Graduate training, credentialing, and continuing education to prepare genetic counselors for laboratory roles-Results of a national survey.

Opportunities for genetic counselors to work in a variety of practice settings have greatly expanded, particularly in the laboratory. This study aimed to assess attitudes of genetic counselors working both within and outside of the laboratory setting regarding (1) the re-wording and/or expansion of key measures of genetic counselors' competency, including practice-based competencies (PBCs) and board examination, to include laboratory roles, (2) preparation and transferability of competencies developed in master's in genetic counseling (MGC) programs to different roles, (3) need of additional training for genetic counselors to practice in laboratory settings, and (4) preferred methods to obtain that training. An e-blast was sent to ABGC diplomats (N = 5458) with a link to a 29-item survey with 12 demographic questions to compare respondents to 2021 NSGC Professional Status Survey (PSS) respondents. Statistical comparisons were made between respondents working in the laboratory versus other settings. Among 399 responses received, there was an oversampling of respondents working in the laboratory (52% vs. 20% in PSS) and in non-direct patient care positions (47% vs. 25% in PSS). Most respondents agreed the PBCs were transferable to their work yet favored making the PBCs less direct patient care-focused, expanding PBCs to align with laboratory roles, adding laboratory-focused questions to the ABGC exam, and adding laboratory-focused training in MGC programs. Most agreed requiring post-MGC training would limit genetic counselors' ability to change jobs. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory reported being significantly less prepared by their MGC program for some roles (p < 0.001) or how the PBCs applied to non-direct patient care positions (p < 0.001). Only 53% of all respondents agreed that NSGC supports their professional needs and others in their practice area, and genetic counselors working in the laboratory were significantly less likely to agree (p = 0.002). These sentiments should be further explored.

Need for additional training to be a laboratory genetic counselor-A qualitative exploration.

Opportunities for genetic counselors to work in the laboratory have grown exponentially, yet the professional development needed to serve in these roles had not been previously explored. This study aimed to identify competencies required for entry-level genetic counselors working in the laboratory, explore the perceived level of preparation of these competencies as noted by experts in the laboratories, and assess the perceived value of additional credentialing for genetic counselors practicing in these settings. Twenty genetic counselors working in the laboratory setting and five MD or PhD laboratory managers, identified through purposeful and snowball sampling and with at least 5 years of experience working in a laboratory, were interviewed using a semi-structured protocol. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive coding. Key findings included the distinction of laboratory and industry roles as involving nondirect patient care and differing from genetic counseling roles in the clinical setting. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory feel well prepared to transition into this setting and provide a unique patient-focused perspective to laboratory roles, including variant interpretation, marketing, and product development. Practice-based competencies (PBCs) were translatable to those used in the laboratory, yet variant interpretation, limitations of genomics-based tests, and the business of health care were noted as important to these roles but not fully addressed in the PBCs. Additional skills were often developed through on-the-job training and interdisciplinary collaboration, but more exposure to diverse roles in genetic counseling programs' didactic and field training was recommended. The majority felt that requiring an additional post-master's credential to work in the laboratory setting may restrict movement into these roles. Several questioned their identity as genetic counselors as they were no longer providing direct patient care and/or had been dissuaded by others from pursuing a laboratory position. Research focused on professional identity among genetic counselors working in nondirect patient care roles is warranted.

No longer "non-traditional": Genetic counselors' perceptions towards laboratory and industry roles.

A growing percentage of genetic counselors are employed in roles that do not involve direct patient care, commonly in commercial diagnostic laboratories. This study aimed to assess characteristics of laboratory and industry (LI) roles and perceptions of the genetic counseling community's views towards such roles. Members of NSGC and ABGC were invited to participate in this study. Data analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics and select participant quotes are included to highlight key points identified by statistical analyses. Three hundred twenty-six genetic counselors who self-identified as currently or previously working within an LI role responded to the survey. Over 40% of participants reported feeling that they were not perceived positively by colleagues outside of LI settings, and 54% felt that GC colleagues in non-LI roles provided mostly negative commentary about LI GC roles. Over 90% of individuals felt that their employer was a factor in the way they were perceived by others and that this factor carried a bigger weight than job title, work setting, or even professional responsibilities. Qualitative responses from open-ended text questions suggest that while perceptions toward LI roles have improved over time, commentary regarding the "dark side" of genetic counseling persists. To promote the continued, unified growth of the genetic counseling profession and other healthcare professions, it is necessary to address this source of intra-professional conflict.

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in-person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID-19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice-Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed- and open-ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.