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.     

“More on Respect for Embryos and Potentiality: Does Respect for Embryos Entail Respect for In Vitro Embryos?”

It is commonly assumed that persons who hold abortions to be generally impermissible must, for the same reasons, be opposed to embryonic stem cell research [ESR]. Yet a settled position against abortion does not necessarily direct one to reject that research. The difference in potentiality between the embryos used in ESR and embryos discussed in the abortion debate can make ESR acceptable even if one holds that abortion is impermissible. With regard to their potentiality, in vitro embryos are here argued to be more morally similar to clonable somatic cells than they are to in vivo embryos. This creates an important moral distinction between embryos in vivo and in vitro. Attempts to refute this moral distinction, raised in the recent debate in this journal between Alfonso Gómez-Lobo and Mary Mahowald, are also addressed.     

National Survey of Psychologists' Test Feedback Training,Supervision, and Practice: A Mixed Methods Study

In this empirical, mixed methods study, we explored test feedback training, supervision, and practice among psychologists, focusing specifically on how feedback is provided to clients and whether feedback skills are taught in graduate programs. Based on a 48.5% return rate, this national survey of clinical, counseling, and school psychologists' suggests psychologists provide test feedback to clients but inconsistently. Most respondents, 91.7%, indicated they give verbal feedback at least some of the time, whereas 35% do so every time. However, 2.8% indicated they never give feedback. A negative correlation exists for clinical psychologists between years since graduation and providing verbal feedback. Of particular interest, approximately one third of respondents indicated predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship were of little-to-no help in preparing them to provide feedback. Also, feedback training in predoctoral coursework, practica, and internship was not correlated to actually providing feedback. There was, however, a significant correlation between postdoctoral training and providing feedback. Consistent with existing ethical exceptions, the most frequent reason for not providing feedback was using assessments in forensic settings. Individuals who indicated their training was not helpful cited “trial and error” and self-instruction as ways in which they learned feedback skills. We discuss implications and suggestions for feedback training, research, and practice.