Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Kenneth D. Levy is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Kenneth D. Levy.


BMC Medical Genomics | 2015

The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research

Kristin Weitzel; Madeline Alexander; Barbara A. Bernhardt; Neil S. Calman; David J. Carey; Larisa H. Cavallari; Julie R. Field; Diane Hauser; Heather A. Junkins; Phillip A. Levin; Kenneth D. Levy; Ebony Madden; Teri A. Manolio; Jacqueline Odgis; Lori A. Orlando; Reed E. Pyeritz; R. Ryanne Wu; Alan R. Shuldiner; Erwin P. Bottinger; Joshua C. Denny; Paul R. Dexter; David A. Flockhart; Carol R. Horowitz; Julie A. Johnson; Stephen E. Kimmel; Mia A. Levy; Toni I. Pollin; Geoffrey S. Ginsburg

BackgroundPatients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility.MethodsTo address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches.ResultsThis paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years.ConclusionsThe IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.


Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics | 2014

Prerequisites to implementing a pharmacogenomics program in a large health-care system

Kenneth D. Levy; Brian S. Decker; Janet S. Carpenter; David A. Flockhart; Paul R. Dexter; Zeruesenay Desta; Todd C. Skaar

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) technology is advancing rapidly; however, clinical adoption is lagging. The Indiana Institute of Personalized Medicine (IIPM) places a strong focus on translating PGx research into clinical practice. We describe what have been found to be the key requirements that must be delivered in order to ensure a successful and enduring PGx implementation within a large health‐care system.


Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics | 2016

Implementation of a pharmacogenomics consult service to support the INGENIOUS trial

Michael T. Eadon; Zeruesenay Desta; Kenneth D. Levy; Brian S. Decker; Rc Pierson; Victoria M. Pratt; J T Callaghan; Marc B. Rosenman; Janet S. Carpenter; Ann M. Holmes; Ca McDonald; Eric A. Benson; As Patil; Raj Vuppalanchi; Brandon T. Gufford; N. Dave; Jd Robarge; Ma Hyder; Dm Haas; Rolf P. Kreutz; Paul R. Dexter; Todd C. Skaar; David A. Flockhart

Hospital systems increasingly utilize pharmacogenomic testing to inform clinical prescribing. Successful implementation efforts have been modeled at many academic centers. In contrast, this report provides insights into the formation of a pharmacogenomics consultation service at a safety‐net hospital, which predominantly serves low‐income, uninsured, and vulnerable populations. The report describes the INdiana GENomics Implementation: an Opportunity for the UnderServed (INGENIOUS) trial and addresses concerns of adjudication, credentialing, and funding.


BMC Medical Genomics | 2017

Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network

Nina R. Sperber; Janet S. Carpenter; Larisa H. Cavallari; Laura J. Damschroder; Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff; Joshua C. Denny; Geoffrey S. Ginsburg; Yue Guan; Carol R. Horowitz; Kenneth D. Levy; Mia A. Levy; Ebony Madden; Michael E. Matheny; Toni I. Pollin; Victoria M. Pratt; Marc B. Rosenman; Corrine I. Voils; Kristen W. Weitzel; Russell A. Wilke; R. Ryanne Wu; Lori A. Orlando

BackgroundTo realize potential public health benefits from genetic and genomic innovations, understanding how best to implement the innovations into clinical care is important. The objective of this study was to synthesize data on challenges identified by six diverse projects that are part of a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded network focused on implementing genomics into practice and strategies to overcome these challenges.MethodsWe used a multiple-case study approach with each project considered as a case and qualitative methods to elicit and describe themes related to implementation challenges and strategies. We describe challenges and strategies in an implementation framework and typology to enable consistent definitions and cross-case comparisons. Strategies were linked to challenges based on expert review and shared themes.ResultsThree challenges were identified by all six projects, and strategies to address these challenges varied across the projects. One common challenge was to increase the relative priority of integrating genomics within the health system electronic health record (EHR). Four projects used data warehousing techniques to accomplish the integration. The second common challenge was to strengthen clinicians’ knowledge and beliefs about genomic medicine. To overcome this challenge, all projects developed educational materials and conducted meetings and outreach focused on genomic education for clinicians. The third challenge was engaging patients in the genomic medicine projects. Strategies to overcome this challenge included use of mass media to spread the word, actively involving patients in implementation (e.g., a patient advisory board), and preparing patients to be active participants in their healthcare decisions.ConclusionsThis is the first collaborative evaluation focusing on the description of genomic medicine innovations implemented in multiple real-world clinical settings. Findings suggest that strategies to facilitate integration of genomic data within existing EHRs and educate stakeholders about the value of genomic services are considered important for effective implementation. Future work could build on these findings to evaluate which strategies are optimal under what conditions. This information will be useful for guiding translation of discoveries to clinical care, which, in turn, can provide data to inform continual improvement of genomic innovations and their applications.


Sage Open Medicine | 2016

Pharmacogenomically actionable medications in a safety net health care system

Janet S. Carpenter; Marc B. Rosenman; Mitchell R. Knisely; Brian S. Decker; Kenneth D. Levy; David A. Flockhart

Objective: Prior to implementing a trial to evaluate the economic costs and clinical outcomes of pharmacogenetic testing in a large safety net health care system, we determined the number of patients taking targeted medications and their clinical care encounter sites. Methods: Using 1-year electronic medical record data, we evaluated the number of patients who had started one or more of 30 known pharmacogenomically actionable medications and the number of care encounter sites the patients had visited. Results: Results showed 7039 unique patients who started one or more of the target medications within a 12-month period with visits to 73 care sites within the system. Conclusion: Findings suggest that the type of large-scale, multi-drug, multi-gene approach to pharmacogenetic testing we are planning is widely relevant, and successful implementation will require wide-scale education of prescribers and other personnel involved in medication dispensing and handling.


Value in Health | 2017

Lessons Learned When Introducing Pharmacogenomic Panel Testing into Clinical Practice

Marc B. Rosenman; Brian S. Decker; Kenneth D. Levy; Ann M. Holmes; Victoria M. Pratt; Michael T. Eadon

OBJECTIVES Implementing new programs to support precision medicine in clinical settings is a complex endeavor. We describe challenges and potential solutions based on the Indiana GENomics Implementation: an Opportunity for the Underserved (INGenious) program at Eskenazi Health-one of six sites supported by the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE network grant of the National Institutes of Health/National Human Genome Research Institute. INGenious is an implementation of a panel of genomic tests. METHODS We conducted a descriptive case study of the implementation of this pharmacogenomics program, which has a wide scope (14 genes, 27 medications) and a diverse population (patients who often have multiple chronic illnesses, in a large urban safety-net hospital and its outpatient clinics). CHALLENGES We placed the clinical pharmacogenomics implementation challenges into six categories: patient education and engagement in care decision making; clinician education and changes in standards of care; integration of technology into electronic health record systems; translational and implementation sciences in real-world clinical environments; regulatory and reimbursement considerations, and challenges in measuring outcomes. A cross-cutting theme was the need for careful attention to workflow. Our clinical setting, a safety-net health care system, presented some distinctive challenges. Patients often had multiple chronic illnesses and sometimes were taking more than one pharmacogenomics-relevant medication. Reaching patients for recruitment or follow-up was another challenge. CONCLUSIONS New, large-scale endeavors in health care are challenging. A description of the challenges that we encountered and the approaches that we adopted to address them may provide insights for those who implement and study innovations in other health care systems.


Genetics in Medicine | 2018

Developing a common framework for evaluating the implementation of genomic medicine interventions in clinical care: the IGNITE Network’s Common Measures Working Group

Lori A. Orlando; Nina R. Sperber; Corrine I. Voils; Marshall Nichols; Rachel A. Myers; R. Ryanne Wu; Tejinder Rakhra-Burris; Kenneth D. Levy; Mia A. Levy; Toni I. Pollin; Yue Guan; Carol R. Horowitz; Michelle A. Ramos; Stephen E. Kimmel; Caitrin W. McDonough; Ebony Madden; Laura J. Damschroder

PurposeImplementation research provides a structure for evaluating the clinical integration of genomic medicine interventions. This paper describes the Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) Network’s efforts to promote (i) a broader understanding of genomic medicine implementation research and (ii) the sharing of knowledge generated in the network.MethodsTo facilitate this goal, the IGNITE Network Common Measures Working Group (CMG) members adopted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide its approach to identifying constructs and measures relevant to evaluating genomic medicine as a whole, standardizing data collection across projects, and combining data in a centralized resource for cross-network analyses.ResultsCMG identified 10 high-priority CFIR constructs as important for genomic medicine. Of those, eight did not have standardized measurement instruments. Therefore, we developed four survey tools to address this gap. In addition, we identified seven high-priority constructs related to patients, families, and communities that did not map to CFIR constructs. Both sets of constructs were combined to create a draft genomic medicine implementation model.ConclusionWe developed processes to identify constructs deemed valuable for genomic medicine implementation and codified them in a model. These resources are freely available to facilitate knowledge generation and sharing across the field.


Genetics in Medicine | 2018

Opportunities to implement a sustainable genomic medicine program: lessons learned from the IGNITE Network

Kenneth D. Levy; Kathryn Blake; Colette Fletcher-Hoppe; James P. Franciosi; Diasuke Goto; James K. Hicks; Ann M. Holmes; Sri H. Kanuri; Ebony Madden; Michael Musty; Lori A. Orlando; Victoria M. Pratt; Michelle A. Ramos; R. Ryanne Wu; Geoffrey S. Ginsburg

PurposeWhile there is growing scientific evidence for and significant advances in the use of genomic technologies in medicine, there is a significant lag in the clinical adoption and sustainability of genomic medicine. Here we describe the findings from the National Human Genome Research Institute’s (NHGRI) Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network in identifying key constructs, opportunities, and challenges associated with driving sustainability of genomic medicine in clinical practice.MethodsNetwork members and affiliates were surveyed to identify key drivers associated with implementing and sustaining a genomic medicine program. Tallied results were used to develop and weigh key constructs/drivers required to support sustainability of genomic medicine programs.ResultsThe top three driver–stakeholder dyads were (1) genomic training for providers, (2) genomic clinical decision support (CDS) tools embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), and (3) third party reimbursement for genomic testing.ConclusionPriorities may differ depending on healthcare systems when comparing the current state of key drivers versus projected needs for supporting genomic medicine sustainability. Thus we provide gap-filling guidance based on IGNITE members’ experiences. Although results are limited to findings from the IGNITE network, their implementation, scientific, and clinical experience may be used as a road map by others considering implementing genomic medicine programs.


Journal of Personalized Medicine | 2018

Physician-Reported Benefits and Barriers to Clinical Implementation of Genomic Medicine: A Multi-Site IGNITE-Network Survey

Aniwaa Owusu Obeng; Kezhen Fei; Kenneth D. Levy; Amanda R. Elsey; Toni I. Pollin; Andrea Ramirez; Kristin Weitzel; Carol R. Horowitz

Genetic medicine is one of the key components of personalized medicine, but adoption in clinical practice is still limited. To understand potential barriers and provider attitudes, we surveyed 285 physicians from five Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) sites about their perceptions as to the clinical utility of genetic data as well as their preparedness to integrate it into practice. These responses were also analyzed in comparison to the type of study occurring at the physicians’ institution (pharmacogenetics versus disease genetics). The majority believed that genetic testing is clinically useful; however, only a third believed that they had obtained adequate training to care for genetically “high-risk” patients. Physicians involved in pharmacogenetics initiatives were more favorable towards genetic testing applications; they found it to be clinically useful and felt more prepared and confident in their abilities to adopt it into their practice in comparison to those participating in disease genetics initiatives. These results suggest that investigators should explore which attributes of clinical pharmacogenetics (such as the use of simplified genetics-guided recommendations) can be implemented to improve attitudes and preparedness to implement disease genetics in care. Most physicians felt unprepared to use genetic information in their practice; accordingly, major steps should be taken to develop effective clinical tools and training strategies for physicians.


The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics | 2015

Report of New Haplotype for ABCC2 Gene: rs17222723 and rs8187718 in cis

Victoria M. Pratt; Brittany N. Beyer; Daniel L. Koller; Todd C. Skaar; David A. Flockhart; Kenneth D. Levy; Gail H. Vance

Collaboration


Dive into the Kenneth D. Levy's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Carol R. Horowitz

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ebony Madden

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge