ABSTRACT
Program-level clinical remediation in genetic counseling training programs aims to help students who are underperforming gain clinical skills to successfully manage clinical counseling sessions with patients. Student remediation often requires intervention, including discussions with program leadership and/or a formal remediation plan through the program. This study surveyed genetic counseling program leaders to explore the remediation landscape by identifying skills in which students underperformed, program remediation activities to improve skills, and remediation outcomes. Thirteen participants indicated their program required at least one student to complete program-level clinical remediation during the last 10 years. Eight of the 13 programs (61.5%) required at least one student to participate in clinical remediation for underperformance in professionalism, seven (53.8%) for underperformance in educating patients, six (46.2%) for underperformance in critical thinking, and two (15.4%) for underperformance in demonstrating empathy. Nineteen students were remediated for underperformance in critical thinking. Of those 19 students, one student (5.2%) was dismissed from the training program, and five students (26.3%) chose to withdraw from their program. One of 13 (7.7%) students remediated for underperformance in educating patients and one of 11 (9.1%) students remediated for underperformance in professionalism chose to withdraw from their programs. All students remediated for underperformance in demonstrating empathy successfully completed program-level clinical remediation and graduated. The most frequently endorsed factor positively associated with remediation success was completion of additional in-person patient encounters. The most frequent barrier was a student's poor mental health. Participants most frequently endorsed identification of resources for specific areas of remediation to improve their programs' efficacy in clinical remediation practices. This exploratory study provides valuable information describing clinical skills that require remediation in genetic counseling graduate training, the remediation practices utilized by training programs, and resources that may increase remediation success.
Subject(s)
Clinical Competence , Genetic Counseling , Humans , Students , Empathy , LeadershipABSTRACT
Design and interpretation of genome sequencing assays in clinical diagnostics and research labs is complicated by an inability to identify information from the medical literature and related databases quickly, comprehensively and reproducibly. This challenge is compounded by the complexity and heterogeneity of nomenclatures used to describe diseases, genes and genetic variants. Mastermind is a widely-used bioinformatic platform of genomic associations that has indexed more than 7.5 M full-text articles and 2.5 M supplemental datasets. It has automatically identified, disambiguated and annotated >6.1 M genetic variants and identified >50 K disease-gene associations. Here, we describe how Mastermind improves the sensitivity and reproducibility of clinical variant interpretation and produces comprehensive genomic landscapes of genetic variants driving pharmaceutical research. We demonstrate an alarmingly high degree of heterogeneity across commercially available panels for hereditary cancer that is resolved by evidence from Mastermind. We further examined the sensitivity of Mastermind for variant interpretation by examining 108 clinically-encountered variants and comparing the results to alternate methods. Mastermind demonstrated a sensitivity of 98.4% compared to 4.4, 45.6, and 37.4% for alternatives PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinVar, respectively, and a specificity of 98.5% compared to 45.1, 57.6, and 68.8% as well as an increase in content yield of 22.6-, 2.2-, and 2.6-fold. When curated for clinical significance, Mastermind identified more than 4.9-fold more pathogenic variants than ClinVar for representative genes. For structural variants, we compared Mastermind's ability to sensitively identify evidence for 10 representative disease-causing CNVs versus results identified in PubMed, as well as its ability to identify evidence for fusion events compared to COSMIC. Mastermind demonstrated a 4.0- to 43.9-fold increase in references for specific CNVs compared to PubMed, as well as 5.4-fold more fusion genes when compared with COSMIC's curated database. Additionally, Mastermind produced an 8.0-fold increase in reference citations for fusion events common to Mastermind and outside databases. Taken together, these results demonstrate the utility and superiority of Mastermind in terms of both sensitivity and specificity of automated results for clinical diagnostic variant interpretation for multiple genetic variant types and highlight the potential benefit in informing pharmaceutical research.