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

The impact of converting to telehealth for cancer genetic counseling and testing during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 resulted in a shift to telemedicine for cancer genetic counseling (GC). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of telehealth (TH) services on patient acceptance of recommended genetic testing, time to test completion, and follow-up test-disclosure GC appointment, as well as compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations for medical screenings when testing positive for a genetic variant. Data for this retrospective cohort study were collected at a tertiary-care academic health center using the electronic medical record and laboratory portal. Patients with traditional in-person visits (the 2019 control group) and date-matched TH visits (2020) were compared. In total, 206 new GC appointments occurred in the in-person group and 184 new appointments occurred in the TH group. The in-person group was more likely to consent to testing than the TH cohort (92.6% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.003) and had increased rates of sample submission (99.5% vs. 93.75%, p < 0.01), as well as a shorter turn-around time between their initial appointment and laboratory result reporting (34.24 vs. 20.32 days, p < 0.01). There was no increase in time from initial to follow-up GC appointments (67.87 days for control, 62.39 days for THs, p = 0.37). With >2.5 years of follow-up for all study participants, there were no statistically significant differences in pathogenic variant (PV) carrier compliance with screening recommendations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, use of TH allowed patients to access GC with no significant differences in time between initial consultation and follow-up. However, in-person visits were associated with increased patient willingness to consent to and complete genetic testing. This work offers a nuanced look at the success of TH GC during the pandemic and follow-up with screening recommendations, while offering future opportunities to address the acceptance of testing as GC is practiced in a virtual or hybrid model.

Time tracking and comparison of genetic counseling tasks in inpatient and outpatient settings

Genetic counselors (GCs) practice in critical care settings. Some GCs have full-time inpatient roles, while most GCs who see inpatients do so as needed or on a rotating schedule in addition to seeing patients in an outpatient setting. Few studies have tracked and compared the amount of time it takes GCs to perform tasks in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Genetic counselors were invited to participate in this study via the National Society of Genetic Counselors research listserv. Participants completed an online survey asking how their role is structured and what types of support are available to them while seeing inpatients. They also performed time tracking for 16 tasks known to be associated with inpatient and/or outpatient care via RedCap. These tasks include direct patient care, care coordination, and other tasks which encapsulate a new patient encounter from beginning to end. Forty-two inpatient encounters and 26 outpatient encounters were analyzed. The total average time spent on an inpatient consult (3 h and 38.5 min) was significantly higher than the time spent on an outpatient consult (2 h and 24.7 min; p < 0.05). Individually, genetic counselors spent significantly more time on the following tasks in an inpatient setting: direct follow-up encounters, multidisciplinary team communication, results disclosure encounters, results disclosure documentation, traveling, and waiting. Follow-up encounters, traveling, and waiting happen almost exclusively in inpatient settings. Short answer prompts regarding structure of GC role and available support revealed themes including lack of inpatient role structure, challenges with balancing between inpatient and outpatient tasks, and varied institutional support. These results promote further discussion about how to support GCs who see inpatients as these roles expand. Some suggestions include increased FTE/protected time and/or GCA support specific to the inpatient role.

An examination of psychosocial and professional effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on genetic counselors

For healthcare workers, recognized professional challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic include changes to service delivery models, increased burnout, furlough, and loss of income. The main goal of this study was to more clearly define the impact on mental health and quality of life of genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic in the contexts of their personal, professional, and social lives. Eligible genetic counselors (GCs) (n = 283) responded to an online survey that incorporated validated instruments: Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Professional Quality of Life, and the In Charge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale. Additionally, original questions were developed from previous qualitative research on COVID-19 challenges for healthcare workers. Results showed 62% of respondents felt their mental health was impacted for the worse, 45% found it more difficult to achieve work/life balance, 16.8% scored within moderate-to-severe depression severity, 19.2% scored within moderate-to-severe anxiety, 26.3% reported high burnout, and 7% had high financial distress. GCs reported generally lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to healthcare workers and the general population. Thematic analysis identified feelings of isolation and difficulties balancing professional/personal responsibilities with more remote work. However, some participants reported greater flexibility in their schedule and more time with family. Self-care activities increased, with 93% engaging in more meditation and 54% began exercising. There were similar themes reported in this survey compared to other healthcare workers' experiences. There is also a dichotomy in positive and negative impacts with some GCs appreciating the flexibility of working from home but others reporting this blurs the line between personal and professional responsibilities. These results suggest consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to impact the field of genetic counseling and understanding these changes will be instrumental in addressing the needs of GCs to practice effectively.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study's objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review.

RESULTS

After removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues.

CONCLUSION

This review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals' perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities.

METHODS

To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives.

CONCLUSION

Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not available: not a clinical trial.

A review of questionnaires used for the assessment of telemedicine

INTRODUCTION

Telemedicine is the exchange of medical information from one site to another via electronic communications with the goal of improving a patient's clinical health status. Prior studies have identified the absence of a standardized assessment tool for evaluating telemedicine encounters. This study aims to collect and to analyze questionnaires used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters from a patient perspective and aims to identify reasons driving the use of self-developed questionnaires.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed for studies that used survey questionnaires to assess synchronous audiovisual telemedicine encounters from 2016 to 2021. We categorized questionnaires used into validated and non-validated types, and for each of them, collected questions, response format, author, year, specialty, and country of publication.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We analyzed a total of 71 articles. We found that only 16 studies used three validated questionnaires. The remaining 55 studies used non-validated questionnaires. Non-validated questionnaires had a high variability in length and used Likert scales, binary responses, multiple choice, and open-ended answers. We found only eight studies in which the authors gave a reason for resorting to designing their own questionnaires. This review reveals insufficient standardized survey questionnaires to be used for the assessment of audiovisual telemedicine encounters. Future research initiatives should focus on developing a standardized and validated instrument well accepted by researchers.

Genetics providers' experiences using telehealth: A grounded theory approach

There was a paucity of research describing the perspectives and experiences of clinical genetics providers in telehealth prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The available literature focused primarily on provider satisfaction and offered limited insight into genetics providers' work in telehealth. The purpose of this study, conducted just prior to the widespread knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States and mass transition to telehealth, was to understand the telehealth process from the vantage of genetics providers working in telehealth practice settings. This research employed grounded theory using the constant comparative method in coding and analysis of data to generate theory. Ten genetics providers were interviewed over the phone about their experiences, specifically the efficacy of telehealth work, providers' perspectives of patient outcomes, and personal fulfillment derived from telehealth patient care. Six themes emerged in the study: Making Professional Choices, Increasing Patient Access, Providing Effective Services, Understanding Telehealth Limits, Feelings about Telehealth Consultations, and Deepening Personal Fulfillment. These major themes guided the creation of the Theoretical Model of Telehealth Providers in Genetics, which depicts the connections between providers' personal fulfillment in telehealth, commitment to patient services, and the provision of telehealth to the public. This model may help others who are working on telehealth initiatives or developing telehealth programs. Findings from this study can support the current use and the growth of telehealth in genetics as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Future research is needed to describe the telehealth process and develop valid instruments for assessing and measuring the constructs of the Theoretical Model of Telehealth Providers in Genetics.

Comparison of willingness and preference for genetic counseling via telemedicine: before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic required genetic counseling services, like most outpatient healthcare, to rapidly adopt a telemedicine model. Understanding the trends in patients’ preferences for telemedicine relative to in-person service delivery both before and after the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic may aid in navigating how best to integrate telemedicine in a post-COVID-19 era. Our study explored how respondents’ willingness to use, and preference for, telemedicine differed from before to after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents included patients, or their parent/guardian, seen in a general medical genetics clinic in 2018, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were surveyed regarding their willingness to use telemedicine, preference for telemedicine relative to in-person care, and the influence of various factors. Among 69 pre-COVID-19 and 40 current-COVID-19 respondents, there was no shift in willingness to use, or preference for, telemedicine across these time periods. About half of respondents (50.6%) preferred telemedicine visits for the future. Of the 49.4% who preferred in-person visits, 79.1% were still willing to have visits via telemedicine. Predictors of these preferences included comfort with technology and prioritization of convenience of location. This study suggests that a hybrid care model, utilizing telemedicine and in-person service delivery, may be most appropriate to meet the needs of the diverse patients served. Concern for COVID-19 was not found to predict willingness or preference, suggesting that our findings may be generalizable in post-pandemic contexts.