232: Does the first trimester screen provide other important information outside of aneuploidy screening?

Abstract

often utilizing the standard ACOG prenatal genetic history form. This information was then compared to that discovered in the pre-GC intake form and through in-person GC. Missed genetic information was defined as information that was discovered on the pre-GC form or in-person GC that was not present on the initial genetic screening document from the obstetric provider. Missing genetic information that that lead to a change in clinical care, either through additional serum testing, imaging or invasive testing was considered significant. Statistical significance was assessed using Chi-squared testing with p<0.05 identifying significance. RESULTS: 299 patients underwent GC. 57.5% of patients were referred from private providers, 28.1% from academic faculty practice & 14.4% from a federally funded clinic. Missed genetic information was discovered in 171/299 (57.2%) of patients in the GC process. Of these 171 patients, 28.7% were revealed in the pre-GC form and 52.6% in the in-person GC. Of the 171 patients who had new genetic information discovered, 73 (42.7%) were significant. There was no statistical difference in race or referring office setting in the occurrence of new information found. The pre-GC intake form was found to be more likely than the in-person GC to find clinically significant missed genetic history (OR¼1.55; p¼0.037). CONCLUSION: In our population, genetic history obtained in the general obstetrician's office, regardless of practice type, missed over half of patient's genetic information with approximately 40% leading to a change in clinical care. Developing a genetic intake form similar to our pre-GC form may decrease missed genetic information in the general obstetrician's office.