The genetic counseling profession in Austria: Stakeholders' perspectives.

In contrast to most European countries, genetic counseling in Austria, Germany, and German-speaking Switzerland is exclusively carried out by medical doctors. In this study, we investigate the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders in Austrian genetics services regarding prerequisites, opportunities, and challenges of implementing master's trained genetic counselors. Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and thematic analysis were carried out with nine participants, mostly medical geneticists at different hierarchy levels from three Centers for Medical Genetics in Austria. Several Austrian medical geneticists strongly object to the implementation of non-physician genetic counselors, and representatives of 3/6 medical genetic centers declined to be interviewed. Semantic framing was identified as a critical factor: In German medical language, patient consultations carried out by medical geneticists are generally called 'Genetische Beratung' (genetic counseling), and many medical geneticists see themselves primarily as 'Genetische Berater' (genetic counselors). 'Genetic counseling' is specified as an exclusively medical task in Austrian law. There is apprehension that the introduction of non-physician genetic counselors could reduce quality and undermine the position of medical genetics as a clinical specialty. The situation in Austria resembles that in Germany. Our study highlights the need for a clear definition of roles, expertise, and scope of practice of different genetic professionals. The integration of genetic counselors into Austrian genetics services is most likely acceptable in multi-professional teams, closely affiliated with medical genetic services, and under the medico-legal oversight of medical geneticists.

A Roadmap for Global Acceleration of Genomics Integration Across Nursing.

PURPOSE: The changes needed to accelerate integration of genomics across nursing are complex, with significant challenges faced globally. Common themes lend themselves to a coordinated and collaborative strategic approach to sustained change. We aim to synthesize the outputs of a research program to present a roadmap for nursing leadership to guide integration of genomics across practice. DESIGN: Mixed methods involving a purposive sample of global nursing leaders and nursing organizations in a sustained, highly interactive program. METHODS: Experts in nursing, health care and healthcare services, policy, and leadership were recruited. Online surveys preceded a 3-day residential meeting utilizing participatory methods and techniques to gain consensus on the essential elements of a roadmap to promote genomics integration. FINDINGS: Twenty-three leaders representing 19 countries and seven organizations participated overall. Data on the scope and status of nursing, genomics health care, and resources have been synthesized. Participants identified 117 facilitators to genomics integration across diverse sources. Barriers and priorities identified were mapped to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The roadmap is underpinned by a maturity matrix created by participants to guide and benchmark progress in genomics integration. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse leaders seeking to accelerate change can access practical guidance with the roadmap, underpinned by support through the Global Genomics Nursing Alliance and its strategic priorities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Genomics is shaping the future of healthcare, but change is needed for integration across nursing. This practical roadmap, adaptable to local health systems and clinical and educational contexts, is relevant to nurse leaders aiming to accelerate change.

A Maturity Matrix for Nurse Leaders to Facilitate and Benchmark Progress in Genomic Healthcare Policy, Infrastructure, Education, and Delivery.

PURPOSE: Nurse leaders driving strategic integration of genomics across nursing need tools and resources to evaluate their environment, guide strategies to address deficits, and benchmark progress. We describe the development and pilot testing of a self-assessment maturity matrix (MM) that enables users to benchmark the current state of nursing genomic competency and integration for their country or nursing group; guides the development of a strategic course for improvement and implementation; and assesses change over time. DESIGN: Mixed-methods participatory research and self-assessment. METHODS: During a 3-day workshop involving nursing experts in health care and genomics, a genomic integration MM grid was built by consensus using iterative participatory methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive techniques. This work built on an online survey involving the same participants to identify the critical elements needed for "effective nursing which promotes health outcomes globally through genomics." FINDINGS: Experts from 19 countries across six continents and seven organizations participated in item development. The Assessment of Strategic Integration of Genomics across Nursing (ASIGN) MM incorporates 55 outcome-focused items serving as subscales for six critical success factors (CSFs): education and workforce; effective nursing practice; infrastructure and resources; collaboration and communication; public/patient involvement; policy and leadership. Users select their current circumstances for each item against a 5-point ordinal scale (precontemplation to leading). Nurses representing 17 countries undertook matrix pilot testing. Results demonstrate variation across CSFs, with many countries at the earliest stages of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The MM has the potential to guide the strategic integration of genomics across nursing and enables additional assessments within and between countries to be made. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurse leadership and direction are essential to accelerate integration of genomics across nursing practice and education. The MM helps nurse leaders to benchmark progress and guide strategic planning to build global genomic nursing capacity.

The Global Landscape of Nursing and Genomics.

PURPOSE: Nurses have a pivotal role in bringing the benefits of genomics and precision medicine to everyday health care, but a concerted global effort is needed to transform nursing policy and practice to address widely acknowledged deficits in nurses' genomic literacy. The purpose was to conduct a global country and organization review of nursing engagement with genomics, informing a landscape analysis to assess readiness for integration of genomics into nursing. DESIGN: Global nursing leaders and nursing organizations were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy to complete an online survey that assessed the scope of genomic integration in practice and education, challenges and barriers, and priorities for action. METHODS: The survey was administered online following an orientation webinar. Given the small numbers of nurse leaders globally, results were analyzed and presented descriptively. FINDINGS: Delegates consisted of 23 nurse leaders from across the world. Genomic services were offered predominantly in specialty centers consisting mostly of newborn screening (15/18) and prenatal screening (11/18). Genomic literacy and infrastructure deficits were identified in both practice and education settings, with only one country reporting a genetic/genomic knowledge and skill requirement to practice as a general nurse. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide insights into the commitment to and capacity for nursing to integrate genomics, revealing common themes and challenges associated with adoption of genomic health services and integration into practice, education, and policy. Such insights offer valuable context and baseline information to guide the activities of a new Global Genomics Nursing Alliance (G2NA). The G2NA will use the landscaping exercise as a springboard to explore how to accelerate the integration of genomics into nursing healthcare. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Genomics is relevant to all healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum. It provides an underpinning for understanding health, risks for and manifestations of disease, therapeutic decisions, development of new therapies, and responses to interventions. Harnessing the benefits of genomics to improve health and care outcomes and reduce costs is a global nursing challenge.

Interventions to improve patient access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services when compared to: No intervention;Usual or current practice; andOther active intervention. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: The secondary objective is to explore the resource use and costs associated with interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. We will report on factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services from studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Another secondary objective is to explore how interventions which target improved patient identification, access to and utilisation of genetic and genomic counselling services affect the subsequent appropriate use of health services for the prevention or early detection of disease. It is also possible that the genetic counselling interaction itself will contribute to the possible use of preventative services.

Genetics: examining your competency of practice on a regular basis.

This is the seventh article in a series examining how nurses can develop confidence and competence in genetics and genomics health care. This article focuses on identifying the nurse's awareness of genetic and genomic issues and the effect this has on his or her practice. It considers the importance of reflection in recognising these issues as well as areas where professional development in genetics and genomics may be beneficial.

Exploring professional issues: the psychosocial component of genetic counseling in genomic healthcare.

Aim: To determine UK genetic counselors' (UKGCs) opinion regarding 'the psychosocial component of the UKGC remit in the new genomics era'. Methods: Facilitated discussions at a national conference (2016) using interactive methodologies (58 participants). Results: UKGCs recognized the rapid rate of change emerging with advances in genomic science. Change will be required to the UKGC remit and the roles, rules, relationships and responsibilities that underpin it (29 topics identified). UKGCs supported their 'unique selling point'; integrating knowledge and the explicit focus on psychosocial aspects of genomic healthcare. By 2019, some of the aspirations have been achieved. Conclusion: UKGCs should proactively position themselves to capitalize on the challenges and opportunities of genomic healthcare to maximize patient benefit.

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Assessing educational priorities in genetics for general practitioners and specialists in five countries: factor structure of the Genetic-Educational Priorities (Gen-EP) scale.

PURPOSE: A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency. METHODS: The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries. RESULTS: Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70). CONCLUSION: The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.

Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries.

PURPOSE: To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires; OUTCOME: Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores). RESULTS: A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (OR adj, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (OR adj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (OR adj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, new technologies, or basic concepts.

The use of the life course paradigm and life course charts to explore referral for family history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Life course research methodologies are used extensively in historical and social science research. In 1998 the life course paradigm was introduced to provide a way of tracing the interplay of person and setting. The method has had a very limited use in nursing research, but in this study it was utilized as a way of capturing dynamic change by placing the individual within a context of four domains; location in time and place, linked lives, human agency and timing of lives. OBJECTIVE: To describe the paradigm, review its use in healthcare research and provide a specific example of its use in healthcare. DESIGN: This paper discusses a novel method of creating life course charts for a qualitative study exploring the differing experiences of women referred from primary care to specialist services due to a family history of breast cancer. SETTING: A nurse-led breast cancer family history clinic in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two women. METHODS: Life charts were used in conjunction with a grounded theory approach to analyse data collected from semi-structured interviews. FINDINGS: Twenty-two life charts were created and the ability to layer the charts of multiple women to visualise similarities and differences aided the analysis. The life charts were a useful tool in the development of theoretical understandings and the psychosocial process of realisation of risk emerged as central to the initiation of referral. This was often apparent when approaching the age of an affected relative (anticipated onset) or when current circumstances emulate past experience (generational transference). CONCLUSIONS: This approach to charting complex psychological, social and contextual factors throughout the life course was methodologically beneficial and could have a wider utility in nursing and healthcare research. As a research tool it enhanced a holistic approach to patient care issues and was helpful as an aid to understanding health behaviours linked to familial risk.

Increasing nursing capacity in genomics: Overview of existing global genomics resources.

BACKGROUND: Global genomic literacy of all health professions, including nurses, remains low despite an inundation of genomic information with established clinical and analytic validity and clinical utility. Genomic literacy and competency deficits contribute to lost opportunities to take advantage of the benefits that genomic information provides to improve health outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and increase patient quality and safety. Nurses are essential to the integration of genomics into healthcare. The greatest challenges to realizing their potential in successful integration include education and awareness. Identification of resources, their focus, whether they targeted at nursing, and how to access them, form the foundation for a global genomic resource initiative led by the Global Genomics Nursing Alliance. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify existing global genomic resources and competencies, identifying the source, type and accessibility. DESIGN: Cross sectional online descriptive survey to ascertain existing genomic resources. SETTINGS: Limited to eighteen countries and seven organizations represented by delegates attending the inaugural meeting in 2017 of the Global Genomics Nursing Alliance. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of global nursing leaders and representatives of national and international nursing organizations. METHODS: The primary method was by online survey administered following an orientation webinar. Given the small numbers of nurse leaders in genomics within our sample (and indeed within the world), results were analyzed and presented descriptively. Those identifying resources provided further detailed resource information. Additional data were collected during a face-to-face meeting using an electronic audience-response system. RESULTS: Of the twenty-three global delegates responding, 9 identified existing genomic resources that could be used for academic or continuing genomics education. Three countries have competence frameworks to guide learning and 5 countries have national organizations for genetics nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The genomic resources that already exist are not readily accessible or discoverable to the international nursing community and as such are underutilized.

Recontacting or not recontacting? A survey of current practices in clinical genetics centres in Europe.

Advances in genomic medicine are improving diagnosis and treatment of some health conditions, and the question of whether former patients should be recontacted is therefore timely. The issue of recontacting is becoming more important with increased integration of genomics in 'mainstream' medicine. Empirical evidence is needed to advance the discussion over whether and how recontacting should be implemented. We administered a web-based survey to genetic services in European countries to collect information about existing infrastructures and practices relevant to recontacting patients. The majority of the centres stated they had recontacted patients to update them about new significant information; however, there were no standardised practices or systems in place. There was also a multiplicity of understandings of the term 'recontacting', which respondents conflated with routine follow-up programmes, or even with post-test counselling. Participants thought that recontacting systems should be implemented to provide the best service to the patients and families. Nevertheless, many barriers to implementation were mentioned. These included: lack of resources and infrastructure, concerns about potential negative psychological consequences of recontacting, unclear operational definitions of recontacting, policies that prevent healthcare professionals from recontacting, and difficulties in locating patients after their last contact. These barriers are also intensified by the highly variable development (and establishment) of the specialties of medical genetics and genetic counselling across different European countries. Future recommendations about recontacting need to consider these barriers. It is also important to reach an 'operational definition' that can be useful in different countries.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for disease ranges from well-validated diagnostic and predictive tests to 'research' results conferring increased risks. While being targeted at public curious about their health, they are also marketed for use in reproductive decision-making or management of disease. By virtue of being 'direct-to-consumer' much of this testing bypasses traditional healthcare systems. We argue that direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies should make genetic counseling available, pre- as well as post-test. While we do not advocate that mandatory genetic counseling should gate-keep access to direct-to-consumer genetic testing, if the testing process has the potential to cause psychological distress, then companies have a responsibility to provide support and should not rely on traditional healthcare systems to pick up the pieces. A video abstract is available for this article via this link .

Recognising the limitations of your genetics expertise.

The sixth article in this series aims to provide you with sufficient knowledge to refer a client for further genetic assessment. The focus is on the skills needed to recognise the limitations of one's own genetics competence, as described in the competency standard statement; this is that, at the point of registration, all nurses, midwives and health visitors should be able to recognise the limitations of their own genetics experience based on an understanding of their professional role in the referral, provision or follow up to genetics services.

The role of the genetic counsellor: a systematic review of research evidence.

In Europe, genetic counsellors are employed in specialist genetic centres or other specialist units. According to the European Board of Medical Genetics, the genetic counsellor must fulfil a range of roles, including provision of information and facilitation of psychosocial adjustment of the client to their genetic status and situation. To evaluate the extent to which genetic counsellors fulfil their prescribed roles, we conducted a systematic review of the published relevant scientific evidence. We searched five relevant electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, SocIndex, AMED and PsychInfo) using relevant search terms and handsearched four subject-specific journals for research-based papers published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Of 419 potential papers identified initially, seven satisfied the inclusion criteria for the review. Themes derived from the thematic analysis of the data were: (i) rationale for genetic counsellors to provide care, (ii) appropriate roles and responsibilities and (iii) the types of conditions included in the genetic counsellor caseload. The findings of this systematic review indicate that where genetic counsellors are utilised in specialist genetic settings, they undertake a significant workload associated with direct patient care and this appears to be acceptable to patients. With the burden on genetic services, there is an argument for the increased use of genetic counsellors in countries where they are under-utilised. In addition, roles undertaken by genetic counsellors in specialist genetic settings could be adapted to integrate genetic counsellors into multi-disciplinary teams in other specialisms.

A prospective cohort study assessing clinical referral management & workforce allocation within a UK regional medical genetics service.

Ensuring patient access to genomic information in the face of increasing demand requires clinicians to develop innovative ways of working. This paper presents the first empirical prospective observational cohort study of UK multi-disciplinary genetic service delivery. It describes and explores collaborative working practices including the utilisation and role of clinical geneticists and non-medical genetic counsellors. Six hundred and fifty new patients referred to a regional genetics service were tracked through 850 clinical contacts until discharge. Referral decisions regarding allocation of lead health professional assigned to the case were monitored, including the use of initial clinical contact guidelines. Significant differences were found in the cases led by genetic counsellors and those led by clinical geneticists. Around a sixth, 16.8% (109/650) of referrals were dealt with by a letter back to the referrer or re-directed to another service provider and 14.8% (80/541) of the remaining patients chose not to schedule an appointment. Of the remaining 461 patients, genetic counsellors were allocated as lead health professional for 46.2% (213/461). A further 61 patients did not attend. Of those who did, 86.3% (345/400) were discharged after one or two appointments. Genetic counsellors contributed to 95% (784/825) of total patient contacts. They provided 93.7% (395/432) of initial contacts and 26.8% (106/395) of patients were discharged at that point. The information from this study informed a planned service re-design. More research is needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of different models of collaborative multi-disciplinary working within genetics services.

Position statement on opportunistic genomic screening from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (UK and Ireland).

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics released recommendations for reporting incidental findings (IFs) in clinical exome and genome sequencing. These suggest 'opportunistic genomic screening' should be available to both adults and children each time a sequence is done and would be undertaken without seeking preferences from the patient first. Should opportunistic genomic screening be implemented in the United Kingdom, the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (AGNC), which represents British and Irish genetic counsellors and nurses, feels strongly that the following must be considered (see article for complete list): (1) Following appropriate genetic counselling, patients should be allowed to consent to or opt out of opportunistic genomic screening. (2) If true IFs are discovered the AGNC are guided by the report from the Joint Committee on Medical Genetics about the sharing of genetic testing results. (3) Children should not be routinely tested for adult-onset conditions. (4) The formation of a list of variants should involve a representative from the AGNC as well as a patient support group. (5) The variants should be for serious or life-threatening conditions for which there are treatments or preventative strategies available. (6) There needs to be robust evidence that the benefits of opportunistic screening outweigh the potential harms. (7) The clinical validity and utility of variants should be known. (8) There must be a quality assurance framework that operates to International standards for laboratory testing. (9) Psychosocial research is urgently needed in this area to understand the impact on patients.

Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1.

Western health care systems are facing today increasing movement of genetic knowledge from research labs into clinical practice. This paper reports the results of a survey that addressed the confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks. The survey was conducted in five countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). Stratified random samples were drawn from primary care physicians in the five countries representing a sampling frame of 139,579 physicians. Stepwise binary logistic regression procedures were performed to identify the predictor variables for self-reported confidence. Three thousand six hundred eighty-six physicians participated and filled out a self-administered questionnaire. The margin of error for accurate representation of each group of European general practitioners and specialists in the total sample is 2.9% for GP, 2.8% for obstetricians/gynaecologists (OB/GYN) and for paediatricians (PAED) 2.6% (95% confidence level). Confidence in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks is low among participating primary care physicians: 44.2% are not confident, 36.5% somewhat confident, confident or very confident are 19.3%. In each country, those confident/very confident represent less than 33% of the participating physicians. Primary care physicians who report the lowest levels of confidence prove to be those least exposed to medical genetics information and training. Although there are significant differences in the way in which professional education is organised and practice is regulated across European countries, there is a need for a coordinated European effort to improve primary care physicians' background in medical genetics.