sarah Macklin-Mantia, Margaret Barnhorst, Lindsey Millares, Zacharay King, Anjali Agarwal and Richard John Presutti in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Madison Parker and Chase Robinson for their time administering the questionnaire. We are grateful for the desk staff and patients for their time and willingness to participate. We would like to thank Zhuo Li for helping respond to reviewer’s statistical questions. Finally, we are grateful for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions for improvement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to thank The Center for Individualized Medicine; Mayo Clinic in Florida Focused Research Team Program; and the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery for funding and support.

ORCID iDs

Kristin Clift

Richard John Presutti

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Guttmacher

Collins

Carmona

. The family history—more important than ever. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(22):2333-2336. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb042979

Rich

Burke

Heaton

, et al. Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):273-280. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30401.x

Lucas

Tarlecki

Van Beck

, et al. Self-reported questionnaire detects family history of cancer in a pancreatic cancer screening program. J Genet Couns. 2016;26(4):806-813. doi:10.1007/s10897-016-0057-4

Valdez

Yoon

Qureshi

Green

Khoury

. Family history in public health practice: a genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31(1):69-87. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103621

Gupta

Bharti

Ahnen

, et al. Potential impact of family history-based screening guidelines on the detection of early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2020;126(13):3013-3020.

Stanich

Pelstring

Hampel

Pearlman

. A high percentage of early-age onset colorectal cancer is potentially preventable. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(5):1850-1852.

Daly

Pilarski

Berry

, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 3.2019. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Accessed July 25, 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf

Provenzale

Gupta

Ahnen

, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal, version 2.2019. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Accessed August 8, 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_colon.pdf

Maurice

Evans

Shenton

, et al. Screening younger women with a family history of breast cancer-does early detection improve outcome? Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(10):1385-1390.

10.

Plat

Kroon

Van Schayck

De Leeuw

Stoffers

HEJ

. Obtaining the family history for common, multifactorial diseases by family physicians. A descriptive systematic review. Eur J Gen Pract. 2009;15(4):231-242. doi:10.3109/13814780903447572

11.

Wood

Daniels

, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology expert statement: collection and use of a cancer family history for oncology providers. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(8):833-840. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9257

12.

Endevelt

Goren

Sela

Shalev

. Family history intake: a challenge to personalized approaches in health promotion and disease prevention. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015;4(1):60-66.

13.

Himmel

Buchanan

, et al. Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):31. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-15-31

14.

Laforest

Kirkegaard

Mann

Edwards

. Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(679):e97-e105. doi:10.3399/bjgp18X700265

15.

Hamilton

Abdiwahab

Edwards

Fang

Jdayani

Breslau

. Primary care providers’ cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: a systematic review and research agenda. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(3):315-324. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3943-4

16.

Sussner

Jandorf

Valdimarsdottir

. Educational needs about cancer family history and genetic counseling for cancer risk among frontline healthcare clinicians in New York City. Genet Med. 2011;13(9):785-793. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821afc8e

17.

Taber

Ghani

Schiffman

, et al. Physicians’ strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data. JAMIA Open. 2020;3(3):378-385.

18.

Ancker

Edwards

Nosal

Hauser

Mauer

Kaushal

. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):36. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0430-8

19.

Ashida

Schafer

. Family health information sharing among older adults: reaching more family members. J Community Genet. 2015;6(1):17-27. doi:10.1007/s12687-014-0197-x

20.

Beadles

Ryanne Wu

Himmel

, et al. Providing patient education: impact on quantity and quality of family health history collection. Fam Cancer. 2014;13(2):325-332. doi:10.1007/s10689-014-9701-z

21.

Carroll

Campbell-Scherer

Permaul

, et al. Assessing family history of chronic disease in primary care: prevalence, documentation, and appropriate screening. Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(1):e58-e67.

22.

de Hoog

CLMM

Portegijs

PJM

Stoffers

HEJH

. Family history tools for primary care are not ready yet to be implemented. A systematic review. Eur J Gen Pract. 2014;20(2):125-133. doi:10.3109/13814788.2013.840825

23.

Welch

Dere

Schiffman

. Family health history: the case for better tools. JAMA. 2015;313(17):1711-1712.

24.

Welch

Wiley

Pflieger

, et al. Review and comparison of electronic patient-facing family health history tools. J Genet Couns. 2018;27(2):381-391.

25.

Vasen

Watson

Mecklin

Lynch

. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(6):1453-1456. doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70510-x

26.

Umar

Boland

Terdiman

, et al. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(4):261-268. doi:10.1093/jnci/djh034

27.

Polubriaginof

Tatonetti

Vawdrey

. An assessment of family history information captured in an electronic health record. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015;2015:2035-2042.

28.

Friedlin

McDonald

. A natural language processing system to extract and code concepts relating to congestive heart failure from chest radiology reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;2006:269-273.

29.

Shen

Liu

, et al. Family history extraction from synthetic clinical narratives using natural language processing: overview and evaluation of a challenge data set and solutions for the 2019 National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2)/Open Health Natural Language Processing (OHNLP) competition. JMIR Med Inform. 2021;9(1):e24008.

30.

Rybinski

Dai

Singh

Karimi

Nguyen

. Extracting family history information from Electronic Health Records: natural language processing analysis. JMIR Med Inform. 2021;9(5):e30153.

31.

Ahmed

Hayward

Ahmed

. Primary care professionals’ perceptions of using a short family history questionnaire. Fam Pract. 2016;33(6):704-708.

32.

Zazove

Plegue

Uhlmann

Ruffin

. Prompting primary care providers about increased patient risk as a result of family history: does it work? J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(3):334-342.

33.

Qureshi

Carroll

Wilson

, et al. The current state of cancer family history collection tools in primary care: a systematic review. Genet Med. 2009;11(7):495-506. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a7e8e0

34.

Reid

Walter

Brisbane

Emery

. Family history questionnaires designed for clinical use: a systematic review. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(2):73-83. doi:10.1159/000160667

35.

My Family Health Portrait: a tool from the Surgeon General. Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed March 2020. https://phgkb.cdc.gov/FHH/html/index.html

36.

Does it run in the family? A family health history tool from Genetic Alliance. Take Charge of Your Health, Genetic Alliance. Accessed March 2020. http://familyhealthhistory.org/

37.

Murray

Giovanni

Klinger

, et al. Comparing electronic health record portals to obtain patient-entered family health history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(12):1558-1564. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2442-0

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB