Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

DISCLAIMER: This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9-10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result.Genet Med 18 10, 1056-1065.

National Survey of Providers Treating Patients With Metabolic Disorders Identified by Newborn Screening Demonstrates Challenges Faced by Clinical Care Systems.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate care processes for infants who are identified by newborn screening (NBS) and diagnosed with metabolic disorders during their first year of life. METHODS: A survey instrument was used to assess the scope and intensity of services needed to provide quality health care for patients from birth to 1 year of age who have a metabolic disorder identified by NBS. Significance testing was not performed; descriptive analyses are reported. RESULTS: Providers spend significant amounts of time on activities that are not direct patient care. The most challenging aspect of their work was the lack of reimbursement for care. CONCLUSION: Provision of genetics services for patients with a metabolic disorder is time and labor intensive, and insurance coverage and reimbursement for these services remain inadequate. Health care payment and/or system reform is necessary to provide optimal care to patients with metabolic disorders identified by NBS.

"People Say It's a Little Uncomfortable": Prenatal Genetic Counselors' Use of Constructed Dialogue to Reference Procedural Pain.

Prenatal genetic counseling involves an exchange of information between counselors and clients, including verbal descriptions of the potential pain of invasive prenatal diagnosis procedures such as amniocentesis. This paper describes the use of one linguistic feature in one context. It considers how two counselors describe procedural pain in 17 prenatal genetic counseling sessions, audiotaped as part of a larger data-driven study using sociolinguistic methodologies to characterize the discourse of genetic counseling. Analysis reveals that "constructed dialogue," or reporting something another person said, is a strategy used frequently by the counselors for describing procedural pain. Examination of the content and form of the constructed dialogue uncovered three recurring patterns that relate to its functions in the sessions: (1) inclusion of colloquial vocabulary; (2) references to common experiences through similes; and (3) explicit downplaying of pain. This analysis suggests that the naturally occurring phenomenon of quoting the words of others can be used in genetic counseling to impart information while simultaneously reassuring the client and creating counselor-client rapport. The complex relationship between the use of constructed dialogue and the enactment of genetic counseling principles through talk is also discussed.