Workforce Implications of Increased Referrals to Hereditary Cancer Services in Canada: A Scenario-Based Analysis.

Over the last decade, utilization of clinical genetics services has grown rapidly, putting increasing pressure on the workforce available to deliver genetic healthcare. To highlight the policy challenges facing Canadian health systems, a needs-based workforce requirements model was developed to determine the number of Canadian patients in 2030 for whom an assessment of hereditary cancer risk would be indicated according to current standards and the numbers of genetic counsellors, clinical geneticists and other physicians with expertise in genetics needed to provide care under a diverse set of scenarios. Our model projects that by 2030, a total of 90 specialist physicians and 326 genetic counsellors (1.7-fold and 1.6-fold increases from 2020, respectively) will be required to provide Canadians with indicated hereditary cancer services if current growth trends and care models remain unchanged. However, if the expansion in eligibility for hereditary cancer assessment accelerates, the need for healthcare providers with expertise in genetics would increase dramatically unless alternative care models are widely adopted. Increasing capacity through service delivery innovation, as well as mainstreaming of cancer genetics care, will be critical to Canadian health systems' ability to meet this challenge.

Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic.

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.