Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

DCM Consortium PIs Rate Traditional Genetic Care Models More Acceptable Than Physician-Led Models

DCM Consortium PIs Rate Traditional Genetic Care Models More Acceptable Than Physician-Led Models
Photo by Zach M / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider that DCM Consortium PIs found traditional genetic care models more acceptable than physician-led models.

A cross-sectional needs assessment with focus group discussions evaluated care models for genetic evaluation of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) among 24 Principal Investigators (PIs) from the DCM Consortium. The study assessed acceptability of different care models and implementation of genetic evaluation components during the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025.

The Traditional-Synchronous care model was rated significantly more acceptable than the Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted model (15.7±4.1 vs 9.8±2.9, p=0.027, n=6). Similarly, the Traditional-Asynchronous model was rated more acceptable than the Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted model (15.4±3.0 vs 9.8±2.9, p=0.023, n=8). Regarding clinical application, 83% of PIs (n=20) reported using genetic information for ICD placement decisions, and 63% (n=15) used it for cardiac transplant decisions. Safety and tolerability data were not reported.

Key limitations include minimal implementation of clinical genetic evaluation for DCM patients across the consortium and highly variable genetic care models and components across the 24 sites. The study was conducted among a small, specialized group of PIs, and findings should not be generalized beyond this population. Understanding this practice model variability may provide insight for developing more scalable care approaches, but these results represent early assessment data from a specific research network.

Study Details

Sample sizen = 6
EvidenceLevel 5
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Background: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. Methods: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. Results: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 -- Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 -- Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 -- Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 -- Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7{+/-}4.1) and 2 (15.4{+/-}3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8{+/-}2.9, 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. Conclusions: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.