Andrea Ward
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Andrea Ward has a total of 41 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ainsley Campbell
Clinical Genetics Service, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
1 shared publication - Alison H. Trainer
Department of Genomic Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
1 shared publication - Amy Clarke
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
1 shared publication - Anna Leaver
Clinical Genetics Service, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
1 shared publication - Asheeta Gupta
Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
1 shared publication - Benjamin Lazarus
Department of Nephrology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queensland, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 17 August 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Vol. 21 (11) , 1968-1980
Scaling up Genomics
Key Points: We evaluated a hub and spoke mainstreaming model to enable nephrologists to order genomic tests independently in their clinic across the state of Victoria. Over 1000 tests were ordered, with the diagnostic yield remaining similar regardless of ordered by local nephrologists or tertiary genomics services. A mainstreaming model proved feasible, scalable, and clinically effective, offering a practical framework for integrating genomics to routine kidney care. Background: Genomic testing has substantial diagnostic and clinical value in nephrology, yet integrating testing into routine care requires service-level changes to ensure timely and equitable access. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study at four tertiary centers, with a pragmatic, quasi-experimental design to evaluate evidence-informed, service-level interventions to make genomic testing more accessible and routinely embedded within nephrology practice. We implemented a hub and spoke model which provided nephrologists with training, practical resources, and regular case-based discussions, to support test ordering and interpretation within their own clinics. Laboratory audits (June 2021–July 2024) evaluated how public reimbursement and implementation interventions influenced testing patterns. Three periods were compared: prefunding, postfunding, and postintervention. Results: Across the study period, 1028 genomic tests were ordered (63% adults, 37% children; median age 32 years). Results were available for 1014 tests, with an overall diagnostic yield of 34%, which remained stable across all time points. The diagnostic yield was similar regardless of whether testing occurred at tertiary genomics services (249 of 772, 32%) or via local nephrologists (92 of 242, 38%). The number of unique providers ordering tests was higher (T1: 37, T2: 69, T3: 87). The proportion of testing in mainstream nephrology settings rose from 23% to 74%, while absolute testing numbers in multidisciplinary clinics remained consistent over the study period. Conclusion: Mainstreaming genomic testing in nephrology was feasible, scalable, and clinically effective. This model was associated with better access without compromising diagnostic yield and provides a practical framework for integrating genomic medicine into routine kidney care.
- 17 August 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Vol. 21 (11) , 1968-1980
Scaling up Genomics
Key Points: We evaluated a hub and spoke mainstreaming model to enable nephrologists to order genomic tests independently in their clinic across the state of Victoria. Over 1000 tests were ordered, with the diagnostic yield remaining similar regardless of ordered by local nephrologists or tertiary genomics services. A mainstreaming model proved feasible, scalable, and clinically effective, offering a practical framework for integrating genomics to routine kidney care. Background: Genomic testing has substantial diagnostic and clinical value in nephrology, yet integrating testing into routine care requires service-level changes to ensure timely and equitable access. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study at four tertiary centers, with a pragmatic, quasi-experimental design to evaluate evidence-informed, service-level interventions to make genomic testing more accessible and routinely embedded within nephrology practice. We implemented a hub and spoke model which provided nephrologists with training, practical resources, and regular case-based discussions, to support test ordering and interpretation within their own clinics. Laboratory audits (June 2021–July 2024) evaluated how public reimbursement and implementation interventions influenced testing patterns. Three periods were compared: prefunding, postfunding, and postintervention. Results: Across the study period, 1028 genomic tests were ordered (63% adults, 37% children; median age 32 years). Results were available for 1014 tests, with an overall diagnostic yield of 34%, which remained stable across all time points. The diagnostic yield was similar regardless of whether testing occurred at tertiary genomics services (249 of 772, 32%) or via local nephrologists (92 of 242, 38%). The number of unique providers ordering tests was higher (T1: 37, T2: 69, T3: 87). The proportion of testing in mainstream nephrology settings rose from 23% to 74%, while absolute testing numbers in multidisciplinary clinics remained consistent over the study period. Conclusion: Mainstreaming genomic testing in nephrology was feasible, scalable, and clinically effective. This model was associated with better access without compromising diagnostic yield and provides a practical framework for integrating genomic medicine into routine kidney care.