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

Abstract

e13612 Background: The COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020 resulted in the shift to telemedicine for many specialties including cancer genetic counseling (GC). We sought to understand the impact that converting GC services to telehealth (TH) would have on patient acceptance of recommended genetic testing, time to completion of testing, and time to follow-up GC consultation. Methods: Data analyzing GC in-patient vs. TH consultations were collected using both electronic medical record as well as a laboratory’s testing portal. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software. The rates of patient agreement to genetic testing and sample success, along with the time to report availability and to GC follow-up visit was compared between traditional in-person visits and TH visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-person visits from March -July 2019 were compared with date matched visits from March -July 2020, when all visits had been converted to TH. Patients who received an in-person consultation received a blood draw on the day of their appointment while TH patients were asked to mail a saliva sample back to the testing laboratory. Results: An analysis of a case-matched cohort between 2019 in-person new visits (n = 30) and 2020 TH new visits (n = 48) was performed. There was not a significant difference in rate of consent to suggested testing between in-person (93.3%) and TH (91.2%) (p = 0.29), though a few TH patients who consented failed to submit a sample (% tested = 93.3% vs. 85.4%, p = 0.01). TH patients had a longer time between their initial consult and when the test report was generated with average turn-around time increasing from 14.33 to 33.82 days (p < 0.1). There was no increase in time from initial consultation to follow up GC appointments (70.46 vs. 75.96 days, p = 0.74) for TH and in-person, respectively. Conclusions: Our data shows that during COVID-19, TH allowed patients to access GC with no significant differences in the length of time between initial consultation and follow up appointments. The type of GC received did not greatly influence a patient’s willingness to consent to testing, despite challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that TH services may be an acceptable substitute. However, TH services are not without their limitations as time between the initial appointment and receipt of test results was significantly longer and sample failure rates were higher. We postulate that the delay was due to the time it took to ship the saliva kit, have the patient collect the sample at home, and return the specimen back to the lab rather than the immediate blood draw that occurs during the in-person visit. The higher sample failure rate seen in TH is likely due to the differences between blood and saliva collections. Additional research is needed to fully understand the outcomes observed in this study in order to assist in developing the most effective strategies for cancer genetic TH services.