Expansion of Genetic Services Utilizing a General Genetic Counseling Clinic

We established a general genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to help reduce long wait times for new patient appointments and to enhance services for a subset of patients. Genetic counselors, who are licensed in Tennessee, were the primary providers and MD geneticists served as medical advisors. This article describes the clinic referral sources, reasons for referral and patient dispositions following their GCC visit(s). We obtained patients by triaging referrals made to our medical genetics division. Over 24 months, our GCC provided timely visits for 321 patients, allowing the MD geneticists to focus on patients needing a clinical exam and/or complex medical management. Following their GCC visit(s), over 80 % of patients did not need additional appointments with an MD geneticist. The GCC allowed the genetic counselor to spend more time with patients than is possible in our traditional medical genetics clinic. Patient satisfaction surveys (n?=?30) were very positive overall concerning the care provided. Added benefits for the genetic counselors were increased professional responsibility, autonomy and visibility as health care providers. We conclude that genetic counselors are accepted as health care providers by patients and referring providers for a subset of clinical genetics cases. A GCC can expand genetic services, complement more traditional genetic clinic models and utilize the strengths of the genetic counselor health care provider.     

Practice variability in prenatal genetic counseling

This study demonstrated that the content of prenatal genetic counseling sessions varied from counselor to counselor and from center to center. The study was designed to examine which specific issues were included by genetic counselors in prenatal genetic counseling sessions, and to determine which factors led genetic counselors to include or exclude this information from such sessions. Data were collected by randomly surveying 200 full, master degree members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). Respondents provided information by deciding which of 45 specific issues they would include in a standard prenatal genetic counseling session, and which one factor from a bank of 11 factors most accurately described the reason for this decision. The results indicated that the issues included/excluded from sessions varied widely among genetic counselors. The results also indicated that Patient Education/Informed Decision Making (34.5%) played the largest role in decision making overall, with Standard at Center/Departmental Policy (17.6%), Personal Experience/Preference (12.4%), and Applicability (10.9%) serving as the next three most important reasons for including or excluding issues from prenatal genetic counseling sessions.     

Parent Perspectives of Support Received from Physicians and/or Genetic Counselors Following a Decision to Continue a Pregnancy with a Prenatal Diagnosis of Trisomy 13/18

Families that choose to continue a pregnancy with a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 13/18 are a minority that present unique challenges for those in charge of their care. This study investigated the extent to which these patients felt supported by their healthcare providers, and any differences in the perceived level of support experienced by those working with a physician versus those working with a genetic counselor. Two online support groups, SOFT and Hope for Trisomy, distributed an online survey to their members. Means, standard deviations and chi-square analysis were calculated to describe their responses. One-hundred fourteen surveys were included in the final analysis. Respondents were more likely to agree that genetic counselors provided unbiased information in a way that they understood, compared to physicians. Review of qualitative responses found that portrayal of Trisomy 13/18 by healthcare providers used directive language when describing the lethality, morbidity and burden of the condition. Language included terms such as “incompatible with life” and comments on burden to other family members. Healthcare providers can assist families that receive a prenatal diagnosis of Trisomy 13 or 18 by providing up-to-date written resources and connecting them with support groups for parents who have received a similar diagnosis. Our study found that involving genetic counselors in the prenatal care of these patients is likely beneficial.     

工作同盟和领悟对咨询效果的影响

为了解短程咨询中工作同盟和领悟对咨询效果的影响,以12个个案94次会谈为对象,考察工作同盟、领悟分别与会谈效果、治疗效果的关系,并考察二者共同作用于效果的方式。结果表明,咨访双方评定的工作同盟都可以正向预测会谈效果,但不能预测治疗效果;领悟与会谈有效性正相关,领悟正向预测治疗效果;咨询师评定的同盟的三个维度以领悟为中介影响其对会谈效果的评价。     

Defining the Role of Laboratory Genetic Counselor

An increasing number of genetic counselors are moving into non-clinical roles, where their primary duties do not involve direct patient contact. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey in 2010, 23% of counselors working in non-clinical roles identified laboratory or genetic testing as their primary area of work. Using a survey, we identified 43 genetic counselors who work predominately in laboratory settings. The two primary tasks performed by participants, include acting as a customer liaison (95%) and calling out test results (88%). Nineteen participants (44.2%) also reported spending a considerable amount of time signing reports. The most prevalent areas of job satisfaction were support from laboratory directors (76.8%), autonomy (76.7%), interactions with clinicians (69.7%) and interaction with other genetics counselors (67.5%). This is the first study specifically looking at the roles of laboratory genetic counselors, which is an expanding area of genetic counseling.     

Managing Variant Interpretation Discrepancies in Hereditary Cancer: Clinical Practice,Concerns, and Desired Resources

Variant interpretation is a complex process, and classification may vary between sources. This study aimed to determine the practice of cancer genetic counselors regarding discrepancies in variant interpretation and to identify concerns when counseling these discrepancies. An electronic survey was sent to genetic counselors in the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group. The vast majority of counselors (93%) had seen a variant interpretation discrepancy in practice. A large majority (96%) of respondents indicated that they conducted their own research on reported variants. Most respondents cited variant databases as the most common resource utilized in researching variants. Approximately 33% of counselors spent 45 min or more of extra time researching a discrepancy compared to researching a variant with a single classification. When asked how they approached counseling sessions involving variant interpretation discrepancies, the free responses emphasized that counselors considered family history, clinical information, and psychosocial concerns, showing that genetic counselors tailored the session to each individual. Discrepancies in variant interpretation are an ongoing concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors, as demonstrated by the fact that counselors desired further resources to aid in addressing these discrepancies, including a centralized database (89%), guidelines from a major organization (88%), continuing education about the issue (74%), and functional studies (58%). Additionally, most respondents reported that the ideal database would be owned by a non-profit organization (59%) and obtain information directly from laboratories (91%). This investigation was the first to address these discrepancies from a clinical point of view. The study demonstrates that discrepancies in variant interpretation are a concern for clinical cancer genetic counselors and outlines the need for additional support.     

Genetic Counselors’ Experiences with Adolescent Patients in Prenatal Genetic Counseling

Adolescents comprise a portion of women who present to genetic counselors prenatally. In this study, prenatal genetic counselors (N = 128) were surveyed regarding their perceptions of genetic counseling sessions for adolescent (ages 13–19) and adult (ages 20–34) patients. Counselors perceived differences in methods used to communicate risk information for adolescent versus adult populations. Respondents reported that it is more difficult for adolescents to understand prognostic information than adults. They also noted differences between adult and adolescent populations with respect to the people who typically accompany the patient to the session. Respondents stated that adolescents were accompanied by a parent, friend, or sibling, which differed from adults who reportedly were accompanied by a significant other, father of the pregnancy, or by no one. These findings suggest it is important to recognize that adolescent patients are in a unique stage of their development which may influence a prenatal genetic counseling session.     

Are Genetic Counselors and GLBT Patients “on the Same Page”? an Investigation of Attitudes, Practices, and Genetic Counseling Experiences

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) individuals comprise a growing patient population in genetic counseling, yet literature on working with this population is scarce. This study sought to investigate GLBT patient experiences in genetic counseling and genetic counselor attitudes and practices when counseling GLBT patients. Twenty-nine GLB individuals who had previously participated in genetic counseling, and 213 genetic counselors completed online surveys. No individuals identifying as transgender participated. The patient survey assessed disclosure of orientation, discrimination in genetic counseling, and quality of services received. The counselor survey assessed comfort with and attitudes about counseling GLBT patients, disclosure of counselor orientation, and whether they counsel differently with this population. Every patient denied experiencing discrimination during their session, but 17% reported their genetic counselor assumed they were heterosexual, and 45% indicated intake forms were not GLBT-inclusive. A majority of counselors (91%) reported having counseled GLBT patients and indicated they were comfortable doing so (86%), and 72% indicated no differences in their counseling approaches with GLBT patients. Few counselors (17%) received training in GLBT issues, and most (61%) desired such education. Additional findings and practice and research recommendations are presented.     

Peering into a Chilean Black Box: Parental Storytelling in Pediatric Genetic Counseling

While genetic counseling has expanded to multiple international settings, research about providing culturally sensitive services to non-U.S. patients is limited. To gain insights, we utilized a process study to explore parental communication in pediatric genetics clinics in Chile. We utilized a phenomenological hermeneutic approach to assess storytelling in six pediatric sessions that were conducted in Spanish, and translated into English. The majority of the sessions focused on information gathering (35 %), and providing medical (20 %) and genetics education (18 %). The 14 instances of storytelling we identified usually emerged during information gathering, genetics education, and the closing of the session. Stories illustrated parental efforts to create a cognitive and emotional context for their child’s genetic diagnosis. Parents emerged as competent caregivers who discussed the role of the child as a social being in the family and the larger community. Our analysis found that genetic counseling sessions in the U.S. and Chile are structured similarly and although communication is not a balanced process, parents use storytelling to participate as active agents in the session. Via storytelling, we learned that parents are working to understand and gain control over their child’s genetic diagnosis by relying on mechanisms that extend beyond the genetics appointment.     

Training Methods for Delivering Difficult News in Genetic Counseling and Genetics Residency Training Programs

Genetic counselors and clinical geneticists are often in the position of delivering difficult news (DDN) to patients and families. Many studies show that healthcare providers require major improvement in the skills needed in DDN in a manner that is satisfactory to their patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the amount and methodology of DDN training received by genetic counselors and medical genetics residents in their training programs, such as observations of DDN or attending didactic lectures. To our knowledge, there is no previous assessment or study of DDN training in genetic counselor and medical genetics residency programs; therefore, we aim to both assess and compare the training in DDN received by genetic counselors and by genetics residents and determine whether there is a desire for recommendations on DDN training. We invited genetic counseling (GC) and genetics residency program directors to participate in an online survey designed to assess coursework, clinical experiences, and directors’ attitudes toward teaching DDN. Response rate was 85% (28/33) for GC program directors and 26% (14/53) for genetics residency program directors. One hundred percent of GC and genetics residency directors who responded to the survey agreed that it is important for genetic counselors and medical geneticists to be able to deliver difficult news effectively and that training programs should formally teach students how to deliver difficult news. Six of the eight common teaching methods are used by at least 75% of GC programs while two of eight are used by at least 75% of genetics residency programs. Seventy-nine percent of GC and 93% of genetics residency program directors agree that there should be recommendations on how to teach students to deliver this news. Our results show that techniques for DDN are integrated more fully into GC program curricula than genetics residency curricula. Directors of both types of programs desire recommendations and more standardized education for training students to deliver difficult news.     

Genetic Counselors’ Views and Experiences with the Clinical Integration of Genome Sequencing

In recent years, new sequencing technologies known as next generation sequencing (NGS) have provided scientists the ability to rapidly sequence all known coding as well as non-coding sequences in the human genome. As the two emerging approaches, whole exome (WES) and whole genome (WGS) sequencing, have started to be integrated in the clinical arena, we sought to survey health care professionals who are likely to be involved in the implementation process now and/or in the future (e.g., genetic counselors, geneticists and nurse practitioners). Two hundred twenty-one genetic counselors— one third of whom currently offer WES/WGS—participated in an anonymous online survey. The aims of the survey were first, to identify barriers to the implementation of WES/WGS, as perceived by survey participants; second, to provide the first systematic report of current practices regarding the integration of WES/WGS in clinic and/or research across the US and Canada and to illuminate the roles and challenges of genetic counselors participating in this process; and third to evaluate the impact of WES/WGS on patient care. Our results showed that genetic counseling practices with respect to WES/WGS are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ACMG 2012 policy statement, which highlights indications for testing, reporting, and pre/post test considerations. Our respondents described challenges related to offering WES/WGS, which included billing issues, the duration and content of the consent process, result interpretation and disclosure of incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. In addition, respondents indicated that specialty area (i.e., prenatal and cancer), lack of clinical utility of WES/WGS and concerns about interpretation of test results were factors that prevented them from offering this technology to patients. Finally, study participants identified the aspects of their professional training which have been most beneficial in aiding with the integration of WES/WGS into the clinical setting (molecular/clinical genetics, counseling and bioethics) and suggested that counseling aids (to assist them when explaining aspects of these tests to patients) and webinars focused on WES/WGS (for genetic counselors and other health care professionals) would be useful educational tools. Future research should permit us to further enhance our knowledge of pitfalls and benefits associated with the introduction of these powerful technologies in patient care and to further explore the roles and opportunities for genetic counselors in this rapidly evolving field.     

The Genetic Counseling Workplace—An Australasian Perspective. A National Study of Workplace Issues for Genetic Counselors and Associate Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) has been recognized as a profession since the 1980s and has steadily expanded over the past 20 years. The demography of major cities with metropolitan sprawl and sparsely populated rural areas has led to the establishment of 3 types of genetics units: main units in cities, metropolitan outreach, and rural outreach units. A questionnaire was developed to obtain information about the needs, resources, and day-to-day operation of the genetic counselors. The questionnaire addressed the areas of resource availability, professional development, responsibility of genetic counselors in the clinical setting, and their involvement in promotion of the service and public education. Differences observed between the 3 settings in all of these areas included large clinical loads for metropolitan outreach counselors, varying responsibilities in the clinical setting, and a lack of support and resources for rural outreach counselors. Australasian Genetic counselors were found to have a significant interest in developing mechanisms for supervision and were keenly interested in maintaining credentials and professional role development. The results of this study allows genetic counselors themselves to have a better understanding of the roles of their colleagues in the different units; they can also be used by service providers in establishing and supporting genetic counselors, and identifying inequalities and deficiencies in the different practice areas.     

Cancer Risk Counseling: How Is It Different?

Fifty-six of 80 (70%) full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors with interest in cancer genetics responded to a 1994 survey regarding their cancer risk counseling practices. This study was undertaken to describe cancer risk counselors and the services they provide and to identify possible differences from general genetic counseling that warrant further study. Of 56 respondents, 41 (75%) were providing CRC. The components of CRC programs are described. Our results found significant differences between CRC and general genetic counseling in terms of training and experience of genetic counselors providing CRC and length and number of counseling sessions per consultand. 51% of respondents had 1–2 years of working in CRC, compared to 17% with 1–2 years experience in genetic counseling (p<0.05). Over one-third had 10 or more years genetic counseling experience. Counselors were more likely to see individuals at risk for cancer for longer counseling sessions (p<0.05) and for additional sessions (p<0.05).     

Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: A Case Study and Practical Recommendations for “Genomic Counseling”

Technological advances and information-seeking consumers have pushed forward the movement of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Just like with other types of testing, there are potential risks, benefits and limitations. A major limitation of DTC testing is the incomplete view it provides regarding lifetime risk for common, complex diseases, since most tests only analyze 1–2 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and do not include evaluation of medical or family histories, which is necessary to risk assessment. Further, it is not currently well-established whether personal genomic testing results will lead toward improved health behaviors, adverse psychological effects or potential overuse of the health care system. To display these and other issues, we present an in-depth case study of an individual who ordered DTC genetic testing and subsequently sought genetic counseling. This case presents a unique learning experience for the field of genomic counseling, as the patient did not fit the typical assumptions regarding ‘early adopters’ of DTC testing. It also allowed the genetics health care providers involved in the case to identify gaps in current genetic counseling practice that need to be filled and approaches to employ for successful delivery of genomic counseling. Based on our experience, we developed practical recommendations for genomic counseling, which include novel approaches to case preparation, use of electronic tools during the counseling session, and focusing on education as the major component of the genomic counseling session, in order to provide patients with the knowledge necessary to independently interpret and understand large amounts of genomic testing information provided to them.     

What’s the Harm? Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Adverse Effects of Genetics Service Provision by Non-Genetics Professionals

Anecdotal accounts suggest some patients have experienced negative outcomes as a result of receiving genetics services from non-genetics providers, but empirical evidence of these incidents and their outcomes is limited. This study examined genetic counselors’ perceptions of the occurrence of such incidents in the state of Minnesota. Twenty-five genetic counselors completed an on-line survey and 20 also participated in a semi-structured telephone interview. The interviewees recalled and described 37 specific incidents they perceived as having negative outcomes for patients and/or their families. Inductive and cross-case analysis revealed common themes including: adverse psychosocial effects, inadequate genetic counseling, genetic testing and screening errors, medical mismanagement, negative shifts in attitudes toward medical providers, and unnecessary use of health care resources. Commonly mentioned strategies for preventing/mitigating negative outcomes included: educational outreach and awareness programs for medical providers and the general public, standardized testing and screening processes, and implementing mechanisms for reporting and addressing adverse events. Additional findings, practice and policy implications, and research recommendations are discussed.     

Fabry Disease Practice Guidelines: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Identification and comprehensive care of individuals who have Fabry disease (FD) requires a multidisciplinary approach inclusive of genetic testing, test interpretation, genetic counseling, long term disease symptom monitoring, treatment recommendations, and coordination of therapy. The purpose of this document is to provide health care professionals with guidelines for testing, care coordination, identification of psychosocial issues, and to facilitate a better understanding of disease treatment expert recommendations for patients with Fabry disease. These recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group of genetic counselors, medical geneticists, and other health professionals with expertise in Fabry disease counseling, as well as representatives/founders of the two United States based Fabry disease patient advocacy groups who are themselves affected by Fabry disease. The recommendations are U.S. Preventive Task Force Class III, and they are based on clinical experience, a review of pertinent English-language articles, and reports of expert committees. This document reviews the genetics of Fabry disease, the indications for genetic testing, interpretation of results, psychosocial considerations, and references to professional and patient resources.