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.     

Does Receiving Genetic Counseling Impact Genetic Counselor Practice?

This study was an investigation of whether genetic counselors have received genetic counseling and if so, how they believe it affects their practice. One thousand genetic counselors were mailed surveys about the nature of genetic counseling services received, impact on their clinical practice, frequency and reasons for disclosing about their receipt of counseling to their clients, and demographics. Ninety-three of the 510 respondents reported receiving genetic counseling. Of these, almost three-fourths were practicing genetic counselors while receiving services. Reasons for services include prenatal concerns, family history of cancer, and history/risk of other genetic conditions. Frequently endorsed effects on practice include increased empathy and understanding of client decisions, feeling more connected with clients, greater emphasis on psychosocial support, and sympathy. Forty-six respondents disclosed to clients about their receipt of genetic counseling. Prevalent reasons include client asked, help clients feel they are not alone, demonstrate counselor understanding, decrease client anxiety, build rapport, and normalize client feelings. Practice and research recommendations are given.     

Clinical Cardiovascular Genetic Counselors Take a Leading Role in Team-based Variant Classification

We sought to delineate the genetic test review and interpretation practices of clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors. A one-time anonymous online survey was taken by 46 clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cardiovascular Special Interest Group. Nearly all (95.7%) gather additional information on variants reported on clinical genetic test reports and most (81.4%) assess the classification of such variants. Clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors typically (81.0%) classify variants in collaboration with cardiologist and/or geneticist colleagues, with the genetic counselor as the team member who is primarily responsible. Variant classification is a relatively recent (mean 3.2 years) addition to practice. Most genetic counselors learned classification skills on the job from clinical and laboratory colleagues. Recent graduates were more likely to have learned this in graduate school (p?<?0.001). Genetic counselors are motivated to take responsibility for the classification of variants because of prior experiences with variant reclassification, inconsistencies between laboratories, and incomplete laboratory reports. They are also driven by a sense of professional duty and their proximity to the clinical context. This practice represents a broadening of the skill set of clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors and a unique expertise that they contribute to the interdisciplinary teams in which they work.     

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).     

Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor’s Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor’s experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.     

Reproductive Endocrinologists’ Utilization of Genetic Counselors for Oncofertility and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Treatment of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Genetic counselors believe fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) discussions to be a part of their role when counseling BRCA1/2 mutation-positive patients. This study is the first to explore reproductive endocrinologists’ (REI) practices and attitudes regarding involvement of genetic counselors in the care of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seeking fertility preservation and PGD. A survey was mailed to 1000 REIs from Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (SREI), an American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) affiliate group. A 14.5 % response rate was achieved; data was analyzed using SPSS software. The majority of participating REIs were found to recommend genetic counseling to cancer patients considering fertility preservation (82 %) and consult with a genetic counselor regarding PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes (92 %). Additionally, REIs consult genetic counselors regarding PGD patient counseling (88 %), genetic testing (78 %), and general genetics questions (66 %). Two areas genetic counselors may further aid REIs are: elicitation of family history, which is useful to determine fertility preservation and PGD intervention timing (32 % of REIs utilize a cancer family history to determine intervention timing); and, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) as cancer panel genetic testing becomes more common (36 % of REIs are unfamiliar with VOUS). Given our findings, the Oncofertility Consortium® created an online resource for genetic counselors focused on fertility preservation education and communication strategies.     

Assessment of the Use and Feasibility of Video to Supplement the Genetic Counseling Process: A Cancer Genetic Counseling Perspective

Cancer genetic counselors use a variety of teaching modalities for patient education. This survey of cancer genetic counselors assessed their use of educational videos and their recommendations for content of future videos. Thirty percent of respondents use videos for patient education. Cited benefits included reinforcement of information for clients and increased counselor efficiency. Of the 70% who do not use videos, predominant barriers included the perceived lack of an appropriate video, lack of space and/or equipment, and concern that videos are impersonal. Most respondents desired a video that is representative of the genetic counseling session, but emphasized the importance of using broad information. Content considered critical included the pros and cons of genetic testing, associated psychosocial implications, and genetic discrimination. The results of this exploratory study provide data relevant for the development of a cancer genetics video for patient education, and suggestions are made based on aspects of information processing and communication theories.     

Professional preparation of individuals who provide genetic counseling services

An unprecedented increase has occurred in demand for genetic counseling services during the current decade. This study examined the complex issue of who currently provides genetic counseling services and the professional preparation of these personnel. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 325 genetic counseling professionals in the southeastern United States who were members of the Southeast Regional Genetics Group (SERGG), National Society of Genetic Counselors, or American Society of Human Genetics States; 204 completed the questionnaire (63%). Seventy percent of respondents were female and 30% were male. Thirty percent of respondents held MD degrees; nine physicians held PhD degrees. Most physicians were male. Thirty-two percent of respondents held master's degrees in genetic counseling; five counselors held PhD degrees. Twenty-three percent of respondents were nurses; eight nurses held master's degrees. Three percent of respondents were social workers. Individuals with other degrees, such as an associate of science in medical technology and a doctoral degree in education, also provided genetic counseling. Genetic counseling typically involved a team effort, consisting mainly of physicians and genetic counselors. Most respondents reported college coursework in human genetics, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Thirty percent reported college coursework in counseling techniques, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Policy recommendations are offered concerning professional preparation of genetic counselors.     

Billing and Record-Keeping for Familial Cancer Risk Counseling: A National Survey

We surveyed 111 genetic counselors providing cancer risk counseling (CRC) in order to document their billing and record-keeping practices. Of the 75 respondents, billing was generally done under the supervising physician with a wide variation in charges. Follow-up telephone interviews with 28 counselors who charge patients revealed that billing was usually done using the CPT codes for consultations, and the ICD-9 diagnostic codes for cancer (if applicable), a medical complaint, or a family history of cancer code. Most counselors exclude some clinical information from the patient's medical record. In consultation notes, 81% of counselors document a discussion of genetic testing, but only 37% document the patient's actual testing decision, and only 19% document test results. In anticipation of increased referrals for CRC, data are needed on the components of a CRC visit, the amount of time required to provide CRC, patient outcomes measures, and charges and reimbursement. The feasibility and advisability of keeping results separate from the patient's medical record also needs to be addressed.     

Nondirectiveness and Its Lay Interpretations: The Effect of Counseling Style, Ethnicity and Culture on Attitudes Towards Genetic Counseling Among Jewish and Bedouin Respondents in Israel

To evaluate the effects of ethnicity, culture, and counseling style on the interpretation of nondirectiveness in genetic counseling, a questionnaire containing premarital and prenatal case vignettes in two versions (pessimistic/optimistic) was administered to 281 Jewish and 133 Bedouin respondents. The first study population was comprised of Jewish students enrolled in a university and a community college in the Negev (southern part of Israel). The second study population was comprised of Muslim-Bedouin college students from the same area. The majority of Jewish respondents interpreted the nondirective message as intended by counselors, while the majority of Bedouin respondents did not. Counseling style was found to have a statistically significant effect on the interpretation of the general role of counseling. Gender and susceptibility were not found to have a significant effect on interpretation. Group differences are analyzed through a cultural lens in which different interpretive norms can generate expectations for either nondirectiveness or directiveness.     

An Exploration of Genetic Counselors’ Needs and Experiences with Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing

Because of the higher yield over traditional chromosomal analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is being used increasingly in prenatal diagnosis. Unfortunately, the clinical implication of many copy number variants found on prenatal CMA is uncertain, complicating genetic counseling. Recognizing that uncertain results will be encountered frequently as more of the genome is assayed prenatally, we set out to understand the experiences and needs of genetic counselors when counseling patients about uncertain prenatal microarray results, their comfort with various aspects of prenatal genetic counseling, and their interest in additional education and training about prenatal microarray testing. We first interviewed 10 genetic counselors about their experiences of providing pre- and post-test genetic counseling about prenatal CMA. Based on the findings from the counselor interviews, we developed items for a survey to assess the prevalence of genetic counselors’ attitudes towards, experience and comfort with, and educational needs regarding prenatal CMA. Based on surveys completed by 193 prenatal genetic counselors, we found that when there is an uncertain CMA result, only 59 % would be comfortable providing genetic counseling and only 43 % would be comfortable helping a patient make a decision about pregnancy termination. Being less comfortable was associated with seeing fewer patients having prenatal CMA testing. Respondents expressed a high degree of interest in additional education about prenatal CMA and counseling about uncertain results. Further genetic counselor education and training aimed at improving counselors’ personal comfort with uncertain results and communicating about them with patients is needed.     

Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model

The need for evidence-based medicine, including comparative effectiveness studies and patient-centered outcomes research, has become a major healthcare focus. To date, a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes, as espoused by genetic counselors, has not been established and thus, identification of outcomes unique to genetic counseling services has become a priority for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The purpose of this study was to take a critical first step at identifying a more comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes. This paper describes the results of a focus group study using the Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM) as a framework to characterize patient-centered outcomes of genetic counseling clinical practice. Five focus groups were conducted with 27 peer nominated participants who were clinical genetic counselors, genetic counseling program directors, and/or outcomes researchers in genetic counseling. Members of each focus group were asked to identify genetic counseling outcomes for four to five of the 17 goals of the REM. A theory-driven, thematic analysis of focus group data yielded 194 genetic counseling outcomes across the 17 goals. Participants noted some concerns about how genetic counseling outcomes will be measured and evaluated given varying stakeholders and the long-term nature of genetic concerns. The present results provide a list of outcomes for use in future genetic counseling outcomes research and for empirically-supported clinical interventions.     

Collaboration of Colorado Cancer Genetic Counselors to Integrate Next Generation Sequencing Panels into Clinical Practice

The recent introduction of clinically available next generation sequencing (NGS) cancer panels has presented new challenges for genetic counselors. Determining which patients are appropriate for NGS panel testing is complex. Due to the large number of genes included in the NGS panels, thorough and appropriate pre-test counseling and interpretation of NGS results can be a time-consuming and difficult process. Many of the genes associated with increased cancer risk lack published clinical management guidelines and estimates of cancer risk for individuals with deleterious mutations. In order to efficiently and effectively review the clinical utility of NGS panels, Colorado cancer genetic counselors formed a working group to gain a better understanding of the genes included in NGS cancer panels. This publication reports on the approach of this group, the process used to evaluate a selected NGS panel, future directions for this collaboration, and ideas for other genetic counselors to form similar groups to efficiently evaluate new technologies and improve practice.     

The Laboratory-Clinician Team: A Professional Call to Action to Improve Communication and Collaboration for Optimal Patient Care in Chromosomal Microarray Testing

The International Standards for Cytogenomic Arrays (ISCA) Consortium is a worldwide collaborative effort dedicated to optimizing patient care by improving the quality of chromosomal microarray testing. The primary effort of the ISCA Consortium has been the development of a database of copy number variants (CNVs) identified during the course of clinical microarray testing. This database is a powerful resource for clinicians, laboratories, and researchers, and can be utilized for a variety of applications, such as facilitating standardized interpretations of certain CNVs across laboratories or providing phenotypic information for counseling purposes when published data is sparse. A recognized limitation to the clinical utility of this database, however, is the quality of clinical information available for each patient. Clinical genetic counselors are uniquely suited to facilitate the communication of this information to the laboratory by virtue of their existing clinical responsibilities, case management skills, and appreciation of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. We intend to highlight the critical role that genetic counselors play in ensuring optimal patient care through contributing to the clinical utility of the ISCA Consortium's database, as well as the quality of individual patient microarray reports provided by contributing laboratories. Current tools, paper and electronic forms, created to maximize this collaboration are shared. In addition to making a professional commitment to providing complete clinical information, genetic counselors are invited to become ISCA members and to become involved in the discussions and initiatives within the Consortium.     

Expanding Roles: A Survey of Public Health Genetic Counselors

According to the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Professional Status Survey (PSS), 31 genetic counselor respondents reported spending at least 50% of their time in the area of public health. The NSGC Public Health Special Interest Group (PHSIG) had 49 dues-paying members in 2009. The purpose of this study was to identify the work settings and public health activities in which genetic counselors participate. A novel online survey was disseminated over the NSGC PHSIG Listserv. Forty-one percent (n = 13) of public health genetic counselor respondents worked in a university medical system, while 53% (n = 17) were grant-funded and held a non-clinical appointment. The most common public health activities included educating healthcare professionals (82%) and community members (61%), research (55%), grant writing (55%) and grant administration (36%). Most respondents (82%) reported learning certain public health skills outside of their genetic counseling training programs. Differences in work settings were found, with a significantly greater percentage of public health genetic counselors working in government agencies. Genetic counselors have opportunities to become involved in public health activities as the scope of public health genetics grows. Furthermore, genetic counseling competencies are compatible with the Institute of Medicine’s “10 Essential Public Health Services.” The NSGC and genetic counseling training programs are encouraged to offer more public health learning opportunities for genetic counselors and genetic counseling students interested in this specialty area.     

An assessment of teratology training provided by masters level genetic counseling programs

The increasing demand in the clinical genetics setting for information about teratogen exposures has created a need for genetic counselors to have the capabilities to appropriately address patient concerns. In order to assess how training in teratogen counseling is currently being conducted, the GLaRGG Teratogen Subcommittee surveyed all 17 genetic counseling training programs in North America in September 1993. Information was obtained from training programs about coursework, resources, and clinical training. In addition, each training program was asked to provide information about how their teratogen training needs could better be met. While all programs responded that some information in their coursework applicable to teratogen counseling was provided, there was wide variation in the amount of time devoted to this topic. The programs also greatly differed in the provision of clinical training in teratogen counseling. For both coursework and clinical work, genetic counselors were the main trainers in teratogen counseling. In spite of this, fewer than 25% of training programs have a defined teratogen clinical rotation. Data from the survey are discussed and recommendations presented.     

A Commentary on Opportunities for the Genetic Counseling Profession through Genomic Variant Interpretation: Reflections from an Ex-Lab Rat

The genetic counseling profession continues to expand and respond to the changing landscape of genomic medicine. “Non-traditional” genetic counseling roles have become more commonplace and the transferability of the genetic counselor skill set has been widely acknowledged, particularly in genetic laboratory settings. As these expanding roles continue to mature, all genetic counselors can benefit by learning and adopting clinically relevant skills, such as genomic variant interpretation, which can be applied to direct patient care. These skills can enrich our patients’ understanding of their test results, help ensure quality patient care, and could be useful in positioning genetic counselors as critical members in the medical team as we continue to fully transition into the genomic medicine era.     

Concerns of South Korean Patients and Family Members Affected with Genetic Conditions: A Content Analysis of Internet Website Messages

The genetic counseling profession is expanding globally, and many countries, such as South Korea, are in the early stages of developing programs to prepare healthcare professionals specifically trained as genetic counselors. However, little research has investigated the concerns of South Korean patients and family members that have genetic conditions. The present study assessed their concerns by accessing and analyzing messages posted to websites devoted to genetic conditions. Eighteen websites were accessed—1 website concerns general genetic conditions, and 17 concern specific conditions. A sample of 700 messages was translated into English and analyzed using grounded theory analysis. Three major themes and 30 categories were extracted. The themes are: 1) Medical Concerns (e.g., clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, recurrence risk, prevention, inheritance); 2) Psychosocial Concerns (e.g., emotions, social stigma, social support); and 3) Management Concerns (e.g., therapy and alternative treatments, education, financial support, nutrition, medical facilities, folk remedies). The findings provide insight into the types of information and genetic counseling services that might benefit South Korean individuals and family members.     

BRCA1 Testing: Genetic Counseling Protocol Development and Counseling Issues

This article discusses the genetic counseling protocols which were developed and counseling issues that have arisen in the first 2 years of evaluating a large kindred with a BRCA1 mutation. The rationale for the development of the genetic counseling protocols and specific genetic counseling visual aids are presented and discussed. The protocols and counseling aids can serve as models for other programs offering cancer susceptibility testing. The observations of study counselors about study subject concerns and responses to genetic testing at the time of the pretest and posttest counseling sessions are presented.