Genetic Counsellors and Private Practice: Professional Turbulence and Common Values

The stepwise process of integrating a genetic counsellor into primary care

Genetic services have historically been housed in tertiary care, requiring referral, which can present access barriers. While integrating genetics into primary care could facilitate access, many primary care physicians lack genomics expertise. Integrating genetic counsellors (GCs) into primary care could theoretically address these issues, but little is known about how to do this effectively. To understand and describe the process of integrating a GC into a multidisciplinary primary care setting, we qualitatively explored the perceptions, attitudes and reactions of existing team members prior to, and after the introduction of a GC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted immediately prior to (T1), and 9 months after (T2), the GC joining the clinic. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed concurrently with data collection using interpretive description. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 17 participants (13 at T1, 11 at T2). Participants described several distinct, progressive stages of interaction with the GC: Disinterest or Resistance, Pre-Collaboration, Initial Collaboration, and Effective Collaboration/Integration of the GC into the team. At each stage, specific needs had to be met in order to advance to the next stage of collaboration. A variety of barriers and facilitators attended movement between different stages of the model. The Stepwise Process of Integration Model describes the process through which primary care staff and clinicians integrate a GC into their practice. The insight provided by this model could be used to facilitate more effective integration of GCs into other primary care settings.

The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters.

OBJECTIVE

To explore Australian consumers' and HPs' experiences with nutrigenomic testing.

METHOD

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs' adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only 'tool' to utilize when offering health care.

DISCUSSION

This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers' experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.

Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors

As a result of the ongoing global expansion of genetic counseling, the need to formalize a system of professional regulation for genetic counselors was identified in Australasia. In June 2017, under the auspices of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), a working party was convened. The purpose of the working party was to provide strategic leadership for the profession of Australasian genetic counselors with a goal to formalize a national regulatory framework for genetic counselors across both Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. This was ultimately achieved in Australia through full membership with the National Alliance of Self-Regulating Health Professions (NASRHP) while the profession of genetic counseling in New Zealand is utilizing this framework to establish their regulation pathway. Regulation has a number of implications for genetic counselors, their employers, and the wider community, with the primary purpose of regulation being protection of the public from harm. This paper details the process of formalizing self-regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia, by defining professional regulation; outlining the purpose of regulation and the status of regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia and internationally, as well as health professionals more broadly; exploring the challenges of establishing regulation in Australasia; and the next steps for regulation in Australasia. Through detailing this process, the intention is to provide a framework to support genetic counseling colleagues internationally as well as other health professions in Australasia to explore and achieve regulation through their respective jurisdiction.

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.

Australians' perspectives on support around use of personal genomic testing: Findings from the Genioz study

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study - Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians' experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or wellness sought advice from complementary/alternative health practitioners (eg naturopaths) and integrative GPs, and 60% reported they had changed their diet. As awareness of personal genomic testing increases, publicly funded clinical genetics services may be less inclined to discuss results from personal genomic testing. Genetic counsellors could play an important role in providing this support, both pre-test and post-test, through opportunities for private practice but independent from testing companies.