IMPACT webinars: Improving Patient Access to genetic Counselling and Testing using webinars-the Alberta experience with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Growing demand for genetic counselling and testing has created a need for innovative service delivery models to provide quality care in an efficient manner. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate a patient-facing webinar providing pre-test genetic counselling to individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A patient-facing webinar was developed and implemented between April 2019 and January 2021. It was evaluated using the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health framework, which considers the patient experience across the domains of effectiveness, appropriateness, acceptability, accessibility, and efficiency. The webinar group showed comparable scores to controls with regard to self-perceived knowledge and decisional conflict. The majority of patients reported that the webinar met their expectations and was an acceptable replacement for a 1:1 genetic counselling appointment. Finally, the webinar reduced genetic counsellor time to an average of 24 min per patient. Providing pre-test genetic counselling to index hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients via a group webinar has achieved a high quality of care, and optimized use of provider and space resources.

Anophthalmia and microphthalmia in the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: A higher than expected rate of anophthalmia/microphthalmia (A/M) for 1999 was noted in both the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (ACASS) and the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System (CCASS). Since this increase was at variance with the previous 19 years, we performed a review to determine whether the increase was true and, if so, the possible explanation. METHODS: We reviewed the records of the cases of A/M in the ACASS together with the accompanying attachments (e.g., consultant, autopsy and chromosome reports) for 1991-2001. In addition, we contacted all 91 registered ophthalmologists in Alberta. Letters were also written to the Edmonton and Calgary offices of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). RESULTS: Sixty cases of A/M were ascertained over the study period. Of the 88 active ophthalmologists in the province, 21 (24%) replied, but no new cases were ascertained from this source. No replies were received from the CNIB. We constructed five categories of clinical phenotypes for the 60 cases: 20 had a chromosomal etiology, 13 had a recognized syndrome or association, 16 had extraocular malformations, 5 had other eye anomalies, and 6 had A/M only. Pregnancy terminations were not included. The higher rate in 1999 was mainly due to cases with a chromosomal etiology or a recognized syndrome or association. There was no indication that a teratogen was causing a cluster of A/M cases, as our annual rates were comparable to those for other jurisdictions not only in Canada but also in other countries. INTERPRETATION: Our review confirmed that the rate of A/M in Alberta in 1999 was high but that the increase was mainly due to five cases of trisomy 13 together with one case associated with a syndrome (Meckel-Gruber). Our findings provide reassurance that there was no environmental cause of clustering of anophthalmia or microphthalmia. This review demonstrates the importance of ongoing population-based surveillance in providing baseline birth prevalence rates for evaluating trends and clusters.

Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice.

This study evaluated women's understanding of prenatal ultrasound in terms of meeting the requirements for informed choice. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate (1) how information is provided, (2) women's perceived value of the information received and, (3) their understanding of ultrasound in relation to the principles of informed choice. Women (n=113) completed a questionnaire prior to their 18-week ultrasound. Fifty-five percent stated they received no information from their care provider. Only 31.9% considered health care providers as a "very helpful" source of information. Yet, 69.0% stated their care provider gave them information that facilitated their understanding. Gaps were identified in women's understanding of ultrasound. Specifically, 46.0% did not view ultrasound as a screen for anomalies; some were uncertain about their safety (18.6%), diagnostic capabilities (26.5%), and limitations of testing (37.2%). These results suggest that women's understanding of ultrasound does not meet the requirements of informed choice.