ArticleGenetics in medicine open2024
Processes and outcomes from a clinical genetics e-consultation service managed by a primary care physician champion.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community-Driven Research Priorities for Genetic Counseling: Shaping the Future of Genetic Counseling Research by Centering Multicultural Perspectives.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Advancing the science of genomic learning healthcare systems.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Timely access to clinical genetics consultations remains a barrier to timely genomic medicine services, which new service delivery models might help address. Methods: We implemented a genetics electronic consultation (eConsult) service staffed by a primary care physician (PCP) champion, supervised by genetics specialists. Chart reviews from July 2018 to January 2022 examined categories of questions received, e-consultant's recommendations, and outcomes of any conventional genetics referrals. Providers were surveyed on likelihood of ordering a conventional genetics consultation before eConsult and satisfaction with eConsult responses. Results: Conventional genetics consultation was recommended for 338 out of 462 (73%) eConsults received, among whom 254 out of 338 (75%) had an order placed for a conventional consult by the provider requesting the eConsult. Among all 462 eConsults, including in cases which conventional consult was not recommended, 279 (60%) were referred for conventional genetics consultation, of which 171 out of 279 (61%) completed a consult. Of these, 122 out of 171 (71%) were recommended for genetic testing, and 84 out of 122 (69%) completed testing. The genetic testing of 23 out of 84 (27%) patients identified informative actionable findings. Supervising genetics specialists made substantive revisions to PCP draft responses for only 8% (36/462) of eConsults. Conclusion: This case series demonstrates that a PCP champion eConsult model can feasibly triage and respond to genetics questions with PCP-relevant content and yield high provider satisfaction. Such a model warrants further evaluation as an addition to the genetic services of health care systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.