Survey of patient satisfaction with genetic counseling services in Korea

Since the 1990s, genetic clinics have been established in South Korea, enabling the provision of clinical genetics services. However, genetic counseling services are not widely used in the medical system. In contrast, recently, the demand for genetic counseling has increased due to the rapid development of genomic medicine. Therefore, it is important for medical geneticists and genetic counselors to collaboratively provide genetic counseling services. This study aimed to evaluate the perception and satisfaction of patients with rare genetic diseases and their families regarding genetic counseling services provided by a genetics team at the medical genetics center of a tertiary general hospital for rare genetic diseases. From April to November 2021, a survey was conducted with 203 individuals, including 111 and 92 individuals in the patient and family groups, respectively. Overall, 164 individuals (80.8%) responded that they were aware of genetic counseling services, and 135 individuals (66.5%) responded that they were aware of the role of genetic counselors. Patients and their families wanted to receive information about the following from genetic counseling: clinical manifestation and prognosis of the diagnosed disease (78.8%), treatment and management of the disease (60.6%), risk of recurrence within the family (55.7%), treatment options and alternatives for family and prenatal testing, and various support services. The score of satisfaction with genetic counseling services provided by the genetics team was 8.19 ± 1.68 out of 10. Patients with rare genetic diseases and their families were satisfied with genetic counseling services regarding their diseases, test results, and treatment options. Moreover, the patients could receive psychosocial support and referrals to other medical service providers and support services. As a genetic team approach, collaboration between medical geneticists and certified genetic counselors would be useful in providing information and in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients.

Refining the activities of genetic assistants: Development of task statements applicable across practice settings

Although genetic (counseling) assistants (GAs) have been implemented in many institutions, their roles vary widely. Therefore, this study aimed to refine our knowledge of GA tasks across work settings and specialties. Tasks performed by GAs were extracted from peer-reviewed articles, publicly available theses, and job postings, then analyzed using directed content analysis. Briefly, task statements were coded using broad categories from previous studies, with new categories added as emergent. Coded tasks were combined and condensed to produce a final task list, which was reviewed by subject matter experts. Sixty-one task statements were extracted from previous studies and 335 task statements were extracted from job descriptions. Directed content analysis produced a list of 40 unique tasks under 10 categories (8 from original research and 2 from the data). This study design resulted in a refined list of GA tasks that may be applicable across work settings and specialties, which is an essential step towards defining the scope of GA work. Beyond the human resource applications of the refined task list, this work may also benefit genetics services by reducing role overlap, improving efficiencies, improving employee satisfaction, and informing the development/improvement of training and other educational materials.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Further defining the roles and impact of genetic counselors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry

As personalized medicine has gained traction, drug development models in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry (BPI) have increasingly sought to address medical conditions with a genetic component, creating an opportunity for genetic counselors (GCs) to fill new roles and utilize their unique training to contribute to drug development. Despite the potential for GCs in BPI, literature around the role of GCs in this industry has been limited. Our mixed methods study aimed to assess how the roles of GCs in BPI have evolved since 2016, investigate the value of and opportunity for GCs in this industry, and further characterize their motivation and job satisfaction. Participants were recruited via social media advertising, snowball sampling, and email listservs from the National Society of Genetic Counseling (NSGC), the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors (CAGC), and the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC). Survey (n = 20) and interview (n = 6) data indicates many aspects of GC roles in BPI are consistent with the 2016 study. However, there is evidence of roles becoming more varied and with increasing recognition of the value of GCs, opportunities for involvement in BPI are growing. Furthermore, combined study data found that GCs are motivated by the flexibility of BPI roles as well as the opportunity to contribute to rare disease treatment development and that they are overall satisfied with most aspects of their jobs. Interview data also found that genetic counseling training has the potential to improve clinical trial design and outcomes by making drug development more patient-centric. Finally, combined study data found that while GCs continue to utilize Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling (ACGC) practice-based competencies (PBCs), business-related training may benefit GCs seeking to enter BPI. Together, these findings are critical for informing genetic counseling training programs, employers within BPI, and GCs interested in entering these positions.

Perspectives of genetic counseling supervisors regarding genetic counseling students' attainment of practice-based competencies in clinical care through remote supervision

There are limited studies regarding the attainment of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling Practice-Based Competencies by genetic counseling students who complete clinical rotations in an in-person setting versus in a remote setting that incudes telephone and/or video patient encounters. This study explored the perceptions of 17 patient-facing genetic counselors who had served as supervisors for genetic counseling students regarding student attainment of practice-based competencies in in-person compared to remote rotations. Participants were recruited through an American Board of Genetic Counseling eblast and were required to have at least 2 years of clinical experience and experience providing genetic counseling supervision for at least one in-person rotation and one remote rotation. Four focus groups were created comprising genetic counselors from various practice disciplines. Discussion focused on potential differences and similarities in supervisor perceptions of student attainment of each clinical practice-based competency, and whether there were any concerns about students being able to attain each competency in remote rotations. Overall, participants discussed that genetic counseling students' attainment of clinical competencies through remote rotations was comparable to in-person rotations; however, 15 themes were identified illustrating differences reported by participants in how they observed these skills being performed by students in in-person versus remote clinical settings. The findings of this study highlight important considerations when developing a remote rotation, as well as ways in which certain clinical skills may be further enhanced through a combination of both in-person and remote clinical experiences. A noted limitation of remote rotations is that students have less of an opportunity to interact with other providers, and so may require other opportunities for interprofessionalism and to understand their role as part of a larger organization. Further study is required to elucidate differences between telephone and video clinics, as well as potential differences pertaining to various specialty areas of practice.

Incorporating telehealth education into the genetic counseling curriculum

As the provision of telehealth genetic counseling (THGC) services continues to expand, it is imperative that genetic counseling students gain proficiency in telehealth service delivery. To prepare students to provide THGC services, the MSGC program at the University of Pennsylvania has included didactic sessions on THGC, THGC role plays, THGC standardized patient sessions, and THGC fieldwork experiences and clinical rotations. This article highlights best practices in THGC and guidance for Master of Science in Genetic Counseling (MSGC) programs training the next generation of genetic counselors providing THGC services.

Current state and conceptual framework of assistive technology provision in Saudi Arabia

PURPOSE

Assistive Technology (AT) devices provide essential means of mobility, employment, communication, social engagement for older adults and people with different disabilities, if prescribed correctly to match users' needs and goals. Regardless of the setting or location, a successful AT service delivery model includes the multidisciplinary collaboration of the people with disabilities and the specialists who have knowledge and expertise in the design and application of AT. In Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, the availability of AT devices is mainly limited to basic mobility and daily living aids such as wheelchairs and seating systems, prosthetics and orthotics, communication devices, low-vision devices, and adapted transportation equipment. The aim of this perspective is to provide clinicians and healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia with a model for the optimisation of the provision of AT devices decision making regarding AT devices for people with disabilities by adhering to a user-centered team approach throughout the service delivery process.

METHOD

The policy, human, activity, assistance, technology, and environment (PHAATE) model is used as a conceptual framework and guideline for this paper.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The PHAATE components could serve as a guideline for a wide range of stakeholders in Saudi Arabia (e.g., researchers, product developers, practitioners, clinicians, third-party reimbursement entities, consumers, and educators) when developing service delivery systems.IMPLICATION FOR REHABILITATIONDespite the support and funding resources of AT devices by the Saudi government, there is still the needs to increase awareness and knowledge about AT application and services, as well as optimal service delivery models of AT devices.AT service delivery provision models such as PHAATE model may help clinicians and other medical professionals in Saudi Arabia to make informed decisions about the provision of AT device services.

Implementation of a dedicated cascade testing clinic for patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes

Cascade testing, the site-specific genetic testing of relatives within families with an inherited condition, is underutilized. Long wait times for appointments in specialty genetics clinics are a known barrier to genetic testing access. In our cancer genetics, New Patient Clinic (NPC), the long wait time for an appointment (on average 5 months for routine referrals), was identified by both providers and patients as a barrier to uptake of cascade testing. Timely testing of at-risk relatives is essential to maximize the benefits of cascade testing and reduce cancer morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to improve access via implementation of a different clinical model that designated appointments for patients seeking cascade testing. A secondary goal was to improve use of genetic counselor time. We implemented a dedicated Cascade Testing Clinic (CTC) with an expedited triaging and unique scheduling model to decrease patient wait time to appointment and optimize clinician time. We report on the process and outcomes here. Between October 2016 and February 2020, the average wait time between referral date and first scheduled appointment date was 46 days for the CTC compared to 144 days for the NPC (p < 0.0001). No-show/cancelation/rescheduling rate was 11.7% in the CTC compared to 29.7% in the NPC (p < 0.0001). Genetic counselors saw approximately twice as many patients per half-day clinic in the CTC compared to the NPC (p < 0.00001). Modifications to clinic staffing and appointment times were made based on provider feedback. Implementation of a dedicated clinic specifically for patients seeking cascade testing significantly shortened wait times for this population, reduced patient drop-off, and improved clinician efficiency. The relatively straightforward indications and generally uncomplicated medical histories made this an ideal population for expedited appointments.

Genetic counseling clinic model expansion: Impact on access for general genetics clinic

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) implemented a Genetic Counseling Clinic (GCC), where the appointment for a general genetics indication is conducted solely by a genetic counselor (GC). We conducted a retrospective chart review of 211 patient encounters scheduled in the GCC between January 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 and collected patient demographics, wait time, appointment characteristics, referral indication, and clinical recommendations. To study impact on patient access, we compared patient demographics and appointment characteristics with 912 patient encounters scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic with a geneticist during the same time period. We found that there were not significant differences in patient demographics scheduled in the GCC as compared with the General Genetics Clinic with the exception of insurance type, where patients scheduled in the GCC were more likely to have private insurance. Patients scheduled in the GCC had a significantly shorter wait time, were more likely to complete their appointment, were more often new to the genetics division, and were more likely to be seen via telehealth (audio plus video or audio-only) as compared with patients scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic. The most common indications for patients scheduled in the GCC were post-test counseling (36.0%) followed by pre-test counseling and coordination of testing (22.3%), and first-line testing for autism, intellectual disability, and developmental delay (13.7%). Completed appointments in the GCC often resulted in the GC ordering genetic testing (67.5%). After genetic testing results were received, most patients (72.7%) did not require subsequent follow-up with the genetics division, thereby reducing burden to the medical genetics team. Our GCC increased access to genetic services and allowed GCs and clinical geneticists to better work at the top of their scope of practice.

Perceived barriers, recommendations, and resources for multistate licensure in the United States: A mixed-methods study of laboratory genetic counselors

With genetic counselor licensure now available in 32 states, the number of laboratory genetic counselors (LGCs) who are required to be licensed in multiple states has risen substantially. Although previous studies have documented the complexity of the multistate licensing (MSL) process, there has been little research on the experiences of LGCs applying for and maintaining licensure. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived barriers, recommendations, and resources for LGCs pursuing MSL. A 15-item mixed-methods, anonymous questionnaire was used to survey genetic counselors currently or formerly employed by genetic testing laboratories. Responses were analyzed with a combination of descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis. Of the 150 eligible participants who completed the survey, the majority worked at a commercial, non-academic laboratory (84%, n = 126), had 1-4 years of laboratory genetic counseling experience (54%, n = 81), held non-patient-facing roles (65%, n = 97), and were required by their employer to hold licensure in at least one state (73%, n = 110). Most participants (86%, n = 129) felt there were barriers to MSL for LGCs, with three emergent themes: (1) resource burden, (2) complexity, and (3) legislative ambiguity. Participants described the current MSL process as tedious, cumbersome, confusing, overwhelming, and redundant. Several shared that the current licensing system undermines the intent to improve the status of the profession and actually negatively impacts patient care. Recommendations to improve MSL included overall process enhancements, like transitioning to online systems and a single central information repository for licensees, increased professional advocacy, and investing in collaborative pathways to licensure such as interstate compacts. Participants found national genetic counseling organizations, state-based genetic counseling organizations, and genetic counseling colleagues to be the most helpful resources for understanding licensure law and where to apply for licensure.

Preparedness and training of genetic counselors practicing in inpatient settings

As rapid genomic testing technology increasingly allows for real-time answers that could alter management for acutely ill patients, opportunities for genetic counselors to work in inpatient settings will increase. However, genetic counselors' preparedness and the training provided by graduate programs to work in inpatient settings are unknown. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 genetic counselors who provided services in varied inpatient settings to assess genetic counselors' readiness for inpatient positions. We also surveyed members of the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) about inpatient training practices of genetic counseling graduate programs. Genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Inpatient Special Interest Group listserv and graduate program faculty were recruited through the AGCPD listserv. Some challenges reported by genetic counselors in inpatient settings included working in a fast-paced hospital environment which necessitated focused interactions with patients; collaborating with diverse providers who may not understand the role of genetic counselors; and navigating grief experiences of families and of themselves as a provider. Although genetic counselors felt that many of their skills developed in graduate school were transferrable to the inpatient setting, those who had minimal or no inpatient exposure in graduate school often described feeling unprepared for working in the inpatient setting. The majority of AGCPD respondents (23/28) indicated their program provided some type of exposure to the inpatient setting for students, the most common (22/23) being an inpatient clinical rotation, which suggests many graduate programs are already recognizing the importance of providing inpatient training. Our findings indicate that while many skills are transferrable to inpatient positions, genetic counselors face unique challenges in inpatient settings. Our results suggest that graduate exposure to the inpatient setting and professional support of inpatient genetic counselors are beneficial to support genetic counselors' preparedness to take on inpatient positions.

Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives

There are many examples of remote technologies that are clinically effective and provide numerous benefits to adults with hearing loss. Despite this, the uptake of remote technologies for hearing healthcare has been both low and slow until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a key driver for change globally. The time is now right to take advantage of the many benefits that remote technologies offer, through clinical, consumer, or hybrid services and channels. These include greater access and choice, better interactivity and engagement, and tailoring of technologies to individual needs, leading to clients who are better informed, enabled, and empowered to self-manage their hearing loss. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence-base across a range of remote technologies along the hearing health journey. This includes qualitative, as well as quantitative, methods to ensure the end-users' voice is at the core of the research, thereby promoting person-centered principles. Most of these remote technologies are available and some are already in use, albeit not widespread. Finally, whenever new technologies or processes are implemented into services, be they clinical, hybrid, or consumer, careful consideration needs to be given to the required behavior change of the key people (e.g., clients and service providers) to facilitate and optimize implementation.

Something to chat about: An analysis of genetic counseling via asynchronous messaging following direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Advances in technology, decreasing cost of genetic testing, and growing public interest in genetics marked by an increased uptake of genetic testing, particularly direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT), have led to an overwhelming demand for genetic counseling services. As such, various alternative service delivery models have been proposed to increase access to genetic counseling. Some service delivery models, such as asynchronous messaging, remain unexplored in the genetic counseling literature. The purpose of this study was to assess communication during genetic counseling for DTC-GT through asynchronous messaging. A thematic analysis was conducted on 34 de-identified chat transcripts between genetic counselors and clients who underwent DTC-GT. Six categories of communication were identified and were grouped based on communication sources from either the client or the genetic counselor. Categories observed in client communication were motivations for seeking DTC testing and/or genetic counseling services, questions posed to the genetic counselor, responses provided during the session, and psychosocial aspects of the session related to the clients' mental, emotional, social, and spiritual needs. Categories of communication that emerged from the genetic counselors' communications were educational aspects of the session and counseling strategies to address concerns that are not related to educational or informational needs. Most clients had specific questions about variants detected or specific conditions. Many clients asked about appropriate subsequent steps related to additional testing or medical management. Genetic counselors discussed the limitations of DTC-GT and recommendations for clinical grade testing in almost all chat transcripts. In several chats, the genetic counselor provided advice to the client related to minimizing time sorting through likely benign results and refraining from altering medical management. Results suggest that genetic counselors are able to provide genetic information to clients and respond to their mental and emotional needs through asynchronous chat following DTC-GT. Findings from this study provide initial insight into a unique genetic counseling delivery model and reveal the informational and counseling needs of clients following DTC-GT.

Experience with a nurse-driven genetic counseling pathway of Italian women with uninformative BRCA test result

Several models of genetic counseling have been proposed to tackle the increasing volume of individuals requiring access to BRCA testing. Few data are available on patient experience and retention of information with nurse-driven genetic counseling. We evaluated the experience and retention of information in women with an uninformative BRCA test result and who were not considered at high risk due to their personal/family history of cancer who underwent geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling and who received their test result by phone. Women who received an uninformative BRCA test result between May 2017 and September 2019 were administered a questionnaire exploring experience with genetic counseling and retention of information provided. Of 366 eligible women, 299 (273 breast cancer patients and 26 women without breast cancer) completed the interview. Overall, 280 women (93.6%) positively valued their experience with genetic counseling and 287 (96.0%) considered it helpful with 57.5% of them feeling reassured for themselves and their family. Information on the clinical implications of the test result was correctly retained and women acted accordingly. Overall, 252 women (87.8%) accurately reported their test result as normal/negative. Only 67 (22.4%) recognized that despite a normal BRCA test result, a low probability of a hereditary syndrome remains. Most women showed a poor ability to estimate cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers and in the general population. Geneticist-supervised nurse-driven genetic counseling process for women with uninformative BRCA test result is associated with a positive patient experience and an adequate retention of information concerning the management of their personal and familial cancer risk. The design and implementation of nurse-driven genetic counseling models may contribute to efficient and timely access to BRCA genetic testing.

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.

Comparing cancer genetic counselling using telegenetics with in-person and telephone appointments: Results of a partially randomised patient-preference pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Direct-to-patient telegenetics, which uses video conferencing to connect health professionals directly to patients' devices, has been widely adopted during the pandemic. However, limited evidence currently supports its use in cancer genetic counselling.

METHODS

Before the pandemic, we conducted a two-arm partially randomised patient-preference pilot trial to evaluate direct-to-patient telegenetics for patients and genetic counsellors. Patients were randomised to a standard care (telephone/in-person) or direct-to-patient telegenetics appointment. Patients completed questionnaires before, during and after appointments measuring: psychological distress, perceived genetic counsellor empathy, telegenetics satisfaction and technical challenges. Genetic counsellor-reported outcomes -measured using purpose-designed questionnaires- included telegenetics satisfaction, therapeutic alliance and time for assessment. Open-ended patient and genetic counsellor questionnaire responses were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients and seven genetic counsellors participated. Thirteen patients switched appointment type. No significant differences in distress (P  =  0.84) were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care. Perceived genetic counsellor empathy was high for all appointment types. There was no evidence of differences in reported maximum empathy scores between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P  =  0.57); in-person (P  =  0.44)]. Patients reported high direct-to-patient telegenetics satisfaction despite technical challenges in most appointments (65%). Genetic counsellors were satisfied with direct-to-patient telegenetics and perceived high therapeutic alliance irrespective of appointment type. No significant differences in genetic counsellor time were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P > 0.90); in-person (P  =  0.35)].

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that direct-to-patient telegenetics is a satisfactory service delivery model that does not appear to compromise patient-genetic counsellor relationships or increase patient distress. These findings support direct-to-patient telegenetics use in cancer genetic counselling, although larger trials are needed.

A delivery service model for genetics: The use of a genetic counselor and nurse practitioner team for diagnosis and care in specific condition populations

Many genetic centers are developing innovative delivery models for services to address the growing need for access to genetics in the setting of a limited genetics-certified workforce. In the literature review, alternative service delivery models-including telehealth and genetic counselor involvement with nongenetics specialty providers-aim to increase efficiency, patient access, and provider satisfaction. This paper outlines a traditional model of pediatric care, with a workflow involving a geneticist and genetic counselor, from preclinic to follow-up. We then present a workflow model of a collaborative team consisting of a genetic counselor and nurse practitioner in condition-specific pediatric clinics. We break down factors influencing the successful implementation of this model, including patient selection, pre-established and adaptive clinic goals, and differentiation of roles of the providers. Potential barriers to generalization and the ongoing success of this clinic model include provider interest in genetics and the necessity for careful triaging by clinicians. Formalized analysis of these clinics has not been performed, though at the presented institution, this clinic model is recognized as an effective way to decrease wait times for patients referred for specific indications and creates an environment that allows providers to specialize, increasing their expertize and confidence in particular genetic areas.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

COVID-19 and the adaptive evolution of genetic counseling

Emerging diseases such as the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) have exposed severe weaknesses in the United States and global health. Healthcare systems have struggled and are still severely challenged and strained by this pandemic. It is clear that additional resources are needed to support healthcare providers in managing this and future pandemics. Genetic counselors can play an important supporting role in this fragile ecosystem because their comprehensive and broad training makes them uniquely qualified to meet many of the challenges that arise when healthcare workers and patients are faced with novel diseases. This paper describes the recent involvement of a telegenetic counseling company (Metis Genetics) in communicating and explaining COVID-19 serum antibody results to patients and physicians. This experience demonstrates how genetic counselors may be called upon to play a vital supporting role in the management of infectious disease pandemics. From May 2020 to July 2020, our genetic counseling telegenetics team was asked to provide support to more than 1,580 patients who underwent serum COVID-19 antibody testing and to educate their healthcare providers on the performance properties of this new test. The genetic counselors were able to utilize their expertise to convey test results, information on Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, COVID-19 fact-based evidence, to provide psychological support and reassurance to patients, and to respond to providers questions about the test. This experience suggests that the genetic counselors' skillset that has allowed the profession to continuously evolve can also be used in the management of pandemics by communicating directly with the public, supporting other healthcare workers, and assisting individual patients and families navigate the many medical and psychological issues caused by such events.

Advocating for equitable management of hereditary cancer syndromes

The potential for preventive medicine to lead to more equitable health outcomes exists with the inclusion of genetic testing in medicine. Because of the medical implications of genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes and the financial cost attached to recommended management, ensuring equitable access to cancer screening and prevention must be made a priority. For patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome, the benefits of early detection and prevention are clear, significant, and create the opportunity to provide more equitable, personalized, preventive healthcare. Thus, for genetics providers who offer testing access for their patients, it is important to reflect on the ethical responsibility of advocating for access to appropriate management. Cancer genetic counselors can advocate for health equity by providing thorough pre-test genetic counseling, collaborating with other disciplines to coordinate care, lobbying state, and national representatives to pass legislation promoting health equity, and developing a management clinic that helps to ensure follow-up. Equitable access to and benefit from hereditary cancer risk management must be achieved in the pursuit of personalized preventive medicine.

Rapid Implementation of Telegenetic Counseling in the COVID-19 and Swedish Healthcare Context: A Feasibility Study

This study reports the process and preliminary findings of rapid implementation of telegenetic counseling in the context of Swedish healthcare and COVID-19 pandemic, from both a patient and a provider perspective. Fourty-nine patients and 6 healthcare professionals were included in this feasibility study of telegenetic counseling in a regional Department of Clinical Genetics in Sweden. Telegenetic counseling is here defined as providing genetic counseling to patients by video (n = 30) or telephone (n = 19) appointments. Four specific feasibility aspects were considered: acceptability, demand, implementation, and preliminary efficacy. Several measures were used including the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale 24 (collected pre- and post-counseling); the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire; a short study specific evaluation and Visiba Care evaluations, all collected post-counseling. The measures were analyzed with descriptive statistics and the preliminary results show a high level of acceptance and demand, from both patients and providers. Results also indicate successful initial implementation in the regional Department of Clinical Genetics and preliminary efficacy, as shown by significant clinically important improvement in patients' empowerment levels.

Clinical genetic counselor experience in the adoption of telehealth in the United States and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the service delivery model (SDM) of clinical genetic counseling across the United States and Canada. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 4,956 genetic counselors (GCs) from the American Board of Genetic Counselors and Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors mailing lists in August 2020 to assess the change in utilization of telehealth for clinical genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic. Data from 411 eligible clinical genetic counselors on GC attitudes and their experiences prior to and during the pandemic were collected and analyzed to explore the change in SDM, change in appointment characteristics, change in billing practices, GC perceived benefits and limitations of telehealth, and prediction of future trends in SDM in the post-pandemic era. The study showed the overall utilization of audiovisual and telephone encounters increased by 43.4% and 26.2%, respectively. The majority of respondents who provided audiovisual and telephone encounters reported increased patient volume compared with prior to the pandemic, with an average increase of 79.4% and 42.8%, respectively. There was an increase of 69.4% of GCs rendering genetic services from home offices. The percentage of participants who billed for telehealth services increased from 45.7% before the pandemic to 80.3% during the pandemic. The top GC perceived benefits of telehealth included safety for high-risk COVID patients (95.2%) and saved commute time for patients (94.7%). The top GC perceived limitations of telehealth included difficulty to conduct physician evaluation/coordinating with healthcare providers (HCP) (73.7%) and difficulty addressing non-English speaking patients (68.5%). Overall, 89.6% of GCs were satisfied with telehealth; however, 55.3% reported uncertainty whether the newly adopted SDM would continue after the pandemic subsides. Results from this study demonstrate the rapid adoption of telehealth for clinical genetic counseling services as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in billing for these services, and support the feasibility of telehealth for genetic counseling as a longer term solution to reach patients who are geographically distant.

Telehealth genetic services during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implementation and patient experiences across multiple specialties in Nebraska

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the delivery of genetics services. In response to the pandemic, our genetics department offered telehealth visits to all outpatients, regardless of their physical proximity to Omaha, Nebraska. Traditionally, our department did not offer telehealth visits to patient's homes or to patients who lived in close proximity to a genetics clinic. Therefore, we designed a survey to gain insight into the patient experience with remote genetic counseling appointments during the pandemic. Any patient referred to see a genetics provider in pediatrics, prenatal, adult, or cancer between March 16, 2020 and October 28, 2020 was eligible for the study. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess patient demographics, patient experience, stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and anxiety and depression. We hypothesized that patients would report they received quality care by telehealth despite the presence of COVID-19-related stressors or anxiety/depression. From the 143 survey participants, 80% had their first telehealth appointment during the pandemic. The vast majority (96%) reported that they felt like they received quality care by telehealth. Additionally, more than 93% of participants strongly or somewhat agreed that their genetic providers were attentive to their emotional needs, medical needs, and privacy. Since March 2020, participants reported experiencing several COVID-19-related stressors including fear of illness (86%), feelings of isolation (45%), and safety concerns (33%). Relatively low levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms were recorded using the HADS questionnaire. Despite the prevalence of COVID-19 stressors, depression, and/or anxiety, our participants felt they received quality care via telehealth. In fact, 51% agree that they prefer to receive future genetics services virtually. These results suggest the value of telehealth as an alternative service delivery model, even for local patients, and should be offered for future appointments, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

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.

'Steep learning curves' to 'Smooth Sailing': A reappraisal of telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed medical providers to trial telemedicine on a scale that lacks precedent. In genetic medicine, nearly overnight genetics providers were asked to transition to telemedicine platforms, irrespective of their previous experience with these modalities. This push to telegenetics prompted a reappraisal of the practice, as genetics providers learned firsthand about the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of telegenetics and telesupervision, all of which raise questions about the potential incorporation of these platforms beyond the pandemic. Adding to nascent literature on the transition to telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate provider experiences and preferences with respect to telegenetics through qualitative semi-structured interviews with genetics providers. Nineteen providers from seven institutions participated in a semi-structured interview focused on the rapid shift to telegenetics, the benefits and drawbacks of the practice, experiences supervising students on virtual platforms, and providers' preferences. We employed a qualitative methodology so that providers working across diverse subspecialties could expand upon previously reported benefits and drawbacks. Qualitative data revealed the nuanced benefits of telegenetics which included overcoming geographic, spatial, and temporal barriers to care as well as greater involvement of patients' family members in sessions. In addition, the data indicated drawbacks related to additional tasks such as completing paperwork electronically and facilitating the collection of specimens from patients' homes. Interviews with providers from different subspecialties revealed how telegenetics may be uniquely useful for particular subspecialties, patient populations, or clinics for whom the aforementioned barriers are more significant. Providers reported that telesupervision made the provision of feedback to students more cumbersome and identified a number of methods for enriching the telesupervision experience. In keeping with previous research, most genetics providers appraised telegenetics as a valuable addition to patient care (68%, N = 13) and hoped to offer it as an option beyond the pandemic (63%, N = 12).

Telehealth for genetic counseling: A systematic evidence review

Telehealth options, such as telephone counseling or videoconferencing, for service delivery in genetic counseling are becoming more widely accepted. However, until now, there has not been a systematic review of the literature focused specifically on genetic counseling outcomes for telehealth. We performed a systematic evidence review to compare telehealth genetic counseling (THGC), including videoconferencing and telephone counseling, across specialties to in-person genetic counseling (IPGC) for a range of outcomes specific to patient and provider experiences and access to care. Several biomedical databases were queried up to January 11, 2021, to identify original research evaluating THGC. Through this search, 42 articles met the inclusion criteria including 13 randomized controlled trials and 29 non-randomized observational studies encompassing 13,901 patients. Most included studies focused only on cancer genetic counseling; however, adult, pediatric, and prenatal specialties were also represented. The majority of studies evaluated patient and/or access to care outcomes. Though most studies reported high patient satisfaction with THGC, as well as comparable rates of trust and rapport, confidence in privacy, health behavior changes, and psychosocial outcomes, few represented diverse populations. Data of provider experiences were limited and varied with more disadvantages noted compared with patient experiences, particularly in studies involving telephone genetic counseling. Studies consistently reported a decrease in the patients' costs and time required for travel when patients are seen via THGC compared to IPGC with a similar reduction in costs to the health system. Overall, results from our evidence synthesis suggest THGC is non-inferior or comparable to IPGC across many domains, even considering that many of the studies included in this review were conducted with telehealth systems, notably videoconferencing, that were less robust and reliable than what is available today. There are notable limitations within this body of literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our analysis. We outline several recommendations for future studies.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Viral Hepatitis Elimination: What Is the Price?

In 2016, the World Health Organization developed a plan for viral hepatitis elimination by 2030. Globally, control of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are the most challenging aspects of viral hepatitis elimination. In many developed countries elimination of HBV could be targeted to special populations mostly immigrants from low resource settings. Elimination of HCV, however, remains a challenge globally. Barriers to HCV elimination include high cost of medications and the ability to engage specific at-risk populations as well as individuals who are out of medical care. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, treatment access and screening have been further negatively impacted by social distancing rules and COVID-19-related anxieties. This threatens to throw most countries off course in their elimination efforts. Before the pandemic, some states in the United States had scaled up their elimination efforts with plans to ramp up testing and treatment using Netflix-like payment models for HCV direct acting antiviral drugs. Most of these efforts have stalled on account of the health system's focus on COVID-19 control. To prevent further delays in achieving elimination targets, programs would need to explore new models of care that address COVID-19-related access hurdles. Systems that leverage technologies such as telemedicine and self-testing could help maintain treatment levels. Mathematical models estimate that COVID-19-related delays in 2020 could lead to 44,800 hepatocellular cancers and 72,300 liver-related deaths for the next decade.

Adapting genetic counseling operations amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID‐19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to the delivery of genetic counseling services and clinical operations. Understanding how these pivots in practice affected patient care across both a county hospital system and academic medical center can help provide models of clinical operations for other genetic counselors. Programmatic data were analyzed between March 18, 2020 and September 18, 2020, including visit completion rates and genetic testing completion outcomes for genetic counseling services during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition to analyzing the effects on patient care, we provide commentary on technological adaptations that aided our operations, billing practices, onboarding and engaging new and existing staff, and coordination of education and outreach opportunities. Through this work, we highlight barriers encountered and successful adaptations that will influence future clinical practices and may guide other providers in the development of strategies to meet their clinical and operational needs.

Easing the burden of multi-state genetic counseling licensure in the United States: Process, pitfalls, and possible solutions

State-based genetic counseling licensure creates standardization, ensures high-quality care, and supports the credentialing of genetic counselors (GCs) in the United States. However, it also has the unintended consequence of requiring substantial time and resources from genetic counselors who need to obtain licensure in multiple states. There is a wide range of variability among state licensure applications, required supporting documentation, verification processes, and cost-all of which are barriers for genetic counselors. New licensure laws are being passed on a regular basis, further complicating this process. Resources may be available to some genetic counselors such as employer reimbursement and administrative support; however, access to this support is not universal. This paper reviews the current condition of genetic counseling multi-state licensure, including barriers, unique challenges, and possible solutions for increased efficiencies, based on the authors' experiences and examples found in other healthcare fields.

The COVID-19 pandemic and reproductive genetic counseling: Changes in access and service delivery at an academic medical center in the United States

The COVID‐19 pandemic widely disrupted the delivery of healthcare services, including genetic counseling. To ensure continuity of care, the reproductive genetic counselors at a large academic medical center in the United States rapidly transitioned their practice from 90% in‐person patient consultations to a predominantly telehealth model. The present study describes this transition in regard to patient access to genetic counseling and genetic screening. A chart review of patients seen by the reproductive genetic counselors from January 2020 to August 2020 was completed. The time frame included the three months prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the first five months during COVID‐19. Patient demographics and clinical and appointment data were compared between the pre‐COVID‐19 and during‐COVID‐19 timeframes. Overall, 88.6% of patients were seen via telehealth during COVID‐19 and there was no significant difference based upon patient age (p = .20), indication for appointment (p = .06), or gestational age (p = .06). However, non‐English speaking patients were more often seen in‐person than by telehealth (p < .001), and more patients residing farther from the clinic were seen via telehealth (p = .004). During‐COVID‐19 results for prenatal cell‐free DNA screening and expanded carrier screening were delayed (p < .001). Additionally, after consenting to screening, patients seen during COVID‐19 were more likely to not complete a sample collection for their intended screening when compared to those seen pre‐COVID‐19 (OR = 6.15, 95% CI = 1.43–26.70, p = .015). Overall, this study supports that access to genetic counseling services and genetic screening can be maintained during a global pandemic like COVID‐19. Genetic counselors are well‐equipped to pivot swiftly during challenging times; however, they must continue to work to address other barriers to accessing genetic services, especially for non‐English speaking populations. Future studies are needed to pose solutions to the obstacles confronted in this service delivery model during a global pandemic.

Interest in and uptake of genetic counseling for preconception carrier screening when offered to predominantly white reproductive-age persons seeking gynecologic care at a single U.S. academic medical center

The objective of this study was to assess the level of interest in preconception carrier screening among reproductive-aged persons presenting for gynecologic care and to identify demographic factors predictive of pursuing screening. Patients aged 18-40 who were presenting for gynecologic care at a single U.S. academic medical center were provided with information about current options for preconception carrier screening and were offered genetic counseling referral with the possibility to undergo screening. Outcomes of interest were desire for genetic counseling referral and attendance at genetic counseling visit. Statistical analyses were performed as appropriate using R version 3.6.1 with variables significant at 0.1 included in a multivariable logistic regression. Of 193 participants, 79 (41%) desired genetic counseling referral. Participants aged 25-34 (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.47-8.10) and nulliparas (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.23-6.03) were more likely to desire referral. Thirty-five participants (44.3% of those who desired referral) attended a visit with genetic counseling. Having an advanced degree (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.06-10.4) was associated with visit attendance. Thirteen participants underwent screening, and five were found to be a carrier of at least one X-linked or autosomal recessive condition. Surprisingly, presenting for a gynecologic visit directly related to planning a pregnancy was not associated with increased interest in preconception carrier screening. Nulliparas and those aged 25-34 likely expressed greater interest in referral due to high potential for future childbearing in these groups. The increased level of visit attendance in participants with advanced degrees is likely confounded by the high level of health literacy and financial resources in this group.

U.S. Genetic counselors' perceptions of inpatient genetic counseling: A valuable model for medically complex patients

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty-one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team.

Understanding patients' views and willingness toward the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service in Asia

Telehealth is a growing field, its pertinence magnified by COVID-19 causing the accelerated digitalization of the world. Given the significant global demand to provide telehealth services, it is important to explore patient receptiveness toward this alternative service model, particularly from regions where it has yet to be implemented. We conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the views and willingness of patients toward the use of telehealth for cancer genetic counseling. A survey was completed by 160 patients of the National Cancer Centre Singapore, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The study found that 95.6% (n = 153/160) of participants did not have prior telehealth experience. Most participants were willing or neutral toward having genetic counseling by phone (n = 114/160, 71.3%) and video (n = 106/160, 66.3%). However, majority prefer in-person appointments for first (n = 127/160, 79.4%) and follow-up (n = 97/160, 60.6%) visits over telehealth. Majority agreed that a phone/video consultation would meet most of their needs but voiced concerns regarding privacy and sharing of information (n = 79/160, 49.4% for phone; n = 74/160, 46.3% for video) and whether their emotional needs could be met (n = 61/160, 38.1%). Participants' age, employment status, income, mode of transportation to the appointment, and whether special arrangements were made to attend the in-person appointment were associated with receptivity to telehealth genetic counseling (p ≤ .05 for all). This study adds diversity to existing literature and demonstrates that patients from Asia are generally willing and accepting of the use of telehealth in a cancer genetics service. This will help meet increasing global demand of telehealth consultations in the post-pandemic new norm. Furthermore, it will also provide services for underserved populations and patients requiring urgent testing in a timely manner. Further studies are needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and fair billing methods, as well as willingness and acceptability of telehealth genetic counseling in post-COVID times.

Benefits and limitations of telegenetics: A literature review

Telegenetics involves the use of technology (generally video conferencing) to remotely provide genetic services. A telegenetics platform is critical for those with limitations or vulnerabilities compromising their ability to attend clinic in-person, including individuals in rural areas. As the demand for remote genetics services increases, and amidst the COVID-19 pandemic with social distancing practices in place, we conducted a literature review to examine the benefits and limitations of telegenetics and explore the views of patients and health professionals utilizing telegenetics. Searches of the PubMed database identified 21 relevant primary studies for inclusion. The majority of studies found acceptability of telegenetics to be high among patients and health professionals and that telegenetics provided access to genetics services for underserved communities. The main benefits cited include cost-effectiveness and reduction in travel time for genetics services providing outreach clinics and patients who would otherwise travel long distances to access genetics. Patients appreciated the convenience of telegenetics including the reduced wait times, although a minority of patients reported their psychosocial needs were not adequately met. Eight studies compared outcomes between telegenetics and in-person services; findings suggested when comparing telegenetics patients to their in-person counterparts, telegenetics patients had a similar level of knowledge and understanding of genetics and similar psychological outcomes. Some studies reported challenges related to establishing rapport and reading and responding to verbal cues via telegenetics, while technical issues were not generally found to be a major limitation. Some service adaptations, for example, counseling strategies, may be required to successfully deliver telegenetics. Further research may be necessary to gather and examine data on how telegenetics outcomes compare to that of in-person genetic counseling and adapt services accordingly.

COVID contingencies: Early epicenter experiences of different genetics clinics at a New York City institution inform emergency adaptation strategies

The unique situational challenges of the COVID‐19 pandemic have demanded creative modifications to the delivery of genetic services. Institutions across the country have adapted workflows to continue to provide quality care while minimizing the need for physical visits. As the first epicenter of the pandemic in the country, New York City healthcare workers and residents had to make rapid, unprecedented changes to their way of life. This article describes the workflow adaptations of genetic counselors across various clinical settings at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the largest provider of genetics care in New York City, during the height of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The authors observe how the adaptations impacted clinical care and the genetic counselors. Our lived experience and account can provide guidance for others during the current and future pandemics.

A survey of aortic disease biorepository participants' preferences for return of research genetic results

There is ongoing debate on whether and what research genetic results to return to study participants. To date, no study in this area has focused on aortopathy populations despite known genes that are clinically actionable. Participants (n = 225, 79% male, mean age = 61 years) with an aortopathy were surveyed to assess preferences for receiving research genetic results. Participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want results for pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes with implications for family members (81%) or that would change medical management (76%). Similarly, participants were 'very' or 'extremely likely' to want actionable secondary findings related to cancer (75%) or other cardiac diseases (70%). Significantly lower interest was observed for non-actionable findings-pathogenic variants in aortopathy genes that would not change medical management (51%) and variants of uncertain significance (38%) (p < .0001). Higher health and genomic literacy were positively associated with interest in actionable findings. Most participants (>63%) were accepting of any means of return; however, a substantial minority (18%-38%) deemed certain technological means unacceptable (e.g., patient portal). Over 90% of participants reported that a range of health professionals, including cardiovascular specialists, genetics specialists, and primary care providers, were acceptable to return results. Participants with aortopathies are highly interested in research genetic results perceived to be medically actionable for themselves or family members. Participants are accepting of a variety of means for returning results. Findings suggest that research participants should be asked what results are preferred at time of informed consent and that genetic counseling may clarify implications of results that are not personally medically actionable.

Transition to telephone genetic counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the delivery of healthcare services, including oncology. To ensure continuity of cancer genetic counseling at a large academic medical center while also promoting the safety of patients and staff, our team transitioned to fully remote telephone genetic counseling and testing services within 48 hr. We compare differences in the six weeks following the shift to telephone genetic counseling (post-COVID) to the six weeks preceding the pandemic (pre-COVID). We maintained 99% of our total visit capacity and saw a decrease in patient no-show rate from 9.5% to 7.3%. Of all patients who received telephone genetic counseling, fewer consented to genetic testing as compared to patients seen in-person prior to the pandemic (79% pre-COVID v. 72% post-COVID; p = .012). Four weeks after this cohort was closed for analysis, 96 out of 303 samples (32%) had not been received by the genetic testing laboratory, despite at least one reminder phone call to the patient. In 13 reported instances, a second sample was required (quality not sufficient, lost or mislabeled sample), thus delaying test results. We conclude that a rapid transition to remote genetic counseling and testing allowed uninterrupted access to cancer genetics services during to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient compliance with sample return and higher rates of sample failure emerge as potential barriers to timely genetic testing under this service delivery model.

Implementing innovative service delivery models in genetic counseling: a qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers

Given the increasing demand for genetic counseling, implementation of innovative service delivery models (SDMs) has been proposed to improve access and increase the efficiency of genetic counseling services. This study investigated the key considerations in genetic counseling practices that impact the decision to implement innovative SDMs, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. A cross-sectional, qualitative research design was employed, using focus groups. Genetic counselors (GCs) were recruited from respondents to an online survey about SDMs and by posting an invitation to the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv. A total of 30 participants participated in either in-person (n = 3) or online (n = 5) focus groups, facilitated by members of the Service Delivery Model subcommittee of the NSGC Access and Service Delivery Committee. Transcribed audio and written notes from the focus groups were coded, utilizing an inductive thematic analysis method. Five overarching themes that impact decisions to implement and use innovative SDMs were identified: (a) Patient volume and efficiency are key motivators in trying innovative SDMs; (b) the decision to change is facilitated by available resources; (c) the implementation of innovative SDMs is multidimensional and complex process; (d) there is concern about the impact on patient-provider relationships with the utilization of innovative SDMs; and (e) measuring outcomes of innovative SDM facilitates acquisition of additional resources and support. Approaches to innovative SDM selection and implementation vary by institution needs, resources, and population as demonstrated by the variety of approaches to similar barriers. Outcomes related to the implementation of innovative SDMs in genetic counseling practice should be measured to demonstrate the value of innovative genetic counseling SDMs, improvement of access to care, and to justify need for additional resources to support implementation of these models.

Genetic counseling service delivery models: A study of genetic counselors' interests, needs, and barriers to implementation

As demand for genetic services grows, innovative genetic counseling service delivery models (SDMs) are needed. However, there is limited research on the barriers and needs of genetic counselors (GCs) interested in implementing new SDMs into their practice. In fall 2017, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Access and Service Delivery Committee's SDM Subcommittee sent an online survey to the NSGC membership regarding the use of SDMs, which aimed to update the understanding of current SDM use and how this has changed over time. The survey included several questions with open-response components assessing the need for new SDMs and barriers to implementation. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. Among 517 usable responses (16% response rate), more than half (54.4%) of respondents indicated their current SDM was inadequate to address the patient need in their area. Nearly two-thirds (64.8%) indicated they were in the process of or planning to make changes to their SDM, although 40.6% did not have a specific timeline. Three major themes related to expanding access, reimbursement for services, and lack of support were identified from responses to questions about implementation of additional SDMs. Access included subthemes of geographic and physical location limitations, addressing long wait times, and the need to expand services. Reimbursement for services included issues with billing, genetic counselor licensure, and limitations due to the need for physician involvement in billing. The lack of support was evident with issues related to understaffing; difficulty gaining support at the administrative, institutional, or physician level; time constraints; and funding concerns. This study shows that GCs need education, tools, and resources to overcome barriers in implementing new or adapting current SDMs, and there is a need for policy change, including new billing and coverage models.

A Snapshot of RTI Implementation a Decade Later: New Picture, Same Story

Response to intervention (RTI) has evolved from its first decade of implementation. Because states guide and regulate policy and practice at the state and local education agency levels, it is important to understand their critical role in RTI implementation. A systematic review of all 50 state education agency websites was conducted to provide an updated "snapshot" of states' interpretation of RTI a decade after IDEA regulations were finalized. Findings revealed substantive progress towards developing approaches to systematic supports to students, with a major trend in adoption of multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) models. Findings also documented continued variation in how states are communicating about tiered systems on such matters as the roles of tiered systems in schoolwide prevention frameworks, meeting special education requirements, and aligning multiple systems within schools. Implications for special education services for students with learning disabilities are discussed.

Mainstream consent programs for genetic counseling in cancer patients: A systematic review

As demand for germline genetic testing for cancer patients increases, novel methods of genetic counseling are required. One such method is the mainstream consent pathway, whereby a member of the oncology team (rather than a genetic specialist) is responsible for counseling, consenting, and arranging genetic testing for cancer patients. We systematically reviewed the literature for evidence evaluating mainstream pathways for patients with breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate cancer. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Article references were checked for additional studies. Trial databases were searched for ongoing studies. Of the 13 papers that met inclusion criteria, 11 individual study groups were identified (two study groups had two publications each). Ten of the 11 studies evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of BRCA testing for patients and/or clinicians in different clinical settings in breast and ovarian cancer, while the final study explored the attitudes of colorectal specialists toward genetic testing for colorectal cancer. None involved prostate cancer. Overall, mainstream pathways were acceptable and feasible. Medical oncologist- and nurse-driven pathways were particularly successful, with both patients and clinicians satisfied with this process. Although the content of pretest counseling was less consistent compared with counseling via the traditional model, patients were largely satisfied with the education they received. Further research is required to evaluate the mainstream pathway for men with prostate cancer.

Genetic Service Delivery Models: Exploring Approaches to Care for Families With Hereditary Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND

Providing timely access to quality genetic counseling is becoming necessary as the awareness and availability of high-risk screening and genetic testing increase. The results of genetic testing directly influence treatment decisions and recommendations for cancer screening and prevention. Evolving service delivery models of genetic counseling can lessen patient and system barriers to comprehensive genetic care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to note known barriers to accessing genetic care, review strategies and delivery models to enhance access to the genetic counseling process, and discuss how oncology nurses can play a supportive role in facilitating the genetic counseling process.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL®, and Ovid.

FINDINGS

Alternative service delivery models can increase the accessibility of genetic counseling services to at-risk populations. Additional research is needed to identify the models that can balance improved access to care with effective counseling.

Patient perspectives on the diagnostic journey to a monogenic diabetes diagnosis: Barriers and facilitators

Most monogenic diabetes is misdiagnosed as either type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D/T2D). Few studies have examined the diagnostic challenges from the patients' perspective. This qualitative study aimed to investigate patients' journeys to obtaining a diagnosis of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) by elucidating the range of factors that can act as barriers and facilitators throughout this process. We recruited participants from the Personalized Diabetes Medicine Program (PDMP) at University of Maryland and used respondent-driven sampling to recruit additional patients. We conducted qualitative phone interviews between October 2016 and June 2017 with nine patients with diagnoses of monogenic diabetes (one HNF4A-MODY, seven GCK-MODY, and one HNF1A-MODY) and one parent of a patient with INS-MODY. Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed both inductively and deductively using thematic content analysis. All patients were female, with a mean age of 35 (range: 7-67 years). The amount of time these patients were misdiagnosed ranged from a few months to 41 years. We identified barriers and facilitators in three broad themes: (a) patient-related (nature of MODY symptoms, perceived test utility, individual personality); (b) provider-related (provider awareness and knowledge, provider communication); and (c) healthcare system-related (cost of testing, access to knowledgeable providers, patient education, and support resources). The diverse range of barriers and facilitators reiterates the complexity of the MODY diagnostic process. Limited awareness and knowledge of MODY from healthcare professionals and patients themselves account for most diagnostic delays described in this study. Efforts to promote awareness of MODY and expand access to screening and testing may result in quicker diagnosis and ensure the downstream benefits of proper treatment.

Organizational readiness to implement population-based screening and genetic service delivery for hereditary cancer prevention and control

Despite clinical guidelines, programs conducting population-based screening and genetic service delivery for hereditary cancer prevention and control are rare in practice. We interviewed individuals (n = 13) instrumental in implementing seven unique clinical programs conducting either universal tumor screening for Lynch Syndrome or routine family history screening and provision of genetic services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the United States. To characterize determinants of readiness to implement population-based cancer genetic service delivery models, interviews and deductive codes drew on Weiner's theory of organizational readiness for change. Qualitative analysis identified themes across programs. The degree to which organizational stakeholders valued moving to a population-based genetic service delivery model depended on the existence of aligned clinical guidelines at the time of program implementation. However, judgments of implementation capacity within the organization, particularly with respect to task demands and resource concerns, were more often barriers to readiness. Program champions were essential to facilitating readiness, frequently taking on substantial uncompensated work. These data suggest that developing interventions targeting change efficacy and cultivating practice change champions may be two promising ways to increase uptake of population-based hereditary cancer screening and genetic service delivery in clinical practice.

How to inform at-risk relatives? Attitudes of 1379 Dutch patients, relatives, and members of the general population

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in families with a hereditary disease is <50%. Current practice often relies on the proband to inform relatives about the possibility of predictive DNA testing, but not all relatives are informed adequately. To enable informed decision-making concerning predictive DNA testing, the approach used to inform at-risk relatives needs to be optimized. This study investigated the preferences of patients, relatives, and the general population from the Netherlands on how to inform relatives at risk of autosomal dominant diseases. Online surveys were sent to people with autosomal dominant neuro-, onco-, or cardiogenetic diseases and their relatives via patient organizations (n = 379), and to members of the general population via a commercial panel (n = 1,000). Attitudes of the patient and population samples generally corresponded. A majority believed that initially only first-degree relatives should be informed, following the principles of a cascade screening approach. Most participants also thought that probands and healthcare professionals (HCPs) should be involved in informing relatives, and a large proportion believed that HCPs should contact relatives directly in cases where patients are unwilling to inform, both for untreatable and treatable conditions. Participants from the patient sample were of the opinion that HCPs should actively offer support. Our findings show that both patients and HCPs should be involved in informing at-risk relatives of autosomal dominant diseases and suggest that relatives' 'right to know' was considered a dominant issue by the majority of participants. Further research is needed on how to increase proactive support in informing of at-risk relatives.

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.

Practice variation of genetic counselor engagement in the cystic fibrosis newborn screen-positive diagnostic resolution process

Families of infants with a positive newborn screen for cystic fibrosis (CFNBS+) have well-characterized genetic counseling needs, including understanding the implications of diagnostic categorization. However, degree of involvement of genetic counselors (GCs) in the CFNBS+ diagnostic resolution process varies. This project explored GC engagement with US CF care centers in the diagnostic resolution process for CFNBS+ infants. Surveys were emailed to 713 Cystic Fibrosis Foundation-accredited CF center directors and clinic coordinators and 4,517 GCs. Respondents from institutions providing CFNBS+ diagnostic resolution were categorized by level of engagement between the CF center and GC: GC is part of or embedded in CF center (GC-engaged); GC is independent of CF center but receives CFNBS+ referrals (GC-referral); GC is uninvolved (non-engaged)] in CF center or CFNBS+ diagnostic resolution process. Responses from 125 CF center directors and clinic coordinators (17.5%) and 174 GCs (3.8%) were received. Analysis targeted responses from 84 center directors and clinic coordinators and 52 GCs, estimated to represent 24%-48% and 29% of 175 pediatric CF care centers, respectively. Nearly 40% of CF center directors or clinic coordinators never refer CFNBS+ infants to GCs. Respondents from GC-engaged CF centers reported that GCs provide unique and valuable services, understand CF at a high level, improve efficiency of the CFNBS+ diagnostic resolution process, and should be part of the CF care team; respondents from non-engaged CF centers reported negative views of GCs' value and knowledge (all p < .05). GCs engaged with CF centers were more likely to report that their services were valued by and accessible to CF centers (both p < .05). At all levels of engagement with CF centers, GCs were comfortable discussing CF genotype-phenotype correlation, variants of unknown significance, quality of life, and therapies. These results highlight a need to address practice variation in CFNBS+ genetic counseling and improve access to GCs' services.

The current state of genetic counseling assistants in the United States

Genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) have the potential to address the high demand for genetic counselors by promoting task-sharing, increasing genetic counselor efficiency, and allowing for higher level duties to be optimized by genetic counselors. However, little research has been published on the role of GCAs. This study explored current tasks of GCAs in the United States, the appropriateness of those tasks, the perceived impact on the profession, and how these findings compared between genetic counselors with and without GCAs. Full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with and without experience working with GCAs were recruited via the NSGC Student Research listserv to complete an online survey and 271 surveys were analyzed. Participants working in both clinical and laboratory settings and in all primary specialties reported working with GCAs (n = 131); GCAs were reported to frequently perform clerical tasks but were involved less often in clinical tasks such as calling patients with genetic test results. There was no difference between participants with GCAs and those without GCAs in tasks they reported GCAs are or may be performing, yet participants without GCAs believed GCAs performed more tasks on average than those with GCAs reported (p < 0.001). Participants did not differ on the appropriateness of tasks, reporting clerical tasks as more appropriate for GCAs than clinically involved tasks, with the exception of calling patients with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results in which more participants working with GCAs reported it as an appropriate task (13%) than those without GCAs (4%; p < 0.05). Review of open-ended responses revealed themes pertaining to primary limitations, benefits, and concerns of the GCA role. The most commonly reported concern about GCAs was their poorly defined scope of practice (n = 182). Other reported limitations included a heavy workload, lack of training, and lack of experience for GCAs while the benefits of working with GCAs included increased time available for higher level duties, patient volumes, and efficiency. These data provide genetic counselors, their institutions, and the NSGC with a more generalizable understanding of current GCA roles on a national level, across specialties. Additionally, these data may help establish a scope of practice for GCAs by creating a baseline job description for genetic counselors and their institutions interested in implementing a GCA into their practice to increase patient access to genetic counseling services. It is recommended that further research objectively quantify the value added by GCAs using efficiency metrics and further clarify the role of laboratory GCAs.