The COVID‐19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult–onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as ‘telehealth’ in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in‐person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well‐received by patients.

While genetics evaluation is increasingly utilized in adult neurology patients, its usage and efficacy are not well characterized. Here, we report our experience with 1461 consecutive patients evaluated in an adult neurogenetics clinic at a large academic medical center between January 2015 and March 2020. Of the 1461 patients evaluated, 1215 patients were referred for the purposes of identifying a genetic diagnosis for an undiagnosed condition, 90.5% of whom underwent genetic testing. The modalities of genetic testing utilized varied across referral diagnostic categories, including a range of utilization of whole exome sequencing (WES) as an initial test in 13.9% of neuromuscular patients to 52.9% in white matter disorder patients. The usage of WES increased over time, from 7.7% of initial testing in 2015 to a peak of 27.3% in 2019. Overall, genetic testing yielded a causal genetic diagnosis in 30.7% of patients. This yield was higher in certain referring diagnosis categories, such as neuromuscular (39.0%) and epilepsy (29.8%). Our study demonstrates that evaluation at an adult neurogenetics referral center can yield diagnoses in a substantial fraction of patients. Additional research will be needed to determine optimal genetic testing strategies and cost effectiveness of adult neurogenetics evaluation.