Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors

Genetic counselors outside of the genetics clinic: Roles, practices, and ethico-legal implications in light of lagging legal recognition across Canada

Advances in medical genetics have led to a significant increase in demand for genetic services and expertise across almost all medical specialties. Genetic counselors (GCs) in Canada play key roles in genetic services both within and outside of the Genetics Clinic, while not being regulated or legally recognized as healthcare professionals (HCPs) in most provinces. Understanding whether GCs outside of the "traditional" Genetics Clinic influence patient care, their level of professional autonomy and supervisory structure is, therefore, important. In this study, we explore the current landscape of GC practice outside of the Genetics Clinic by describing positions, determining the professional scope of practice, as defined by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors (CAGC) and Canadian Board of Genetic Counseling (CBGC) core competencies, and by elucidating associated ethico-legal implications. An online survey was developed and distributed to GCs working with patient-related data in Canada in positions outside of the Genetics Clinic through the CAGC ListServ and accessed between March 5 and April 9, 2021. Thirty GCs were included in the study, with 16/30 in public healthcare system positions. Most respondents held roles with direct (11/30) and indirect (14/30) impact on patient care and management, and the majority reported performing their primary roles with minimal supervision (56%) or complete independence (36%). Most roles (22/25) elicited by respondents were considered to be within the GC scope of practice, except for administrative tasks and special projects. GCs were the only genetics-trained professional(s) in 8/30 of respondents' workplaces. The results of the current study support the value of GCs translatable skillset in positions beyond the Genetics Clinic, and outline ethico-legal implications for GCs, regulated HCPs, patients, and health institutions in the absence of legal recognition, including medical-legal liability and title protection. This study provides evidence in support of regulation of GCs as HCPs.

Comparing cancer genetic counselling using telegenetics with in-person and telephone appointments: Results of a partially randomised patient-preference pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Direct-to-patient telegenetics, which uses video conferencing to connect health professionals directly to patients' devices, has been widely adopted during the pandemic. However, limited evidence currently supports its use in cancer genetic counselling.

METHODS

Before the pandemic, we conducted a two-arm partially randomised patient-preference pilot trial to evaluate direct-to-patient telegenetics for patients and genetic counsellors. Patients were randomised to a standard care (telephone/in-person) or direct-to-patient telegenetics appointment. Patients completed questionnaires before, during and after appointments measuring: psychological distress, perceived genetic counsellor empathy, telegenetics satisfaction and technical challenges. Genetic counsellor-reported outcomes -measured using purpose-designed questionnaires- included telegenetics satisfaction, therapeutic alliance and time for assessment. Open-ended patient and genetic counsellor questionnaire responses were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients and seven genetic counsellors participated. Thirteen patients switched appointment type. No significant differences in distress (P  =  0.84) were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care. Perceived genetic counsellor empathy was high for all appointment types. There was no evidence of differences in reported maximum empathy scores between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P  =  0.57); in-person (P  =  0.44)]. Patients reported high direct-to-patient telegenetics satisfaction despite technical challenges in most appointments (65%). Genetic counsellors were satisfied with direct-to-patient telegenetics and perceived high therapeutic alliance irrespective of appointment type. No significant differences in genetic counsellor time were identified between direct-to-patient telegenetics and standard care [telephone (P > 0.90); in-person (P  =  0.35)].

DISCUSSION

Our results suggest that direct-to-patient telegenetics is a satisfactory service delivery model that does not appear to compromise patient-genetic counsellor relationships or increase patient distress. These findings support direct-to-patient telegenetics use in cancer genetic counselling, although larger trials are needed.

"It's fundamental to the work that we do": Genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in clients' mental well-being

The role of a genetic counselor is to assist individuals and their families to comprehend and adapt to genetic information. However, a genetic counselor's role in clients' mental well-being is unclear. Mental well-being is an important component of overall health and it can be affected during the adaptation to genetic information. It is, therefore, essential to consider how mental well-being is viewed in genetic counseling practice. Our research aimed to investigate genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in clients' mental well-being. Our objectives were to (1) understand what genetic counselors perceived their role to be in clients' mental well-being and (2) investigate what factors influence genetic counselors' perceptions of practice. We recruited participants via advertisements in the Human Genetics Society of Australasia and the Australasian Society of Genetic Counselors newsletters, and through the Genetic Support Network of Victoria social media. We completed semi-structured in-depth interviews with 12 Australian genetic counselors and analyzed the interviews using inductive thematic analysis. We found that genetic counselors viewed clients' mental well-being as an important and crucial part of their practice. Three key themes were identified, first, all the participants' views of clients' mental well-being were shaped by personal and professional beliefs. Second, all participants noted that there were factors external to them, such as workplace and professional guidelines, which shaped their role in clients' mental well-being. Third, all those interviewed noted the boundaries of their professional role in clients' mental well-being. From these three themes, we determined that genetic counselors see clients' mental well-being as an integral part of their practice. Our findings add to the extant literature and can shape future practice in this field. Furthermore, we identified how future research priorities could further our knowledge in this area.

Community engagement in genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Generally, there is unanimity about the value of community engagement in health-related research. There is also a growing tendency to view genetics and genomics research (GGR) as a special category of research, the conduct of which including community engagement (CE) as needing additional caution. One of the motivations of this study was to establish how differently if at all, we should think about CE in GGR.

AIM

To assess the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda on CE in GGR.

METHOD

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at Makerere University and Uganda Virus Research Institute. Twenty-five individuals participated, the majority being male (sixteen). Participants included nineteen genetics and genomics researchers (researchers and research coordinators), two CE officers, three nurses and one nursing counsellor. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and analyzed in a thematic manner using NVivo version 12 Plus.

STUDY FINDINGS

Thirteen of the respondents had conducted CE in their GGR in either a geographical and disease-specific community. Some respondents said CE principles are the same and there is no need for special consideration for CE in GGR. Others gave ethical issues in GGR that require special consideration for CE in such research and these were categorized into six themes: GGR is new to communities, Difficulty in communicating GGR by the researchers, Genes are shared in communities, Cultural sensitivities against GGR, Community attitude toward GGR, Some GGR studies take long to end, and Negotiation of research benefits. Special considerations for CE when conducting GGR were suggested and categorized into seven themes: creating awareness of GGR in communities, obtaining both community acceptance and individual consent, CE team composition, involve communities in solving GGR challenges, prolong CE in some GGR, develop guidelines for CE in GGR, and legal considerations on GGR.

CONCLUSION

GGR was characterized by special issues that require special CE considerations for such research.