Facing the challenge of genetic counselors' need for rapid continuing education about genomic technologies

The last couple of decades have seen the rapid advancement of genomic technologies (GT) and their equally rapid adoption into clinical testing. Regardless of specialty, all genetic counselors are unified by the fundamental goal to aid in diagnosing patient's genetic disease underscoring the importance for genetic counselors to maintain an in-depth understanding of GT. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) GT Special Interest Group conducted an online survey of NSGC members to assess current genomic technologies knowledge gaps. A total of 171 individuals from a variety of primary work settings completed the survey sufficiently to be included in the analysis. The majority of respondents received their degree in genetic counseling in more recent years (2000-2015). On average across all technologies, >70% of respondents deemed knowledge of GTs as important for successful job performance, 55% responded that additional job training in GTs is needed to successfully perform job functions, and only 28% responded that graduate training in GTs was good. Overall, the data show that participating genetic counselors perceive that their knowledge of GTs is inadequate while it is a key component of their jobs. These results have implications both for training programs and for continuing education efforts. These data can be used as a starting point for additional research into GT educational needs of genetic counselors.

The impact of cardiovascular genetic counseling on patient empowerment

Cardiovascular genetic counseling (CVGC) is recommended for a variety of inherited heart conditions; however, its impact on patient empowerment has not been assessed. The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS) is a validated patient reported outcome tool which measures empowerment to capture the impact of clinical genetics services. As a routine clinical practice at our center, adult patients attending a CVGC appointment complete the 24-item GCOS survey and a 5-item survey on knowledge of cardiac surveillance recommendations for relatives prior to the clinic visit. To investigate the effect of CVGC, we contacted participants after the appointment to repeat these surveys prior to genetic test result disclosure. Forty-two participants completed pre- and post-GC surveys. The mean difference between pre- and post-GC empowerment scores was 17.5 points (mean pre-GC score = 118.5, mean post-GC score = 136, p < 0.0001; effect size, d = 0.94). Forty percent of individuals (17/42) were aware of surveillance recommendations for at-risk family members prior to GC; this increased to 76% of individuals (32/42) post-GC (p < 0.01). This is the first study to explore patient empowerment before and after GC in a cardiology setting. The results demonstrate a significant increase in empowerment and awareness of recommendations for at-risk relatives as a result of CVGC. This study demonstrates the utility of CVGC in patient care.