The use of live video consultations in genetics has been shown to improve patient access with high satisfaction; however, little is known about the current landscape of clinical telehealth models in the field of genetics (i.e., telegenetics). This survey aimed to address that gap across seven states and the District of Columbia. Among 51 self‐defined telegenetics programs responding to an online survey, 32 currently utilized live videoconferencing as at least one of their technologies (i.e., were “video‐capable”). Analysis of this subgroup revealed that medical institutions were the most common program setting, and prenatal and cancer services were the most common sub‐specialty. Forty‐seven percent of these programs reported billing insurance for patient care. When exploring measures of patient access among these programs, 56% had a wait time of under 2 weeks, 25% saw more than 50 patients per month, 50% estimated their geographic reach at over 200 miles, and 59% were able to provide remote telegenetics consultations to patients’ homes. Professional licensure was reported as the biggest barrier, and patient access and convenience were reported as the largest benefit and success. Among the 19 remaining programs, eight currently active programs exclusively used telephone technology; these were less likely to have a geneticist (p = 0.01), had a shorter wait time (p = 0.04), and had been established for a longer time (p = 0.02) when compared to video‐capable programs. Further, two currently active programs indicated the use of store‐and‐forward telehealth. Finally, nine programs were currently planning their programs, with a focus on video‐capable technologies and more varied patient specialties. We observed a diverse landscape of telehealth models being utilized to provide genetic services, and the data demonstrated that these programs are focused on enhancing patient access. Our query about telegenetics drew responses from programs that were not using live videoconferencing technology models, which prompts further exploration, and challenges us to develop consensus around the meaning of “telegenetics.” Similarly, our data suggest a need for continued research to assess the equivalency, accessibility, and role of telephone consultations across genetic services. While a multitude of policy factors influence which service delivery models are utilized, further research on these varied approaches, and their associated patient outcomes, is also needed to inform program development.

There are currently no practice guidelines available for genetic counseling using telehealth modalities. This evidence-based practice guideline was developed in response to increasing use of alternative service delivery models for genetic counseling, specifically telephone and video-based genetic counseling (telehealth genetic counseling or THGC). A recent systematic evidence review (SER) compared outcomes of THGC with in-person genetic counseling and found that for the majority of studied outcomes, THGC was a non-inferior and comparable service delivery model. The SER results were used to develop this guideline. The current and anticipated future use of THGC, including the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, provides the context for this guideline. Recommendation: The Telehealth Practice Guideline author workgroup conditionally recommends telehealth genetic counseling, either via telephone or video, as a delivery method for genetic counseling. Depending on factors unique to individual healthcare systems and provider and patient populations, THGC may be the only service delivery model available or may be utilized in addition to other service delivery models including in-person genetic counseling. The evidence shows large desirable effects, minor undesirable effects, and increased equity for patients when THGC is available. THGC may reduce or remove existing barriers to patient access to genetic counseling, such as medical conditions and/or disabilities that may affect a patient's ability to travel, inflexible work or school schedules, and lack of reliable transportation, finances, or dependent care. THGC is likely acceptable to key groups impacted by its use and is feasible to implement. Certain patient populations may require additional resources or encounter more barriers in using telemedicine services in general.For these populations, THGC can still be a valuable option if solutions are available.

Telegenetics has shifted some genetic testing performance to the patient's own home, with the patient collecting his/her own sample. Little is known regarding the rate of test completion of such home‐based genetic testing. This study compared the completion rate of home‐based genetic tests before and after a reminder system was implemented. In the pre‐reminder group, we reviewed medical records for patients who were seen via telegenetics and agreed to complete genetic testing using an at‐home test kit. In the reminder group, a prospective analysis of the genetic test completion rate was performed taking a clinical quality improvement approach where three reminders were provided for patients who had not submitted their at‐home genetic testing. Our study included 94 patients' records: 46 pre‐reminders and 48 reminders. The lab received 24 patient samples (52.2%) in the pre‐reminder group. In the reminder group, 30 patients returned their kits (62.5%). Despite a higher percentage of patients completing their test in the reminder group, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre‐reminder and reminder groups. The rate of test completion in our pilot test was statistically similar between the two groups, but the reminder group was trending toward a higher percent of completion which may be clinically meaningful.

No abstract