Familial Cancer

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 205–212 | Cite as

Nurse-led cancer genetics clinics in primary and secondary care in varied ethnic population areas: interaction with primary care to improve ascertainment of individuals from ethnic minorities

  • Zohra Gulzar
  • Sheila Goff
  • Albert Njindou
  • Heather Hearty
  • Imran Rafi
  • Rosie Savage
  • Gaya Matta
  • Julie Ferras
  • Shirley Hodgson


Genetic services are receiving increasing numbers of referrals of people with a family history of cancer for assessment of genetic risk, and therefore need to find cost-effective ways of meeting this rising demand. General Practitioners (GPs) are known to be reluctant to take on genetic consultations. Current evidence suggests that black and ethnic minorities are poorly represented in cancer genetics clinics. Nurse-led clinics in primary care have been found to be successful. This paper reports a pilot study to test the feasibility, accessibility, and effectiveness of providing cancer genetics nurse-counsellor clinics in primary and secondary care in the SW Thames Region. We initially set up three nurse-led clinics in general practices and two in district hospitals with very different ethnic catchment areas. The service was advertised by displaying posters and leaflets, translated into different languages. Self-referrals were encouraged. We set up a user involvement sub-group and held two focus group meetings to assess barriers to, and satisfaction with, the service. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was designed and administered after the appointments. We also designed a GP satisfaction survey regarding the service. Data on referrals, including their source and outcome, were recorded on a purpose-designed study database. We received increasing numbers of referrals to all clinics over the course of the pilot. Of 137 referrals, 23 (17%) were from ethnic minorities, of whom 17/23 (74%) were self-referred, compared with 102 British White referrals, of whom 91/102 (89%) were self-referred. Sixty-two patients (45%) were assessed to be at population risk and reassured, 60 (44%) were at moderate risk, and 15 (11%) were at high risk and were referred on for appropriate management. These proportions were similar for black and ethnic minority patients. Most patients reported high satisfaction with the service.


Cancer susceptibility Screening Cancer Family history of cancer Risk assessment Black & ethnic minority Ethnicity Cancer genetics Patient satisfaction User involvement 



We are grateful to the Department of Health and Macmillan Cancer Support for funding this project. We are also very grateful to the patients and users of the service for their participation, and to the GPs and Consultant colleagues who participated in the project: Dr. I. Rafi, Dr. R. Savage.


  1. 1.
    Dunlop MG, Farrington SM, Carothers AD et al (1997) Cancer risk associated with germline DNA mismatch repair gene mutations. Hum Mol Genet 6:105–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harper P, Department of Health (1996) Genetics and Cancer Services. Public Health Genetics Unit http://www.phgu.org.uk/info_database/diseases/cancer/genetics_cancer_services.html. Cited 4 Jan 2007Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodgson SV, Haites NE, Caligo M et al (2000) A survey of the current clinical facilities for the management of familial cancer in Europe. European Union BIOMED II Demonstration Project: Familial Breast Cancer: audit of a new development in medical practice in European centres. J Med Genet 37(8):605–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health (2000) NHS Cancer Plan. A plan for investment, a plan for reform. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/73/90/04057390.pdf. Cited 4 Jan 2007Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta P, Saggar AK (2005) Ethnicity, equity and access to genetic services—the UK perspective. Ann Hum Biol 32:204–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraser L, Bramald S, Chapman C et al (2003) What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic? Fam Cancer 2:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wonderling D, Hopwood P, Cull A et al (2001) A descriptive study of UK cancer genetics services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics. Br J Cancer 85:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall MJ, Olopade Ol (2006) Disparities in genetic testing: thinking outside the BRCA box. J Clin Oncol 24:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A et al (2005) Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 293:1729–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darr A (1999) Access to genetic services by minority ethnic populations: a pilot study. Genetic Interest Group. p 1–21Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray-Garcia JL, Selby JV, Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Queensberry CP Jr (2000) Racial and ethnic differences in a patient survey: patients’ values, ratings, and reports regarding physician primary care performance in a large health maintenance organization. Med Care 38(3):300–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lodge N (2001) The identified needs of ethnic minority groups with cancer within the community: a review of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care 10(4):234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar S, Gantley M (1999) Tensions between policy makers and general practitioners in implementing new genetics: grounded theory interview study. BMJ 319:1410–1413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elwyn G, Gray J, Iredale R (2000) Tensions in implementing the new genetics. General practitioners in South Wales are unconvinced of their role in genetics services. BMJ 321:240–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shickle D, Hapgood R, Qureshi N (2002) The genetics liaison nurse role as a means of education and supporting primary care professionals. Fam Pract 19:193–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torrance N, Mollison J, Wordsworth S et al (2006) Genetic nurse counselors can be an acceptable and cost-effective alternative to clinical geneticists for breast cancer risk genetic counseling. Evidence from two parallel randomised controlled equivalence trials. Br J Cancer 95(4):435–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Westwood G, Pickering RM, Latter S et al (2006) Feasibility and acceptability of providing nurse counsellor genetics clinics in primary care. J Adv Nurs 53:591–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinnersley P, Anderson E, Parry K, Clement J, Archard L, Turton P et al (2000) Randomised controlled trial of nurse practitioner versus general practitioner care for patients requesting “same day” consultations in primary care. BMJ 320:1043–1048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holloway S et al (2004) Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetics services in south-east Scotland. Br J Cancer 90:582–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks S, Anderson E, Salisbury C (2002) Systematic review of whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provide equivalent care to doctors. BMJ 324:819–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carroll JC, Brown JB, Blaine S et al (2003) Genetic susceptibility to cancer. Family physicians’ experience. Can Fam Physician 49:45–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eaton L (2002) GPs refer too many women for genetic tests. BMJ 324:67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedman LC, Plon SE, Cooper HP, Weinberg AD (1997) Cancer genetics—survey of primary care physicians’ attitudes and practices. J Cancer Educ 12:199–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hayflick SJ, Eiff MP (1998) Role of primary care providers in the delivery of genetics services. Community Genet 1:18–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suchard MA, Yudkin P, Sinsheimer JS, Fowler GH (1999) General practitioners’ views on genetic screening for common diseases. Br J Gen Pract 40:45–46Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, Weeks JC (2000) Life expectance gains from cancer prevention strategies for women with breast cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. JAMA 283:617–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moller P (2006) Estimated prevalence of hereditary cancers and the need for surveillance in a Norwegian county, Telemark. Scand J Gastroenterol 41(1):71–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Emery J, Watson E, Rose P, Andermann A (1999) A systematic review of the literature exploring the role of primary care in genetics services. Fam Pract 16:426–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Campbell H, Holloway S, Cetnarskyj R, Anderson E, Rush R, Fry A et al (2004) Referrals of women with a family history of breast cancer from primary care to cancer genetics services in south east Scotland. Br J Cancer 90:582–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Emery J, Hayflick S (2001) The challenge of integrating genetic medicine into primary care. BMJ 322:1027–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cull A, Anderson EDC, Campbell S et al (1999) The impact of genetic counseling about breast cancer risk on women’s risk perceptions and levels of distress. Br J Cancer 79:501–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evans DG, Blair V, Greenhalgh R (1994) The impact of genetic counseling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 70:934–938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B et al (1995) Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:286–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lynch HT, Follett KL, Lynch PM et al (1979) Family history in an oncology clinic. JAMA 242:1268–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mundinger MO, Kane RL, Lenz ER et al (2000) Primary care outcomes in patients treated by nurse practitioners or physicians: a randomized trial. JAMA 283:59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stopfer JE (2000) Genetic counseling and clinical cancer genetics services. Semin Surg Oncol 18:347–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Watson M, Lloyd S, Davidson J (1999) The impact of genetic counseling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 79:868–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Women’s Concerns Study Group (2001) Raising concerns about family history of breast cancer in primary care consultations: prospective, population based study. BMJ 322:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, Turnbull N, Bahar N, Barclay M, Easton D, Emery J, Gray J, Halpin J, Hopwood P, McKay J, Sheppard C, Sibbering M, Watson W, Wailoo A, Hutchinson A (2004; updated 2006) Clinical guidelines and evidence review for the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer, London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care/University of Sheffield. NICE guideline CG014. www.nice.org.ukGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zohra Gulzar
    • 1
  • Sheila Goff
    • 1
  • Albert Njindou
    • 2
  • Heather Hearty
    • 1
  • Imran Rafi
    • 1
  • Rosie Savage
    • 3
  • Gaya Matta
    • 4
  • Julie Ferras
    • 1
  • Shirley Hodgson
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Genetics Department, St. George’s Hospital Medical SchoolSt. George’s Hospital NHS Trust, South West Thames Regional Genetics ServiceLondonUK
  2. 2.N.W. Thames Regional Genetics CentreHarrowUK
  3. 3.Falcon Road Medical PracticeLondonUK
  4. 4.N.E. Thames Regional Genetics Centre, Institute of Child HealthLondonUK

Personalised recommendations