Expansion of genetic services utilizing a general genetic counseling clinic.

We established a general genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to help reduce long wait times for new patient appointments and to enhance services for a subset of patients. Genetic counselors, who are licensed in Tennessee, were the primary providers and MD geneticists served as medical advisors. This article describes the clinic referral sources, reasons for referral and patient dispositions following their GCC visit(s). We obtained patients by triaging referrals made to our medical genetics division. Over 24 months, our GCC provided timely visits for 321 patients, allowing the MD geneticists to focus on patients needing a clinical exam and/or complex medical management. Following their GCC visit(s), over 80 % of patients did not need additional appointments with an MD geneticist. The GCC allowed the genetic counselor to spend more time with patients than is possible in our traditional medical genetics clinic. Patient satisfaction surveys (n = 30) were very positive overall concerning the care provided. Added benefits for the genetic counselors were increased professional responsibility, autonomy and visibility as health care providers. We conclude that genetic counselors are accepted as health care providers by patients and referring providers for a subset of clinical genetics cases. A GCC can expand genetic services, complement more traditional genetic clinic models and utilize the strengths of the genetic counselor health care provider.

Teaching about cystic fibrosis carrier screening by using written and video information.

We performed two studies using only written and video materials to educate people about cystic fibrosis (CF) and carrier screening. Participants were randomized to receive written or video materials. All received a brief questionnaire. Subjects in group I (n = 238) were (1) individuals in steady relationships and their partners, (2) > or = 18 years old, and (3) not pregnant. Those who accepted free screening and were not demonstrable carriers were sent a letter explaining their results and another questionnaire. Subjects in group II (n = 108) were parents seeking well child care in a university clinic. The main outcome measures were ability to answer questions correctly about (1) health status of CF carriers and people with CF, (2) the possibility of false-negative results, and (3) for those who had screening, the implications of their own results. Written and video materials were equally effective in conveying information. Prior to screening, subjects answered an average of 86% of questions correctly. Subjects with less formal education answered fewer questions correctly; 60% of those with less than a high school education had adequate knowledge of the health consequences of having CF or being a carrier, compared with > or = 94% of college graduates. Performance improved after screening. Where neither partner was a demonstrable carrier, 88% knew their own and their partner's test results, and 90% indicated that their risk of having a child with CF was not zero. Written and video educational materials can be used without face-to-face counseling to inform most people about carrier screening and their test results. These materials may be less effective for those with lower educational backgrounds.

Lack of interest by nonpregnant couples in population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

We used signs and letters to offer free cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening to nonpregnant adults in stable relationships who visited numerous clinical and nonclinical sites in Nashville. A total of 179 individuals (<<1% of those eligible) elected to be tested. To understand this observation, we used questionnaires to assess individuals' attitudes about genetic testing in general and about CF carrier screening in particular (n=873). Participants expressed conflicting views about carrier screening. More than 90% of people thought that genetic testing should at least be available. Most respondents said that the views of their partners and physicians were important in their decision making, and most believed that these others favored genetic testing. Yet, more than two-thirds indicated that such factors as insurability, being "at risk," what they would need to learn, abortion, and religious beliefs were important in their decision making, opinions that mitigated against genetic testing. In particular, one-third feared that carriers would lose their health insurance, one-quarter said that they would have been more interested had they been able to provide DNA by buccal swab rather than by finger stick, and less than one-sixth believed that genetic testing was meddling in God's plan. In the face of both the low level of use of free CF carrier screening by nonpregnant couples when it was not offered in person by health-care professionals and the wide variety of concerns demonstrated, we believe that clinicians should not routinely offer carrier screening to nonpregnant individuals who do not have a family history of CF.