Code of Ethics of the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Explication of Revisions

The Code of Ethics (COE) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) was adopted in 1992. In 2004, the NSGC leadership appointed the Code of Ethics Work Group (COEWG) to consider revisions to the NSGC COE based on advice from the NSGC legal counsel, and to consider additional changes given growth in the scope of genetic counseling practice since the adoption of the original COE. After input from the NSGC membership, changes to the COE addressing the recommendations of the NSGC legal counsel were approved in December 2004. The COEWG then reviewed ethical codes and codes of professional conduct from 22 professional organizations, deemed to have similar goals and philosophies to the NSGC, searching for themes that encompassed genetic counseling practice that might not yet be addressed in the NSGC COE. Additional revisions to the COE were proposed, and after feedback from the NSGC membership, the revised COE was approved in January 2006 by majority vote of full members of the NSGC. The explications for the 2004 and 2006 revisions are presented.     

Genetic Counseling for Fragile X Syndrome: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

The National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) recommendations for fragile X syndrome (FXS) genetic counseling are intended to assist health care professionals who provide genetic counseling for individuals and families in whom the diagnosis of FXS is strongly suspected or has been made. The recommendations are the opinions of genetic counselors with expertise in FXS counseling and are based on clinical experience, a review of pertinent English language medical articles, and reports of expert committees. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular client.     

Standards for the Reporting of Genetic Counseling Interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force Report

As the demand for evidence to support the value of genetic counseling increases, it is critical that reporting of genetic counseling interventions in research and other types of studies (e.g. process improvement or service evaluation studies) adopt greater rigor. As in other areas of healthcare, the appraisal, synthesis, and translation of research findings into genetic counseling practice are likely to be improved if clear specifications of genetic counseling interventions are reported when studies involving genetic counseling are published. To help improve reporting practices, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) convened a task force in 2015 to develop consensus standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions. Following review by the NSGC Board of Directors, the NSGC Practice Guidelines Committee and the editorial board of the Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23 items across 8 domains were proposed as standards for the reporting of genetic counseling interventions in the published literature (GCIRS: Genetic Counseling Intervention Reporting Standards). The authors recommend adoption of these standards by authors and journals when reporting studies involving genetic counseling interventions.     

Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples (related as second cousins or closer) and their offspring with the goals of1. providing preconception reproductive options2. improving pregnancy outcome and identifying reproductive choices3. reducing morbidity and mortality in the 1st years of life, and4. respecting psychosocial and multicultural issues.The recommendations are the opinions of a multicenter working group (the Consanguinity Working Group (CWG)) with expertise in genetic counseling, medical genetics, biochemical genetics, genetic epidemiology, pediatrics, perinatology, and public health genetics, which was convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The consensus of the CWG and NSGC reviewers is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples. Consanguineous couples should be offered similar genetic screening as suggested for any couple of their ethnic group. During pregnancy, consanguineous couples should be offered maternal–fetal serum marker screening and high-resolution fetal ultrasonography. Newborns should be screened for impaired hearing and detection of treatable inborn errors of metabolism. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. The professional judgment of a health care provider, familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case, will always supersede these recommendations.     

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis: the Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

The 1997 discovery of free fetal DNA in maternal plasma launched clinical researchers’ efforts to establish a reliable method for non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal genetic conditions. Various methods, including, but not limited to, massively parallel sequencing (MPS) and selective analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma, have recently been developed as highly sensitive and specific noninvasive screening tools for common fetal chromosome aneuploidies. Incorporating these new noninvasive technologies into clinical practice will impact the current prenatal screening paradigm for fetal aneuploidy, in which genetic counseling plays an integral role. The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) currently supports Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis (NIPT/NIPD) as an option for patients whose pregnancies are considered to be at an increased risk for certain chromosome abnormalities. NSGC urges that NIPT/NIPD only be offered in the context of informed consent, education, and counseling by a qualified provider, such as a certified genetic counselor. Patients whose NIPT/NIPD results are abnormal, or who have other factors suggestive of a chromosome abnormality, should receive genetic counseling and be given the option of standard confirmatory diagnostic testing.     

Diversity and General Student Scholarship Recipient Essays: 2010 National Society of Genetic Counselors Membership Committee

In an effort to increase the diversity of the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), the Membership Committee provided two $500 scholarships to genetic counseling students planning to attend the NSGC AEC meeting in Dallas, Texas in October 2010. Requirements for applicants of both scholarships included enrollment in the fall of 2010, good standing at an accredited genetic counseling training program, and NSGC membership or plans to join in 2011. Students who are from communities underrepresented in the NSGC, including, but not limited to, those of minority cultural/ethnic backgrounds and those with disabilities were eligible to apply for the “Diversity” scholarship. Students from all backgrounds who have an interest in diversity issues were eligible to apply for the “General” scholarship. Applicants wrote essays 1000 words or less answering the following questions: How has your identity as a member of a group underrepresented in the genetic counseling profession affected your pursuit of this career? What do you feel is lacking in genetic counseling to address the issues of underrepresented groups? What strategies do you recommend for addressing these issues and/or increasing diversity? Why do you think diversity is an important issue for the field of genetic counseling? What strategies do you recommend to attract and retain students, especially those from underrepresented populations, into the field of genetic counseling? How do you envision contributing to these strategies? The essays by the award recipients elucidated interesting perspectives and ideas for increasing diversity in the genetic counseling profession.     

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.     

Talking about Disability in Prenatal Genetic Counseling: A Report of Two Interactive Workshops

Women are commonly offered testing in pregnancy to determine the health of their baby. An important component of informed decision-making about prenatal testing is provision of relevant, accurate, meaningful information concerning the conditions that are being tested for—many of which, such as Down syndrome, are associated with a varying degree of physical and intellectual disability. A range of health professionals, including genetic counselors, may provide information and support throughout the testing process, but available data suggest that discussion of disability is frequently absent or limited. To investigate genetic counselors’ perceptions of this situation and identify potential barriers to discussion we facilitated interactive workshops at the 2007 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference (NSGC) and the 2008 European Meeting on Psychosocial Aspects of Genetics (EMPAG). Working groups identified relevant psychosocial issues and impediments to discussion (NSGC) or used a two-part scenario to promote discussion (EMPAG) and reported findings in notes and a closing plenary discussion. Inductive content analysis revealed that participants considered informed decision making to be a major reason for presenting information about disabilities in prenatal genetic counseling and endorsed the value of including information about daily life with Down syndrome and other disabilities. However, they identified three broad types of impediments to such discussion: counseling issues concerning the most appropriate manner to discuss disability under the complex circumstances of prenatal genetic counseling, less than optimal training and experience in addressing these issues, and perceived limitations in the participants’ knowledge and understanding of life with disability. Our analysis of the responses from the workshop participants and additional thoughts on these issues have led us to develop recommendations for further research, training and clinical practice.     

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.     

A New Definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force Report

The Genetic Counseling Definition Task Force of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) developed the following definition of genetic counseling that was approved by the NSGC Board of Directors: Genetic counseling is the process of helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease. This process integrates the following: •Interpretation of family and medical histories to assess the chance of disease occurrence or recurrence. •Education about inheritance, testing, management, prevention, resources and research. •Counseling to promote informed choices and adaptation to the risk or condition. The definition was approved after a peer review process with input from the NSGC membership, genetic professional organizations, the NSGC legal counsel, and leaders of several national genetic advocacy groups.     

Genomic Counseling in the Newborn Period: Experiences and Views of Genetic Counselors

As newborn screening (NBS) technology expands, genetic counselors will become more involved in counseling for NBS results, including those potentially generated from whole exome sequencing (WES) and eventually whole genome sequencing (WGS). Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) responded to an online survey (n?=?208) regarding genomic counseling in the context of NBS. The majority of participants (82.1 %) did not feel prepared to counsel for WGS results from NBS. Counselors with previous WES/WGS counseling experience felt more prepared (p?=?0.005) to counsel for WGS results from NBS than those without WES/WGS experience. Overall, counselors expressed ethical and practical concerns regarding WGS in NBS, as well as a need for additional training regarding this application of the technology before it is implemented. Based on the results of this study, genetic counselors voice caution to the larger genetics community regarding expansion of NBS to incorporate genomic sequencing and advocate for additional education prior to initiating WGS into NBS.     

Effects of Second Language Usage on Genetic Counseling Training and Supervision

We conducted an exploratory study of the experiences of genetic counselors who have either trained or supervised in a second language to assess the relevance of this issue to genetic counseling training and supervision. Two hundred-thirty NSGC members, CAGC members and genetic counseling students completed the online questionnaire. Many of the respondents reported that training and supervision differed when another language was involved. Supervisors reported difficulty in assessing students’ counseling skills and discomfort with an incomplete understanding of session content. Students described a greater focus on vocabulary at the expense of psychosocial dimensions. Despite this, most felt that using another language enhanced their training experience. As such, training programs might consider increasing support to these learners and supervisors by explicitly acknowledging the challenges they face, providing students with language tools to aid in their acquisition of basic skills and providing supervisors with new methods for assessing student counseling skills when using other languages.     

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.     

Identification of Individuals at Risk for Lynch Syndrome Using Targeted Evaluations and Genetic Testing: National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer Joint Practice Guideline

Identifying individuals who have Lynch syndrome (LS) involves a complex diagnostic work up that includes taking a detailed family history and a combination of various genetic and immunohistochemical tests. The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer (CGA-ICC) have come together to publish this clinical practice testing guideline for the evaluation of LS. The purpose of this practice guideline is to provide guidance and a testing algorithm for LS as well as recommendations on when to offer testing. This guideline does not replace a consultation with a genetics professional. This guideline includes explanations in support of this and a summary of background data. While this guideline is not intended to serve as a review of LS, it includes a discussion of background information on LS, and cites a number of key publications which should be reviewed for a more in-depth understanding of LS. These guidelines are intended for genetic counselors, geneticists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses and other healthcare providers who evaluate patients for LS.     

Prenatal Testing for Adult-Onset Conditions: the Position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Advances in genetic testing and the availability of such testing in pregnancy allows prospective parents to test their future child for adult-onset conditions. This ability raises several complex ethical issues. Prospective parents have reproductive rights to obtain information about their fetus. This information may or may not alter pregnancy management. These rights can be in conflict with the rights of the future individual, who will be denied the right to elect or decline testing. This paper highlights the complexity of these issues, details discussions that went into the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Public Policy Task Force’s development of the Prenatal testing for Adult-Onset Conditions position statement adopted in November 2014, and cites relevant literature on this topic through December 2015. Issues addressed include parental rights and autonomy, rights of the future child, the right not to know, possible adverse effects on childhood and the need for genetic counseling. This paper will serve as a reference to genetic counselors and healthcare professionals when faced with this situation in clinical practice.     

Coming Full Circle: A Reciprocal-Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice

As genetic health care and genetic testing expand from primarily addressing conditions that are exclusively genetic in nature to common diseases with both genetic and environmental components, the scope of genetic counseling has grown. Identification and utilization of a normative model of practice defined by members of the profession is critical as genetic services become more commonplace in medical care. The purpose of this paper is to describe the results of a consensus conference convened to define a model of genetic counseling practice based on the guidance of educators and leaders in the profession. Twenty-three program directors or their representatives from 20 genetic counseling graduate programs in North America listened to presentations and participated in group discussions aimed at determining the elements of a model of practice, including tenets, goals, strategies, and behaviors for addressing patients’ genetic concerns. Their discussion is summarized, training implications and research recommendations are presented, and a model of practice that extends their ideas is proposed.     

Elucidating Genetic Counseling Outcomes from the Perspective of Genetic Counselors

Outcomes in the field of genetic counseling have not been well-defined or categorized, despite pressures to provide evidence-based measures in all areas of healthcare. This study describes a process to elucidate and categorize a wide-ranging set of outcomes as characterized by diverse groups of practicing genetic counselors. Semi-structured focus groups were conducted at the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2013 NSGC Annual Education Conference during an educational breakout session. A general inductive qualitative research approach was utilized to code focus group notes, categorize them into themes, and compare them across specialty groups. A total of 107 individuals participated in 14 focus groups, consisting of specialists in cancer (n = 20), general genetics (n = 40), prenatal genetics (n = 11), and “other” (n = 36). Of the twelve genetic counseling outcomes themes identified, the most common across focus groups included: 1) appropriateness of testing and accuracy of results interpretation; 2) psychosocial outcomes; 3) adherence to or receipt of appropriate medical management; and 4) patient and provider knowledge. Data assessed by specialty demonstrated similarities in outcomes themes, suggesting that a common set of genetic counseling outcomes would likely be appropriate to cover the majority of needs for the profession. Results can serve as a platform from which to build a more well-defined and comprehensive set of outcomes.