Genetic counseling practices among outpatient obstetric providers in the Northeast.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends all pregnant people be offered genetic screening and diagnostic testing regardless of risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in referrals for genetic testing by race outside of pregnancy, but limited data exist regarding genetic counseling practices during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe how patient, provider, and practice demographics influence the offering of diagnostic prenatal genetic testing by outpatient prenatal care providers. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter anonymous survey study conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Outpatient prenatal care providers, including family medicine and obstetrics attendings, residents, maternal-fetal medicine fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives, were surveyed about their genetic counseling practices and practice demographics. The primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who answered "yes, all patients" to the survey question "Do you offer diagnostic genetic testing to all patients?" The secondary outcomes included the association between patient and practice demographics and offering diagnostic testing. Diagnostic testing was defined as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Screening genetic tests were defined as sequential screen, quadruple screen, cell-free DNA screening, or "other." The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. For the outcome answers of diagnostic testing, logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the answer of diagnostic genetic testing and the current training level of providers, race and ethnicity, and insurance status variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 635 outpatient prenatal care providers across 7 sites were sent the survey. Overall, 419 providers responded for a total response rate of 66%. Of the providers who responded, most were attendings (44.9%), followed by residents (37.5%). Providers indicated the race, insurance status, and primary language of their patient population. Screening genetic testing was offered by 98% of providers. Per provider report, 37% offered diagnostic testing to all patients, 18% did not offer it at all, and 44% only offered it if certain patient factors were present. Moreover, 54.8% of attendings reported universally offering diagnostic testing. On univariable analysis, residents were less likely to offer diagnostic testing than attendings (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.30). Providers who serve non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and other Hispanic patients were less likely to report offering diagnostic testing than other patient populations. Providers who served non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to offer diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.39). Patient populations who were primarily privately insured were more likely to be offered diagnostic testing compared with primarily publicly insured patients (odds ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.60-10.85). Providers who served a primarily English-speaking population were more likely to offer diagnostic genetic testing than other patient populations (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.69). On multivariable analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with offering diagnostic testing included level of training (resident odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62; P=.0006; advanced practice provider odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.82; P=.02), having at least one-third of the patient population identify as "other Hispanic" (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.77; P=.005), and having private insurance instead of public insurance (primarily private insured odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.74; P=.02). CONCLUSION: Although offering genetic screening and diagnostic testing to all patients is recommended, no provider group universally offers diagnostic testing. Providers who serve populations from a racial and ethnic minority, those with public insurance, and those whose primary language is not English are less likely to report universally offering diagnostic genetic testing.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response among Women Infected during Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization as of March 11, 2020. Pregnant women naturally have a reduced immune system due to immunological changes and decreased lung capacity due to respiratory adaptations, making them more susceptible to coronavirus complications. Within the Mount Sinai Health system, more than 15,000 deliveries are performed annually. We began to care for pregnant women with known COVID-19 infections in late March of 2020. In early April 2020, a policy was implemented to perform universal COVID-19 testing for all women planning to deliver within the Mount Sinai Health system. We examined the antibody response of postpartum women who delivered at Mount Sinai Hospital with a SARS-CoV-2 infection between the study intervals during March 15, 2020, through April 30, 2020. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study examining the immune response of pregnant women who delivered at Mount Sinai Hospital with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Women with a SARS-CoV-2 infection were contacted via phone to discuss participation in the study. Patients who consented were scheduled for a phlebotomy visit to assess their antibody titer levels to COVID-19. The COVID-19 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) immunoglobulin (Ig)-G antibody test was used to evaluate the patients' antibody titers. The assay detects IgG antibodies for the detection of IgG seroconversion in patients following a known recent SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were identified with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection who delivered within the prespecified time frame. Of those patients, 25 women agreed to participate and were included. Of them, 64.00% were Caucasian with a mean age of 35 years. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m2 and the majority of patients had commercial insurance (88.00%). The majority of women were asymptomatic for COVID-19 at the time of admission (80.00%) and the average gestational age of delivery and diagnosis of COVID-19 was 39 weeks' gestation. The later the gestational age at the time of diagnosis, the lower the antibody titer response. When examining the interval from diagnosis to antibody titer analysis, patients with the highest titers (2,880) tended to have a shorter interval between their COVID-19 diagnosis and the time at which the titer level was drawn. Patients with symptoms on admission had similar antibody titer levels when compared with women who were asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: The antibody response among women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy appears to be greater when the patients are diagnosed at an earlier gestational age. KEY POINTS: · COVID-19 antibody status appears to be greater when diagnosed at an earlier gestational age.. · Asymptomatic and symptomatic pregnant women had similar antibody responses.. · Patients with the highest titers tended to have a shorter interval between their COVID-19 diagnoses..

Documentation of shared decision making around primary prevention defibrillator implantations.

INTRODUCTION: Patients eligible for primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy are faced with a complex decision that needs a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of such an intervention. In this study, our goal was to explore the documentation of primary prevention ICD discussions in the electronic medical records (EMRs) of eligible patients. METHODS: In 1523 patients who met criteria for primary prevention ICD therapy between 2013 and 2015, we reviewed patient charts for ICD-related documentation: "mention" by physicians or "discussion" with patient/family. The attitude of the physician and the patient/family toward ICD therapy during discussions was categorized into negative, neutral, or positive preference. Patients were followed to the end-point of ICD implantation. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 442 days, 486 patients (32%) received an ICD. ICD was mentioned in the charts of 1105 (73%) patients, and a discussion with the patient/family about the risks and benefits of ICD was documented in 706 (46%) charts. On multivariable analyses, positive cardiologist (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.9, 95% confidence of intervals [CI]: 1.0-59.7, P < .05), electrophysiologist (HR: 7.7, 95% CI: 1.9-31.7, P < .001), and patient/family (HR: 9.9, 95% CI: 6.2-15.7, P < .001) preferences toward ICD therapy during the first documented ICD discussion were independently associated with ICD implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients eligible for primary prevention ICD therapy, a discussion with the patient/family about the risks and benefits of ICD implantation was documented in less than 50% of the charts. More consistent documentation of the shared decision making around ICD therapy is needed.

Cluster Randomized Trial Examining the Impact of Automated Best Practice Alert on Rates of Implantable Defibrillator Therapy.

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are indicated in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, but many eligible patients do not receive this therapy. In this cluster randomized trial, we investigated the impact of a best practice alert (BPA) through the electronic health records on the rates of electrophysiology referrals, ICD implantations, and all-cause mortality in severe cardiomyopathy patients. Methods and Results Providers in the Heart and Vascular Institute (n=106) and in General Internal Medicine (n=89) were randomized to receive or not receive a BPA recommending consideration for ICD implantation. Patients belonging to the BPA and no BPA groups of providers were followed to the end points of electrophysiology referrals, ICD implantations, and all-cause mortality. Between 2013 and 2015, patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were managed by 93 providers in the BPA (n=997 patients) and 102 providers in the no BPA (n=909 patients) groups. Patients in the 2 groups had comparable baseline characteristics. After a median follow-up of 36 months, 638 (33%) patients were referred to electrophysiology, 536 (27%) received an ICD, and 445 (23%) died. Patients in the BPA group were more likely to be referred to electrophysiology (hazard ratio=1.23; P=0.026), to receive ICD therapy (hazard ratio=1.35; P=0.006), and exhibited a trend towards slightly lower mortality (hazard ratio=0.85; P=0.091). Conclusions Delivering a BPA through the electronic health record recommending to providers consideration of ICD implantation when the left ventricular ejection fraction is ≤35% improves the rates of electrophysiology referrals and ICD therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.