Patient-facing digital tools for delivering genetic services: a systematic review.

This study systematically reviewed the literature on the impact of digital genetics tools on patient care and system efficiencies. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for articles published between January 2010 and March 2021. Studies evaluating the use of patient-facing digital tools in the context of genetic service delivery were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted patient-reported and system-focused outcomes from each study. Data were synthesised using a descriptive approach. Of 3226 unique studies identified, 87 were included. A total of 70 unique digital tools were identified. As a result of using digital tools, 84% of studies reported a positive outcome in at least one of the following patient outcomes: knowledge, psychosocial well-being, behavioural/management changes, family communication, decision-making or level of engagement. Digital tools improved workflow and efficiency for providers and reduced the amount of time they needed to spend with patients. However, we identified a misalignment between study purpose and patient-reported outcomes measured and a lack of tools that encompass the entire genetic counselling and testing trajectory. Given increased demand for genetic services and the shift towards virtual care, this review provides evidence that digital tools can be used to efficiently deliver patient-centred care. Future research should prioritise development, evaluation and implementation of digital tools that can support the entire patient trajectory across a range of clinical settings. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020202862.

Delivering Telegenetics Services: Review and Synthesis of Best Practices.

Introduction: Before the COVID-19 public health emergency, few genetics providers used telehealth. As a response to this, many genetics providers began conducting telehealth care, referred to as telegenetics, usually with guidance from their institutions but without specific guidance related to the uniqueness of genetic services. Objectives: The Telegenetics Workgroup of the National Coordinating Center for Regional Genetics Networks convened a panel of experts in the fields of telemedicine, genetics, and genomics to review the existing literature on telegenetics and synthesize best operating practices for medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and metabolic dietitians providing telegenetics services. Methods: The group searched PubMed using the terms "telegenetics," "telemedicine + genetics," and "telehealth + genetics." The group also reviewed the Northeast Telehealth Resource Center's telegenetics webliography. Websites were searched, including the American Telemedicine Association's website, Center for Connected Health Policy, and National Telehealth Resource Center for position statements, standards documents, and guidelines. The group met frequently by videoconference and discussed the literature, and using expert consensus, the group determined best practices in providing telegenetics services. Results: These telegenetics best practices cover important aspects of telegenetics services, including, but not limited to, ongoing delivery of telegenetics services, use of special technology, legal and regulatory requirements, and considerations regarding special settings and circumstances in which telegenetics may be conducted. Conclusions: Recognizing the growing use of telegenetics and a future in which telegenetics continues to be part of the regular practice of genetics, this guide informs genetics providers of best practices for delivering telegenetics services to patients.

Finding the sweet spot: a qualitative study exploring patients' acceptability of chatbots in genetic service delivery.

Chatbots, web-based artificial intelligence tools that simulate human conversation, are increasingly in use to support many areas of genomic medicine. However, patient preferences towards using chatbots across the range of clinical settings are unknown. We conducted a qualitative study with individuals who underwent genetic testing for themselves or their child. Participants were asked about their preferences for using a chatbot within the genetic testing journey. Thematic analysis employing interpretive description was used. We interviewed 30 participants (67% female, 50% 50 + years). Participants considered chatbots to be inefficient for very simple tasks (e.g., answering FAQs) or very complex tasks (e.g., explaining results). Chatbots were acceptable for moderately complex tasks where participants perceived a favorable return on their investment of time and energy. In addition to achieving this "sweet spot," participants anticipated that their comfort with chatbots would increase if the chatbot was used as a complement to but not a replacement for usual care. Participants wanted a "safety net" (i.e., access to a clinician) for needs not addressed by the chatbot. This study provides timely insights into patients' comfort with and perceived limitations of chatbots for genomic medicine and can inform their implementation in practice.

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) points to consider: resuming genetic services in a pandemic-a summary.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of genetic care in Canada. With the public health effort to flatten the curve, many clinics have moved to virtual care for select populations of patients while triaging and postponing others. As genetic services are asked to gradually resume, a roadmap is needed to ensure clinical care decisions for at-risk patients are transparent and equitable, that postponed care is resumed and that patients with or waiting for a genetic diagnosis are not disproportionately affected or abandoned.The purpose of this document is to highlight the guiding ethical principles and stakeholder considerations in resuming genetic services to help guide the competing needs going forward of both limiting exposures while maintaining high-quality care. Considerations highlighted are (1) environment of practice, (2) nature of consult, (3) patient factors, (4) provider factors, and (5) laboratory factors. The intended users are those providing genetic care in a Canadian context with the recognition that there are clinic-specific and regional variations that will influence decision-making. While specific to the Canadian context, the ethical principles used to guide these decisions would be relevant for consideration in other jurisdictions.

Stay at home: implementation and impact of virtualising cancer genetic services during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada's largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

Referral networks for pediatric patients with genetic conditions: The perspective of occupational therapists.

Families of children with developmental delays but no diagnosed genetic condition may benefit from connection to genetic systems of care. This work examines the role of occupational therapy as a space for families of pediatric patients to gain access to genetic services. Between September 2021 and February 2022, we interviewed 20 occupational therapists in New England who work primarily with pediatric patients. We transcribed the interviews and used a grounded theory approach to identify and code recurring themes. The data reveal several barriers to linking pediatric patients to genetic systems of care, including lack of insurance coverage, wait times for appointments and test results, hesitant primary care providers, and familial and cultural stigma of disability. We discuss the unique role of occupational therapists as professionals who spend substantial time with patients, often in their everyday environments, to bridge these barriers. We also address challenges associated with occupational therapists facilitating connections to genetics services, including their lack of specialized knowledge of genetics and barriers fully integrating with others on the medical team.

Measuring quality and value in genetic counseling: The current landscape and future directions.

Genetic counselors strive to provide high-quality genetic services. To do so, it is essential to define quality in genetic counseling and identify opportunities for improvement. This Professional Issues article provides an overview of the evaluation of healthcare quality in genetic counseling. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' Research, Quality, and Outcomes Committee partnered with Discern Health, a value-based healthcare policy consulting firm, to develop a care continuum model of genetic counseling. Using the proposed model, currently available quality measures relevant to genetic counseling in the US healthcare system were assessed, allowing for the identification of gaps and priority areas for further development. A total of 560 quality measures were identified that can be applied to various aspects of the care continuum model across a range of clinical specialty areas in genetic counseling, although few measures were specific to genetic counseling or genetic conditions. Areas where quality measures were lacking included: attitudes toward genetic testing, family communication, stigma, and issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We discuss these findings and other strategies for an evidence-based approach to quality in genetic counseling. Strategic directions for the genetic counseling profession should include a consolidated approach to research on quality and value of genetic counseling, development of quality metrics and patient-experience measures, and engagement with other improvement activities. These strategies will allow for benchmarking, performance improvement, and future implementation in accountability programs which will strengthen genetic counseling as a profession that provides evidence-based high-quality care to all patients.

Incorporating genetics services into adult kidney disease care.

Studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 adults with chronic kidney disease has a monogenic form of disease. However, genetic services in adult nephrology are limited. An adult Kidney Genetics Clinic was established within the nephrology division at a large urban academic medical center to increase access to genetic services and testing in adults with kidney disease. Between June 2019 and December 2021, a total of 363 patients were referred to the adult Kidney Genetics Clinic. Of those who completed genetic testing, a positive diagnostic finding was identified in 27.1%, a candidate diagnostic finding was identified in 6.7% of patients, and a nondiagnostic positive finding was identified in an additional 8.6% of patients, resulting in an overall yield of 42.4% for clinically relevant genetic findings in tested patients. A genetic diagnosis had implications for medical management, family member testing, and eligibility for clinical trials. With the utilization of telemedicine, genetic services reached a diverse geographic and patient population. Genetic education efforts were integral to the clinic's success, as they increased visibility and helped providers identify appropriate referrals. Ongoing access to genomic services will remain a fundamental component of patient care in adults with kidney disease.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: A multimethod study.

PURPOSE: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care. METHODS: PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out. RESULTS: In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies. CONCLUSION: eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice.

Evaluating a general pediatric/adult genetic counseling clinic in a Midwest medical center.

In 2018, the Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics & Rehabilitation (MMI) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha, NE created a genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to increase access to genetics services and decrease the time spent between a referral and being seen in a general genetics outpatient clinic. In the GCC, genetic counselors led patient encounters and geneticists served as advisors, rather than primary providers. We conducted a chart review of 109 patients seen in the GCC from November 1, 2018, to March 16, 2020, and obtained information regarding patient demographics, indications, and clinical recommendations as a result of the visit. Most patients seen in this clinic were female (65.1%) and aged 19 years of age or older (54.1%). The primary indications for patients in this clinic included review genetic test results (42.2%), coordination of genetic testing for a known familial variant (30.2%), and concerns for personal or family history suspicious of a genetic condition without dysmorphic features (24.8%). The average patient wait time between referral date and appointment date in the GCC was 49.8 days. The two most common clinical recommendations made by genetic counselors in the GCC were genetic testing (56.1%) and/or follow-up with specialist (26.5%). These specialists primarily included endocrinology (n = 5), neurology (n = 4), cardiology (n = 4), ophthalmology (n = 3), and audiology (n = 3). We found that the GCC model may be appropriate for patients with (1) genetic test results requiring interpretation, (2) a known familial variant or (3) genetic testing recommended by a specialist physician. Descriptions of the indications and recommendations for patients seen in this GCC provide a framework for potential implementation of a GCC in other regions across the nation.

The 2019 US medical genetics workforce: a focus on clinical genetics.

PURPOSE: This study characterizes the US clinical genetics workforce to inform workforce planning and public policy development. METHODS: A 32-question survey was electronically distributed to American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics board-certified/eligible diplomates in 2019. We conducted a descriptive analysis of responses from practicing clinical geneticists. RESULTS: Of the 491 clinical geneticists responding to the survey, a majority were female (59%) and White (79%), worked in academic medical centers (73%), and many engaged in telemedicine (33%). Clinical geneticists reported an average of 13 new and 10 follow-up patient visits per week. The average work week was 50 hours and the majority (58%) worked over half-time in clinical duties. Providers indicated that 39% of new emergency patients wait 3 days or more, and 39% of nonemergency patients wait over 3 months to be seen. Respondents were geographically concentrated in metropolitan areas and many reported unfilled clinical geneticist job vacancies at their institution of more than 3 years. CONCLUSION: With the rapid expansion of genomic medicine in the past decade, there is still a gap between genetics services needed and workforce capacity. A concerted effort is required to increase the number of clinical geneticists and enhance interdisciplinary teamwork to meet increasing patient needs.

Genetic counseling clinical documentation: Practice Resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Clinical documentation is an important extension of a genetic counseling encounter. The traditional types of clinical documentation include the clinical visit note (including follow-up visit note), letter to the referring physician, letter to the patient, and result summary to the patient and referring physician. Increasing patient volumes, new genetic counseling service delivery models, transition to electronic medical records (EMR), new specialty clinics in genetics, and advances in genetic testing technologies challenge the practice of writing multiple types of clinical documents. This practice resource (PR) seeks to provide best practices for U.S.-based genetic counselors to write efficient and comprehensive clinical documentation using a hybrid clinical document designed to facilitate communication between individual providers, providers, and patients/families, and providers and payers. The content of the hybrid clinical documentation will vary by genetic specialty but may include a summary of genetic services evaluation, genetic testing options and eligibility information, genetic test results, potential risks for genetic conditions, implications for family members, and medical management recommendations. An outline of a general hybrid document along with examples of hybrid clinic notes for three types of genetic counseling specialties is included in this document.

Under-referral of Plain community members for genetic services despite being qualified for genetic evaluation.

Plain community people (Amish and Mennonites) have increased risk of having recessive genetic disorders. This study was designed to assess the rate of referral of Plain people to genetic services at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. Medical records of Plain patients from a 1-year time period were reviewed. Data collected included demographic information, clinical presentation, referral for genetic services, and diagnosis. Of the 303 patients, 102 (33.7%) had a clinical presentation suggestive of a genetic disorder, yet only 32 of those 102 patients (31.4%) had been evaluated by the division of Medical Genetics. These data indicate that less than half of Plain patients with a clinical presentation suggestive of a genetic disorder had been referred to the division of Medical Genetics for a formal evaluation. Now that under-referral of Plain patients has been confirmed, providers can be educated in order to increase referrals for genetic services and facilitate positive healthcare outcomes for the Plain Community.

Parental attitudes regarding the need for genetic services in a pediatric brain tumor survivorship program.

Pediatric brain tumor survivorship populations have not been typically offered genetic services as part of routine care. Genetic services can be defined as family history collection, genetic risk assessment for a patient and family members, and coordination of genetic testing. Prior research has focused on the integration of genetic services in the general pediatric oncology survivorship population and found a need for these services to be implemented. Gathering a family history and providing a genetic risk assessment have previously been determined to be an integral step in determining if an individual's cancer was due to a hereditary predisposition. The purpose of this study was to examine parental attitudes regarding the need for genetic services in their child's pediatric brain tumor survivorship clinic. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents participating in the Brain STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) program at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. A grounded theory approach was used to code and analyze the results thematically. Five key themes were identified: participants' perceived benefits and barriers regarding receiving genetic services, desirable time for implementation of these services, relevance of family history, and their thoughts regarding reproductive risk. These results provide insight for genetics professionals regarding the need for genetic services in this population, and how to best implement them.

Genetics workforce: distribution of genetics services and challenges to health care in California.

PURPOSE: Access to genetics health-care services is often complicated by the distance to hospitals, workforce shortages, and insurance coverage. Despite technological advances and decreasing costs of genetic sequencing, the benefits of personalized medicine may be inaccessible to many patients. To assess potential disparities in care, we examined the genetics workforce in California and geographical issues that people encounter in seeking care. METHODS: Data on all board-certified genetics providers were analyzed including medical geneticists (MGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in California. To assess distance traveled for care, we computed the distance patients traveled for n = 288 visits to University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Genetics. We performed geographic optimization to minimize the distance to genetics providers. RESULTS: The provider-to-patient ratio in California is 1:330,000 for MGs, 1:100,000 for GCs, and 1:1,520,000 for biochemical MGs. Genetics providers are concentrated in major metropolitan areas in California. People travel up to 386 miles for genetics care within the state (mean = 76.6 miles). CONCLUSION: There are substantial geographic barriers to genetics care that could increase disparities. Our findings highlight a challenging genetics workforce shortage. The shortage may be even greater due to care subspecialization or lack of full-time equivalency and staffing. We are currently promoting efforts to increase remote health-care options, training, and modified models of care.

Regional models of genetic services in the United States.

PURPOSE: To outline structures for regional genetic services support centers that improve access to clinical genetic services. METHODS: A workgroup (WG) and advisory committee (AC) (1) conducted a comprehensive review of existing models for delivering health care through a regional infrastructure, especially for genetic conditions; (2) analyzed data from a needs assessment conducted by the National Coordinating Center (NCC) to determine important components of a regional genetic services support center; and (3) prioritized components of a regional genetic services support system. RESULTS: Analysis of identified priorities and existing regional systems led to development of eight models for regional genetic services support centers. A hybrid model was recommended that included an active role for patients and families, national data development and collection, promotion of efficient and quality genetic clinical practices, healthcare professional support for nongeneticists, and technical assistance to healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Given the challenges in improving access to genetic services, especially for underserved populations, regional models for genetic services support centers offer an opportunity to improve access to genetic services to local populations. Although a regional model can facilitate access, some systemic issues exist-e.g., distribution of a workforce trained in genetics-that regional genetic services support centers cannot resolve.

The changing face of clinical genetics service delivery in the era of genomics: a framework for monitoring service delivery and data from a comprehensive metropolitan general genetics service.

PURPOSE: Clinical genetics is an evolving specialty impacted by the availability of increasingly sophisticated investigational technologies. Methods for monitoring the changes in workload and workflow are necessary to ensure adequate service resourcing. METHODS: A literature search of known workload and workflow studies was completed, identifying metrics of value. A framework of metrics to allow consistent capture in clinical genetics practice was developed. This framework was then applied to local general genetics service data to evaluate recent changes in service delivery. RESULTS: Literature regarding service delivery metrics in clinical genetics services is limited and inconsistent in application. The metric framework generated is a useful tool for consistent and ongoing evaluation of general genetics services. Through application of the framework, new service delivery trends and significant changes in workload were identified. CONCLUSION: Studies of clinical genetics service delivery suffer from the use of inconsistent metrics. This framework will allow for monitoring of changes to service delivery, caseload volume, caseload complexity, and workforce over time. Local data presented demonstrate the significant effect that implementing clinical genomic sequencing has had on clinical service delivery. Applying this framework produces a comprehensive service characterization, enabling funding bodies to justify resourcing that addresses the growing demand of clinical genetics.

Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services.

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services-while limited-could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

Artificial intelligence in genetic services delivery: Utopia or apocalypse?

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have a long history, with increasing presence and potential in society and medicine. Much of the medical literature is highly optimistic about AI and machine learning, but fears also exist that healthcare professionals will be replaced by machines. AI remains mysterious for many practitioners, so this paper aims to unwind both hype and fear related to the technology for genetics professionals. After an historical introduction to AI in understandable and practical terms, we review its limitations. Building upon this foundation, we discuss current AI applications in medicine, including genomics and genetic counseling, offering grounded ideas about the impact and role of AI in genetic counseling and delivery of genetic services. Since AI is already being used in genomics today, now is the time to fundamentally understand what it is, how it is being used, what its limitations are, and how it will continue to be integrated into genetics as we look ahead.