Exploring the impact of microaggressions on the genetic counseling student-supervisor relationship: A qualitative study.

Genetic counseling students with minoritized identities have reported experiencing microaggressions throughout graduate training, including from fieldwork supervisors. However, the impacts of these fieldwork experiences have not been thoroughly investigated. As supervision is known to be integral to genetic counseling students' skill development and success, the purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the impact of microaggressions on student training, with a specific focus on the supervisory working alliance. To achieve this goal, we conducted 11 interviews with recent genetic counseling graduates (2019-2021) who reported experiencing at least one microaggression from a fieldwork supervisor during graduate school training. Purposive sampling was used to prioritize interviewees who identified as underrepresented in the field due to race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and/or disability status. All interviewees were initially recruited as part of a larger mixed-methods study investigating the frequency and types of microaggressions genetic counseling students experience from fieldwork supervisors. Interview questions explored the time period before a microaggression event, during the event, and after. Qualitative thematic analysis resulted in four themes, three of which are presented in this paper: (1) Impact of microaggressions, (2) Barriers to reporting microaggressions, and (3) Experience reporting microaggressions. Microaggressions from supervisors were shown to impair the psychological well-being of participants and hinder learning opportunities. These experiences led participants to question their choice of profession and avoid time in clinic, ultimately constraining the development of strong supervisory working alliances. Some participants did not report microaggressions due to fear of negative repercussions, and those who did described defensive responses which harmed students' relationships with program leadership. This study reveals opportunities for supervisors to improve student training conditions by centering students' feelings and experiences, increasing open and honest communication, and extending psychosocial tools to supervision. Additionally, graduate programs are encouraged to establish structured reporting protocols for students and evaluate current shortcomings in equity and inclusion initiatives.

Exploring the occurrence of microaggressions in the genetic counseling student-supervisor relationship: A mixed-methods study.

While research has shown that genetic counseling students with minoritized racial or ethnic identities face microaggressions throughout graduate training, quantitative data regarding the frequency of these experiences have not been reported. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate the frequency and types of microaggressions experienced by graduates of accredited genetic counseling programs in the United States during fieldwork rotations. A quantitative survey was administered to assess how frequently 14 different types of microaggressions occurred in interactions with supervisors. Survey responses were analyzed using situation-based coding (the number of different types of microaggressions experienced) and frequency-based coding (the sum of participants' weighted Likert answers). Select survey respondents with minoritized identities were interviewed to better contextualize and categorize microaggression experiences. Analysis of 87 survey responses revealed that participants with minoritized racial and ethnic identities experience significantly more types of microaggressions (t(61) = 2.77; p = 0.007) at a significantly higher frequency (t(55) = 2.67; p = 0.010) than their white counterparts. Participants who identified as part of the disability community were also found to experience significantly more types of microaggressions (t(10) = 3.25; p = 0.009) at a significantly higher frequency (t(9) = 2.32; p = 0.045) than those who did not. Qualitative analysis of 11 interviews revealed that microaggressions from supervisors included offensive and inappropriate comments, unequal treatment, cultural intolerance, and disparaging feedback. Overall, our data present evidence that students with minoritized racial and ethnic identities and students with disabilities are subjected to a variety of inequitable, exclusionary, and harmful interactions. As a result, we recommend that all supervisors receive training about recognizing and preventing microaggressions to ensure that students are provided with an equitable and inclusive training experience, regardless of identity.

Adopted individuals' interest in elective genomic testing.

PURPOSE: Adoptees are a population that could benefit from genetic testing to fill gaps in family health history (FHH). Elective genomic testing (EGT) provides adoptees with clinical genetic testing options to learn about genetic health risks in the absence of FHH. We assessed adoptees' interests in, motivations for and perceived utility of EGT. METHODS: Adult adoptees and non-adoptees completed an anonymous, online survey regarding their interest and motivations for EGT, perceived utility of potential results and willingness to pay for EGT. A validated measure of social identity was included to measure the effects of social identity on testing interest. RESULTS: There were 112 adoptees and 229 non-adoptees included in the study. Adoptees reported greater interest in EGT (OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.2 to 11.3) than non-adoptees. They were motivated by curiosity and a desire to learn information about risks to children and grandchildren more than non-adoptees. Adoptees with higher education and non-adoptees with higher incomes were significantly more likely to spend more on EGT. Adoptees with higher incomes and non-adoptees with higher education were not significantly more likely to spend more. Social identity was a significant mediator between adoption and testing motivation. CONCLUSION: Understanding adoptees' unique motivations and interests in EGT will allow healthcare providers to better address the informational needs and desires of this population. Social identity provides a foundation for recognising adoptees' universal experiences that influence motivations for genetic testing.

Pronounced Dead Twice: What Should an Attending Physician Do in Between?

BACKGROUND Organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) is a well-accepted practice in the medical, philosophical, and legal fields. It is important to determine the amount of time required for the loss of circulation to lead to irreversible brain loss, and ultimately brain death. CASE REPORT We report a rare case of organ donation after cardiac death. During organ procurement, it was noted that the patient's aortic and renal arteries were pumping and pulsing, and her cardiopulmonary activities were back to unexpected levels. The organ procurement surgery was stopped. At the time, the patient was given Fentanyl and Lorazepam. Subsequently, she was pronounced dead again 18 minutes after she was initially pronounced dead. After a complete autopsy, the cause of death was determined to be acute Fentanyl toxicity due to a Fentanyl injection in the hospital. The manner of death was determined to be homicide. CONCLUSIONS What should an attending physician do in the rare case that the organ procurement team notices the patient is still alive? It is our opinion that: first, the organ procurement team should leave the room immediately and withdraw from the case, and second, the attending physician should let nature run its course and refrain from excessive medical intervention.

Female and male perspectives on male partner roles in expanded carrier screening.

PURPOSE: To explore facilitators and barriers for male partner follow through carrier screening (CS) after their female partners were identified as carriers, from both male and female perspectives. METHODS: Participants were either females identified as a carrier through CS (512 participants) or males who had CS (125 participants). Participants were recruited via e-mails with survey links. The survey explored factors surrounding decisions to pursue CS or not. RESULTS: Males who attended the females' CS appointment were more likely to have CS (OR: 2.07). More male partners of females identified as carriers of severe or profound conditions pursued CS (82.0%) than male partners of females who were carriers for moderate conditions (50.0%). Logistic factors were more impactful for males who pursued CS. Females whose male partners did not test endorsed personal belief factors as most impactful, reporting the perceived low risk (75.0%) and his low concern for the specific condition (65.5%) were the top reasons their partners did not test. CONCLUSION: Many factors impact how male partners appraise reproductive risk from CS and make decisions regarding their own screening. Advising that male partners attend CS appointments may increase the likelihood of follow through CS. Thorough and repeated risk counseling is indicated.

Reflections on diversity, equity, and inclusion in genetic counseling education.

Through self-reflection, self-education, and with a learning mindset each of us has embarked on a personal path to understand the impact of racism in our personal and professional lives. This personal work is ongoing, though it was through our individual paths that led us to engage in dialogue on race and racism at the 38th National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Conference. We initially did not know each other; however, we were drawn by a mutual desire to further the conversation and sought connection with each other after the Conversations Around Diversity Platform Presentations. Through sustained, open dialogue we created a brave space for sharing our emotional and intellectual responses to the conference. Through this dialogue and through written reflections, we recognized an emboldened urgency to author a joint reflection on our shared responsibility as genetic counseling training program leaders to use our privilege in service to our students and future students. We have the evidence that we are not a diverse profession. We have more evidence now than we did before that our profession performs poorly with regards to inclusivity. Our inability to acknowledge, address, and discuss racism and other forms of oppression is damaging to each of us individually and as a group of professionals. We owe it to ourselves, our students, our patients, and colleagues to name our learned biases and behaviors, own them and interrupt them.