Need for integration of genetic counselors in the Portuguese healthcare: Their added value from the medical geneticists perspective.

Genetic counseling plays a crucial role in providing individuals and families with comprehensive information, support, and guidance regarding genetic conditions. This article explores the benefits of the integration of the genetic counselor (GC) professional in Portugal and based on evidence collected from two focus group comprising Portuguese medical geneticists. The findings highlight the agreement of medical geneticists on the relevancy of GCs' integration into national healthcare as well as the need for education and training programs to enhance the genetics literacy of other healthcare professionals and increase public awareness and support for genetic counseling services. By incorporating GCs and adopting some actions suggested by participants as part of a future national strategy, Portugal can improve access to personalized genetic services and empower individuals to make informed decisions about their genetic health.

Survey of patient satisfaction with genetic counseling services in Korea.

Since the 1990s, genetic clinics have been established in South Korea, enabling the provision of clinical genetics services. However, genetic counseling services are not widely used in the medical system. In contrast, recently, the demand for genetic counseling has increased due to the rapid development of genomic medicine. Therefore, it is important for medical geneticists and genetic counselors to collaboratively provide genetic counseling services. This study aimed to evaluate the perception and satisfaction of patients with rare genetic diseases and their families regarding genetic counseling services provided by a genetics team at the medical genetics center of a tertiary general hospital for rare genetic diseases. From April to November 2021, a survey was conducted with 203 individuals, including 111 and 92 individuals in the patient and family groups, respectively. Overall, 164 individuals (80.8%) responded that they were aware of genetic counseling services, and 135 individuals (66.5%) responded that they were aware of the role of genetic counselors. Patients and their families wanted to receive information about the following from genetic counseling: clinical manifestation and prognosis of the diagnosed disease (78.8%), treatment and management of the disease (60.6%), risk of recurrence within the family (55.7%), treatment options and alternatives for family and prenatal testing, and various support services. The score of satisfaction with genetic counseling services provided by the genetics team was 8.19 ± 1.68 out of 10. Patients with rare genetic diseases and their families were satisfied with genetic counseling services regarding their diseases, test results, and treatment options. Moreover, the patients could receive psychosocial support and referrals to other medical service providers and support services. As a genetic team approach, collaboration between medical geneticists and certified genetic counselors would be useful in providing information and in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients.

Enhancing intersex healthcare: A qualitative study of parental perspectives on the role of genetics.

Intersex individuals, encompassing people with diverse sex characteristics that do not fit binary frameworks of sex, have long faced a history of medical secrecy, discrimination, and societal stigma, contributing to their limited social visibility. In recent years, increased awareness of intersex issues and a robust advocacy movement have drawn significant attention to the experiences of intersex individuals and their families. This study contributes to the existing literature by examining the experiences and needs of parents of intersex individuals within genetic healthcare systems, bridging a critical gap, and advocating for more comprehensive and supportive healthcare practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 parents of intersex individuals, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively generate four major themes. Themes highlighted the need for improved accessibility of intersex healthcare, the importance of multidisciplinary healthcare teams, and the significance of clinical diagnosis provided by genetics professionals. Furthermore, the study highlighted the necessity of a thoughtful approach to information provision and the impact of genetic investigations on family dynamics. Genetics professionals can play a pivotal role in raising awareness about intersex variations, improving diagnostic processes, collaborating within healthcare teams, and providing specialized support to address psychosocial concerns. The study underscores the importance of treating families as a collective entity and addressing the impact of genetic investigations on the family unit. By addressing the challenges and implementing the recommendations outlined, healthcare institutions can create a more compassionate, inclusive, and effective healthcare environment for the intersex community.

Further defining the roles and impact of genetic counselors in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry.

As personalized medicine has gained traction, drug development models in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry (BPI) have increasingly sought to address medical conditions with a genetic component, creating an opportunity for genetic counselors (GCs) to fill new roles and utilize their unique training to contribute to drug development. Despite the potential for GCs in BPI, literature around the role of GCs in this industry has been limited. Our mixed methods study aimed to assess how the roles of GCs in BPI have evolved since 2016, investigate the value of and opportunity for GCs in this industry, and further characterize their motivation and job satisfaction. Participants were recruited via social media advertising, snowball sampling, and email listservs from the National Society of Genetic Counseling (NSGC), the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors (CAGC), and the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC). Survey (n = 20) and interview (n = 6) data indicates many aspects of GC roles in BPI are consistent with the 2016 study. However, there is evidence of roles becoming more varied and with increasing recognition of the value of GCs, opportunities for involvement in BPI are growing. Furthermore, combined study data found that GCs are motivated by the flexibility of BPI roles as well as the opportunity to contribute to rare disease treatment development and that they are overall satisfied with most aspects of their jobs. Interview data also found that genetic counseling training has the potential to improve clinical trial design and outcomes by making drug development more patient-centric. Finally, combined study data found that while GCs continue to utilize Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling (ACGC) practice-based competencies (PBCs), business-related training may benefit GCs seeking to enter BPI. Together, these findings are critical for informing genetic counseling training programs, employers within BPI, and GCs interested in entering these positions.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Assessing the impact of psychiatric genetic counseling on psychiatric hospitalizations.

Psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC) can improve patient empowerment and self-efficacy. We explored the relationship between pGC and psychiatric hospitalizations, for which no prior data exist. Using Population Data BC (a provincial dataset), we tested two hypotheses: (1) among patients (>18 years) with psychiatric conditions who received pGC between May 2010 and Dec 2016 (N = 387), compared with the year pre-pGC, in the year post-pGC there would be fewer (a) individuals hospitalized and (b) total hospital admissions; and (2) using a matched cohort design, compared with controls (N = 363, matched 1:4 for sex, diagnosis, time since diagnosis, region, and age, and assigned a pseudo pGC index date), the pGC cohort (N = 91) would have (a) more individuals whose number of hospitalizations decreased and (b) fewer hospitalizations post-pGC/pseudo-index. We also explored total days in hospital. Within the pGC cohort, there were fewer hospitalizations post-pGC than pre- pGC (p = 0.011, OR = 1.69), and total days in hospital decreased (1085 to 669). However, when compared to matched controls, the post-pGC/pseudo index change in hospitalizations among pGC cases was not statistically significant, even after controlling for the higher number of hospitalizations prior. pGC may lead to fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and cost savings; further studies exploring this are warranted.

Exploring the training needs of inherited cardiac conditions (ICC) nurses: Elucidating role boundaries and competencies for practice in the genomics era.

Nurses represent the largest professional group within the National Health Service (NHS) and are therefore central to the successful integration of mainstreaming genomics into routine healthcare. Inherited cardiac conditions (ICC) nurse roles have been developed in recent years to streamline the care for patients and families affected by an ICC. Like many nurse specialists, ICC nurses' prior exposure to genomics and the wider implications surrounding inherited conditions is limited. The aim of the study was to explore the education needs and support required for ICC nurses to fulfill their role within the genomic medicine era. A convenience sampling approach was adopted to invite ICC nurses working within various NHS Trusts across the United Kingdom to take part. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ICC nurses (n = 8), which were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Analysis of interview data highlighted four core themes, which were transferrable core competencies; managing genomic information; mixed-modality learning; defining multidisciplinary team boundaries. The study highlights areas for further training and demonstrates the importance of defining competencies and role boundaries within ICC services. The ICC nurses identified the limits of their practice and the complementary role of genetic counselors, indicating the need for both professions within the ICC service and proposing implications for practice.

Effects of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome patients on the workflow and professional satisfaction of genetic counselors.

The Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDS), a group of uncommon connective tissue disorders, are, paradoxically, an increasingly common referral to genetics specialists. Of the 13 types of EDS, the most common is hypermobile EDS (hEDS), which lacks a known genetic etiology and for which diagnosis is achieved via a robust set of clinical criteria. While previous investigations have characterized many clinical aspects of EDS as a syndrome and patients' lived experiences, a gap in the literature exists regarding clinicians' experience caring for these individuals. This study sought to understand the effects of hEDS patient referrals from genetic counselors' perspectives. To capture these novel views and values, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 participants who were members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and had experience working with the hEDS patient population. Interview questions explored the frequency of hEDS referrals in their clinic, investigated their roles and responsibilities as genetic counselors when working with this population, analyzed their workflow for this indication, assessed the impacts on their professional satisfaction, and explored potential options for improving workflow and care for the hEDS patient population. Reflexive thematic analysis yielded four themes: (1) Referrals for hEDS have generally increased over time and many institutions have implemented new policies to control this influx, (2) genetic counselors' primary roles include education and addressing psychosocial matters for this population, (3) genetic counselors feel both rewarded and challenged by these referrals, and (4) genetic counselors call for more education and training on hEDS for all healthcare specialties. Our findings provide a better understanding of the goals of the hEDS patient referrals to genetics specialists and the opportunities and challenges those referrals present. Genetic counselors have specific training and skills in psychosocial counseling and communication, in some ways making them ideal care providers for this population. However, they are simultaneously a scarce resource and the complex medical issues presented by many patients with hEDS make multidisciplinary management essential. We conclude with potential avenues for improving interactions with this population.

Toward depathologizing queerness: An analysis of queer oppression in clinical genetics.

Critically examining the way that the field of clinical genetics has impacted queer communities offers the field an opportunity to strengthen our commitment to inclusive high-quality care to all patients, families, and communities. This article reviews the origins of clinical genetics and genetic counseling in the eugenics movement and how this ontology promoted harmful medical practices grounded in assumptions of what is "normal." We critically examine existing clinical genetics practices and how commonly used binary frameworks for gender, sex, and sexuality perpetuate heteronormative, cisnormative, and bioessentialist assumptions. In order to move toward queer inclusivity, the genetic counseling field must first take accountability for past injustices. Restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches offer a way to engage with the queer community and to begin to rectify the history of medical harm. Through our analysis, we advocate for expanding efforts to depathologize queerness, promote bodily autonomy, and provide equitable healthcare for the queer community.

Experience conducting a community-engaged student research project involving an underrepresented community: A reflective essay.

Recruiting racially and ethnically underrepresented participants into genetics research studies has been challenging. While many institutions have taken steps to address the inequity in genetics research, genetic counseling training programs have the chance to inspire students to engage with underrepresented communities through utilizing different research methodologies. These methodologies can help students focus on research projects that increase access to genetics services and improve clinical care. Community-engaged research (CER) presents a pedagogical approach to enhance service-learning opportunities for students. Furthermore, it allows students to develop practical research skills for doing research with the community, rather than on the community. CER is a collaborative community-academic partnership that leads to mutual benefit and outcomes such as inclusion and engagement of the community in research, building trust and relationships, and increasing cultural awareness and exposure. In addition, CER can be used to address research and healthcare inequities by providing opportunities for genetics professionals and trainees to work closely with underrepresented populations. We aim to highlight the opportunities CER provides to students, mentors, and faculty within the context of graduate research in genetic counseling training from the experiences of a student and an educator. In addition, we hope to emphasize the necessity for projects like these to address the gaps in participation of underrepresented patient populations in research and identify areas that are mutually beneficial to improve health outcomes, patient care experiences, access, and service delivery. This reflective essay illustrates the completion of a CER project that was developed in collaboration with community members to address gaps in clinical genetics services in Indigenous healthcare.

Australasian genetic counselors' attitudes toward disability and prenatal testing: Findings from a cross-sectional survey.

Diagnostic genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for conditions associated with disability are becoming increasingly available to consumers. This genetic information can be used in the disability setting to inform factors such as prognosis, management, and reproductive decision-making. Genetic counselors (GCs) play an important role in the provision of genetic testing and NIPT, and their attitudes toward disability can influence how genetic information is communicated and shape patients' responses. This study aimed to evaluate and describe Australasian GCs' experience with and attitudes toward disabilities to identify potential biases and training needs. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 400 GCs registered with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Of the 106 respondents (participation rate: 26%), a significantly greater proportion were more comfortable interacting with individuals with physical disability as compared to intellectual disability (p < 0.001). GCs with personal experiences with disabilities reported significantly greater comfort interacting with people with intellectual disability than those without experience (p = 0.012). Qualitative analysis revealed discomfort was less reflective of bias than inexperience and apprehension about communicating disrespectfully. GCs believed people with disabilities experience discrimination and that having a disability could make a person stronger, wiser, and more motivated. Most GCs viewed prenatal testing for disabilities positively as it allowed for decisions regarding continuing the pregnancy and/or provided opportunity to prepare. Challenges identified for prenatal counseling included negative societal attitudes and the low visibility of disability. GCs felt that 'personal beliefs' was the primary factor influencing the decision to terminate a pregnancy affected by disability. These findings highlight important education and training needs for GCs to improve preparedness and comfort when communicating with people with a disability.

The genetic counselor workforce in inherited retinal disease clinics: a descriptive assessment.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counselors (GCs) have practiced in Inherited Retinal Disease (IRD) clinics for several decades. In this small subspecialty of genetic counseling, GCs are critical for patient understanding of genetic information, which can have prognostic, systemic, family planning and therapeutic implications. Recently, both access to genetic testing for IRDs and the number of genes associated with IRDs (>350) has increased dramatically. However, the practice models and roles of IRD GCs have not been previously described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GCs working in academic IRD clinics were surveyed to assess their experience, clinical practices, and roles performed. The collected data was compared to the broader genetic counseling profession and to other specialties using publicly available data on GC professional practices. RESULTS: While roles of IRD GCs were overlapping with those of the overall genetic counseling profession, all survey respondents reported diverse roles that included both clinical and non-clinical duties, spending up to half their time on research and educational responsibilities. Most respondents (89%) felt that their clinic's MD to GC ratio was too high, while clinical load varied. IRD GCs report varying degrees of prior genetic counseling and ophthalmology-specific experience but unanimously desire additional subspecialty-specific training. CONCLUSIONS: This descriptive assessment of a small subspecialty suggests a need for growth in the number of GCs practicing in IRD clinics and could help to inform development of new GC positions in IRD centers. It also highlights the desire for additional GC-specific education and may be relevant to curriculum development within GC programs.

The utilization of genetic counselors by patient support groups.

The theoretical benefits of collaboration between patient support groups and genetic counselors have been discussed in the literature. However, no study has quantified the rate or ways that support groups utilize genetic counselors. This study surveyed one person in a leadership role at genetic support organizations to determine how many of the organizations have a relationship with genetic counselors, their utilization of genetic counselors, and their satisfaction with that relationship. It was found that 64.8% of organizations had a relationship with genetic counselors. Relationships were more likely to exist when organizations had full-time workers, had a primary focus on research, or offered a number and variety of services to members. Ways in which organizations utilized genetic counselors included as speakers at conferences, answering patient inquiries, and serving on expert panels. These relationships were supported through funding, networking, and patients connecting the two parties. Overall, representatives from organizations that had a relationship of any sort with genetic counselors were more likely to indicate satisfaction with that relationship than dissatisfaction (χ2 (4, n = 89) = 45.053, p < 0.001). Even so, many respondents indicated that they wanted to continue to grow their relationship with genetic counselors but were hindered by the lack of funding or access to genetic counselors who could be engaged in their cause. Thus, while relationships and satisfaction with the relationship to genetic counselors were generally high, this study highlights access, outreach, and funding as areas of focus to improve utilization of genetic counselors in the support group sector.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counseling assistants: Comparing background experiences, responsibilities, satisfaction, and career goals.

Understanding the responsibilities, qualifications, future plans, and contributions of genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) across all work settings could aid in establishing a scope of practice, advocating for creation of GCA positions, and informing future education and training for GCAs and genetic counselors. We compared laboratory and clinical GCA responsibilities, sources of job satisfaction, background experience, and career goals. Sixty-five laboratory and 73 clinical GCAs participated in this study by completing an online survey. Most participants had a Bachelor of Science/Arts and aspired to become genetic counselors (GCs). Clinical GCAs had more interaction with patients, whereas laboratory GCAs had more interaction with ordering providers and little to no patient contact. On a scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (extremely satisfied), clinical GCAs had statistically significant higher satisfaction ratings (M = 8.56, SD = 1.42) than laboratory GCAs (M = 7.35, SD = 1.82, U = 3346, p = 0.001). While most participants were GCAs for 13-18 months, laboratory GCAs stayed in their positions (19-24 months, n = 20, 30.8%) for significantly longer than clinical GCAs (7-12 months, n = 21, 28.8%, X2 (5) = 12.799, p = 0.025). GCAs noted increases in their knowledge and new skill development, though we also identified responsibilities for which they did not feel qualified. The results of this study can potentially help define a GCA scope of practice with data regarding background experiences and responsibilities. In addition, GCA employers may use the results to retain GCAs by addressing satisfaction issues, providing appropriate training, and adjusting roles. GC training program directors can use the results to manage expectations of applicants with GCA experience and inform training and curriculum needs based on the composition of a GC class.

Comparing telemedicine and in-person gastrointestinal cancer genetic appointment outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The study purpose is to compare outcomes associated with completion of genetic testing between telemedicine and in-person gastrointestinal cancer risk assessment appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data was collected on patients with scheduled appointments between July 2020 and June 2021 in a gastrointestinal cancer risk evaluation program (GI-CREP) that utilized both telemedicine and in-person visits throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and a survey was administered. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients had a GI-CREP appointment scheduled and completion rates of in-person versus telemedicine appointments were similar. Individuals diagnosed with cancer and those with Medicaid insurance had lower rates of appointment completion. Although telehealth was the preferred visit modality, there were no differences in recommending genetic testing nor in the consent rate for genetic testing between in-person and telemedicine visits. However, of patients who consented for genetic testing, more than three times more patients seen via telemedicine did not complete genetic testing compared to those seen in-person (18.3% versus 5.2%, p = 0.008). Furthermore, telemedicine visits had a longer turnaround time for genetic test reporting (32 days versus 13 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to in-person GI-CREP appointments, telemedicine was associated with lower rates of genetic testing completion, and longer turnaround time for results.

Critical components of genomic medicine practice for non-genetics healthcare professionals: Genetic counselors' perspectives and implications for medical education.

Genetic services are increasingly provided by non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) with minimal formal training in genetics/genomics. Research demonstrates gaps in knowledge and clinical practices in genetics/genomics among NGHPs, but there is a lack of consensus on the specific knowledge needed by NGHPs to effectively provide genetic services. As clinical genetics professionals, genetic counselors (GCs) have insight into the critical components of genetics/genomics knowledge and practices needed by NGHPs. This study explored GCs' beliefs regarding whether NGHPs should provide genetic services and identified GCs' perceptions of the components of knowledge and clinical practice in genetics/genomics that are most critical for NGHPs providing genetic services. Two hundred and forty GCs completed an online quantitative survey with 17 participating in a follow-up qualitative interview. Descriptive statistics and cross-comparisons were generated for survey data. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive qualitative method for cross-case analysis. Most GCs disagreed with NGHPs providing genetic services, but beliefs varied widely, ranging from disagreement due to perceived gaps in knowledge or clinical skills to acceptance of NGHPs providing genetic services due to limited access to genetics professionals. Across survey and interview data, GCs endorsed the interpretation of genetic test results, understanding implications of results, collaboration with genetics professionals, knowledge of the risks and benefits to testing, and recognizing indications for genetic testing as critical components of knowledge and clinical practice for NGHPs. Several recommendations for improving the provision of genetic services were provided by respondents including educating NGHPs to provide genetic services through case-based continuing medical education and increasing collaboration between NGHPs and genetics professionals. As GCs are healthcare providers with experience and vested interests in educating NGHPs, their perspectives can help inform the creation of continuing medical education to ensure patients' access to high-quality genomic medicine care from providers of varying backgrounds.

Comparison of genetic testing documentation between genetic counselors and non-genetic counselors.

Implementation of genetic testing in healthcare increases, but access to, and number of, genetics providers remain scarce. This study analyzed the impact of genetic counselor (GC) involvement on frequency of documentation of pre- and post-test counseling of genetic testing between GCs and genetics providers (GPs), and GCs and non-genetics providers (NGPs). A retrospective chart review of 467 charts from patients who had genetic testing ordered between July 2016 and June 2018 at a primarily pediatric institution was conducted. GCs were involved for 223 charts (GC group), and not involved for 244 (non-GC group). The non-GC group was further stratified into patient charts with Genetics Providers (GP group) (n = 100) involved and those with Non-Genetics Providers (NGP group) (n = 144) involved. Categorical, binomial, pre-test variables (counseling, test description, results possibilities, insurance coverage, and cost) and categorical, binomial, post-test variables (results disclosure, family testing recommendations, recurrence risk, and provided resources) were collected and compared using Fisher's exact test (p < 0.005). With the exception of test description, documentation for all variables occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the NGP group (all p < 0.001). Documentation for the majority of variables also occurred more frequently in the GC group compared to the GP group (p < 0.005), with the exceptions of overall pre-test counseling and family testing recommendations. GC involvement was associated with increased documentation of most pre- and post-test genetic counseling variables. With increased emphasis placed on transparency, accurateness, and access for patients of the EMR, in part due to the passage of the CARES Act, documentation should reflect the content of counseling provided. The cause of the documentation discrepancy identified may have differing effects on patient care and provider education.

Patient-reported outcomes associated with reflex BRCA1/2 tumor and subsequent germline panel genetic testing for high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Reflex genetic testing of tumor tissue is being completed to direct cancer treatment; however, the patient impact of this genetic testing model is unknown. This survey study evaluates psychological outcomes following tumor and germline genetic testing in individuals with a new diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Individuals were recruited from two hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Participants completed surveys 1 week after receiving tumor results and 1 week after receiving germline results (which included genetic counseling). Outcomes included cancer-related distress (Impact of Events Scale: IES), genetic testing-related distress (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment: MICRA), and patient satisfaction. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate differences in outcomes following each genetic test result; Cohen's d was used to evaluate effect size. Subgroup analyses were undertaken according to age at diagnosis (<60 years vs. ≥60 years) and test results (any positive vs. both negative). McNemar's test assessed differences in satisfaction. Fifty-two individuals were included in the analyses. Mean IES scores were similar following disclosure of tumor and germline results (27.39 vs. 26.14; p = 0.481; d = 0.101). Compared to following tumor result disclosure, MICRA scores were significantly lower following receipt of germline results with genetic counseling (27.23 vs. 22.69; p = 0.007; d = 0.435). Decreases in MICRA scores from tumor to germline result disclosure were greater for those diagnosed <60 years or those who received only negative test results. Most individuals were satisfied/highly satisfied following tumor (85.7%) and germline (89.8%) results disclosure (p = 0.774). Reflex tumor, and subsequent germline, genetic testing is a new model of care for cancer patients. In our cohort, genetic testing-related distress decreased significantly following receipt of germline results with genetic counseling, especially for individuals diagnosed under 60 years and those receiving only negative results. Most individuals were satisfied with this model of care.

Elective genetic testing: Genetics professionals' perspectives and practices.

Elective genetic testing (EGT) to identify disease risk in individuals who may or may not meet clinical criteria for testing is increasingly being offered in clinical practice. However, little is known about how EGT is currently implemented and how genetics professionals perceive this type of testing. We conducted a mixed-methods survey study to evaluate genetics professionals' perspectives and attitudes about EGT and describe the current landscape of EGT practices in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Six clinical geneticists and 131 genetic counselors responded to the online survey, among whom 44% reported offering EGT in their practice. Over 84% of survey respondents agreed that EGT may improve health outcomes and understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations, and 85% agreed that potential risks include result misinterpretation and contribution to economic health disparities. Though most respondents felt comfortable providing pretest (77%) and post-test (86%) counseling for EGT, lack of provider resources (such as time and personnel) and prioritization of diagnostic testing were cited most frequently in free-text responses as reasons for not offering EGT. Of those offering EGT, 88% reported positive overall experiences. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions identified benefits of EGT as expanding access to genetic testing, providing potential health benefits, and providing psychological benefits for patients. Disadvantages included prohibitive costs, limited clinical utility, and strain on resources. Overall, we found that genetics providers perceive both potential benefits and harms of EGT and that those offering this testing had generally positive experiences, although ethical reservations and practical limitations exist.

Implementation and outcome evaluations of a multi-site improvement program in cancer genetics.

Program evaluation can identify the successes and challenges of implementing clinical programs, which can inform future dissemination efforts. A cancer genetics improvement program, disseminated from the Lead Team's institution to five health systems (Participating Sites), was genetic counselor led, using virtual implementation facilitation to support Participating Sites' performance of quality improvement (QI) activities over several years. Program implementation and outcome evaluations were performed and included evaluation of program delivery and initial effects of the program on Participating Sites. A logic model guided evaluation of program implementation (inputs, activities, outputs, delivery/fidelity, and coverage/reach) and initial outcomes (short-term and intermediate outcomes). Data were collected from program documents and an Evaluation Survey of Participating Site team members (21 respondents), compared against the Lead Team's expectations of participation, and analyzed using descriptive statistics. All program inputs, outputs, and activities were available and delivered as expected across the five Participating Sites. The most frequently used activities and inputs were facilitation-associated meetings and meeting resources, which were rated as useful/helpful by the majority of respondents. Nearly all respondents noted improvement in short-term outcomes following participation: 82.4% reported increased awareness of clinical processes, 94.1% increased knowledge of QI methods, 100% reported increased perceived importance of QI, 94.1% increased perceived feasibility of QI, and 76.5% reported increased problem-solving skills and self-efficacy to use QI at their site. Intermediate outcomes (identifying barriers, developing interventions, improved teamwork, and capacity) were achieved following program participation as indicated by the results of the program document review and Evaluation Survey responses. Implementation challenges at Participating Sites included staffing constraints, difficulties obtaining buy-in and participation, and developing interventions over time. The multi-site improvement program was delivered and implemented with high levels of fidelity and resulted in improved short and intermediate outcomes. Future research will evaluate long-term, patient-level outcomes associated with site-specific QI interventions.