Risk for Patient Harm in Canadian Genetic Counseling Practice: It’s Time to Consider Regulation

Legal approaches to risk of harm in genetic counseling: perspectives from Quebec and Qatar

Genetic counseling is a fast-growing profession worldwide, with genetic counselors taking on increasingly comprehensive and autonomous roles in the healthcare sector. However, the absence of appropriate legal frameworks could potentially create risks of harm to the public. Legal recognition serves to protect the public from risk of harm by regulating the safe and competent practice of healthcare professionals. Genetic counseling is not legally recognized in most world jurisdictions. Examination of the legal status of genetic counseling in different jurisdictions and whether existing legal mechanisms are adequate to address potential risks of harm is therefore timely. This paper examines the different roles of genetic counselors in the Canadian province of Quebec and the state of Qatar, the authors' respective jurisdictions. It considers the types of harms that may be created where appropriate legal mechanisms are lacking, considering the socio-political and legal differences between the two jurisdictions. Moreover, it examines the legal status of genetic counseling in Quebec and Qatar to determine whether these statuses appropriately address the identified risks of harm. The authors argue that existing legal frameworks are inadequate to address these risks and recommend that additional regulatory mechanisms be implemented to properly protect the public from risks of harm.

Genetic counselors and legal recognition: A made-for-Canada approach

Genetic counseling is a fast‐growing profession in Canada. Yet, despite its growth, genetic counseling lacks legal recognition in the majority of Canadian provinces. Legal recognition serves to regulate professions, including genetic counseling, that if not properly regulated, expose the public to the risk of harm. Under Canadian law, there are three models of legal recognition: 1) the constitution of a professional order, 2) inclusion in a professional order, and 3) delegation. This paper explores the practical implications of these different models of legal recognition for genetic counselors. It focuses on the balancing act between protecting the public and the resources required to seek legal recognition under the three different models. With a small number of genetic counselors (n = 484, with 89% found in 4 provinces) compared to other professions, the route toward professional regulation for genetic counselors can be challenging. Though legal recognition occurs at the provincial rather than federal level in Canada, we nonetheless advocate for pan‐Canadian discussions that may benefit future pursuits of legal recognition.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of pre-counseling telephone interviews before face-to-face genetic counseling in cancer genetics

One of the main challenges in cancer genetics is responding to the exponential demand for genetic counseling, especially in patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer. To address this demand, we have set up a new procedure, based on pre-genetic counseling telephone interviews (PTI) followed by routing of patients: D1, a PTI is scheduled within 14 days; D7-D14, genetic counselors perform a 20 min PTI in order to establish a pre-genetic counseling file, by collecting personal and family medical history via a structured questionnaire and; D10-17, routing: pre-genetic counseling appointment files are analyzed by a cancer geneticist with 3 possible conclusions: (a) priority face-to-face genetic counseling (FTFGC) appointment with a cancer geneticist, if the genetic test results have an immediate therapeutic impact; (b) non-priority FTFGC with a genetic counselor, or (c) no FTFGC required or substitution by a more appropriate index case. In the context of breast and/or ovarian cancer, 1012 patients received PTIs, 39.1% of which did not lead to FTFGC. The mean delay for non-priority FTFGC was maintained at 18 weeks and priority FTFGC appointments were guaranteed within 8 weeks. The required resources for 1012 patients was estimated at 0.12 FTE secretaries, 0.62 FTE genetic counselors and 0.08 FTE cancer geneticists and the procedure was shown to be cost-effective. This new procedure allows the suppression of up to 1/3 of appointments, guarantees priority for appointments with therapeutic impact and optimizes the interaction and breakdown of tasks between genetic counselors and cancer geneticists.