Genetic Counseling Program Directors Research Articles

Telesupervision in genetic counseling education during COVID-19 and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic led healthcare organizations to pivot to telemedicine, precipitating the shift to telesupervision, defined as supervision over video-conferencing platforms and telephone, for genetic counseling students. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on genetic counseling supervision, (2) ascertain genetic counseling supervisor experiences with telesupervision, and (3) examine the association between years of genetic counseling experience and preferences related to supervision modality. Certified genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), Pennsylvania Association of Genetic Counselors (PAGC), and Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) listservs and by purposive sampling via emails to Genetic Counseling Program Directors in program-rich regions. An investigator-created survey was administered online to elicit descriptions of supervision during the pandemic, including modifications to rotations, changes to the number of students supervised, and mode of supervision preference. The survey was completed by 122 genetic counselors. The 54-question survey included multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions. The majority (95.9%) of the participants were female, with an average age of 32 years. Most (86%) of participants reported changes in their supervision practices due to COVID-19, including sole use of telesupervision (54.4%), decreases in rotation lengths (25.4%), and delays in rotation start dates (24.6%). Interestingly, 19.3% (22/114) supervised more students than before the pandemic, and 18.4% (21/114) of participants supervised fewer students. Approximately two thirds (67.5%) of supervisors preferred supervising students in-person, while 2.6% preferred telesupervision, and 29.8% had no preference. Those who preferred to supervise in-person had fewer years of experience than those who had no preference (median = 4 years vs. median = 7 years respectively, Wilcoxonp-value = 0.0418, effect size rpb = 0.19, small). Given the persistence of telemedicine beyond the pandemic, telesupervision may be necessary to train genetic counseling students. However, additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of telesupervision in facilitating student skill development and attainment of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) Practice-Based Competencies (PBCs).

Group meditation, addressing stigma, and "mental health days": Recommendations for integrating self-awareness practices into genetic counseling graduate programs.

Genetic counseling graduate programs provide a rigorous curriculum comprised of coursework encompassing counseling and medical genetics, fieldwork, and research experience. Students face similar emotional and mental demands as practicing genetic counselors while also experiencing stressors commonly associated with graduate study. Increased self-awareness may help combat these stressors. This mixed-methods study surveyed 154 genetic counseling graduate students to determine the types of self-awareness practices they would like to have included in their graduate training and surveyed 11 program faculty regarding the feasibility of implementing these practices. The students' most preferred practices were self-reflection (n = 73, 47.4%), support from peers, colleagues, and/or supervisors (n = 71, 46.1%), and mental health counseling (n = 71, 46.1%). Analysis of responses to open-ended questions capturing students' recommendations for programs yielded six recurrent themes: (1) Consistent, Structured Practice with Accountability, (2) Emphasis on Mental Health, (3) Practical Techniques, (4) Access to Resources, (5) Encouragement and Support, and (6) Barriers to Implementation. Many students suggested that programs should incorporate repetitive exercises that could be implemented on a schedule with an emphasis on consistency (Theme 1). Students also emphasized the importance of providing exposure to multiple examples of self-awareness practices, so they could find an approach that was most beneficial on an individual basis (Theme 3). These findings were shared with program faculty via a presentation at the Association for Genetic Counseling Program Directors annual meeting, and attendees were subsequently surveyed regarding self-awareness practices currently integrated into their curriculum, as well as the feasibility and likelihood of integrating new practices. Program faculty respondents indicated that most of the recommended practices were included in their curriculum already or would be feasible and likely to incorporate. These results provide insight into the attitudes of genetic counseling students toward structured practice in self-awareness and how genetic counseling graduate programs might integrate such practices into the curriculum.

Preparedness and training of genetic counselors practicing in inpatient settings.

As rapid genomic testing technology increasingly allows for real-time answers that could alter management for acutely ill patients, opportunities for genetic counselors to work in inpatient settings will increase. However, genetic counselors' preparedness and the training provided by graduate programs to work in inpatient settings are unknown. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 genetic counselors who provided services in varied inpatient settings to assess genetic counselors' readiness for inpatient positions. We also surveyed members of the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) about inpatient training practices of genetic counseling graduate programs. Genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Inpatient Special Interest Group listserv and graduate program faculty were recruited through the AGCPD listserv. Some challenges reported by genetic counselors in inpatient settings included working in a fast-paced hospital environment which necessitated focused interactions with patients; collaborating with diverse providers who may not understand the role of genetic counselors; and navigating grief experiences of families and of themselves as a provider. Although genetic counselors felt that many of their skills developed in graduate school were transferrable to the inpatient setting, those who had minimal or no inpatient exposure in graduate school often described feeling unprepared for working in the inpatient setting. The majority of AGCPD respondents (23/28) indicated their program provided some type of exposure to the inpatient setting for students, the most common (22/23) being an inpatient clinical rotation, which suggests many graduate programs are already recognizing the importance of providing inpatient training. Our findings indicate that while many skills are transferrable to inpatient positions, genetic counselors face unique challenges in inpatient settings. Our results suggest that graduate exposure to the inpatient setting and professional support of inpatient genetic counselors are beneficial to support genetic counselors' preparedness to take on inpatient positions.

A report of the AGCPD task force to evaluate associations between select admissions requirements, demographics, and performance on ABGC certification examination

Graduation from a genetic counseling graduate program accredited by the Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling and certification obtained by passing the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) certification examination are increasingly required to practice as a genetic counselor in the USA. Despite the ABGC certification examination serving as a gateway to the genetic counseling career, there have been no research studies to date that have examined what variables are associated with examination performance. Therefore, the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors established a Task Force to assess whether trainee demographics, Grade point average (GPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE®) percentile scores are associated with passing the ABGC certification examination on the first attempt. We surveyed accredited genetic counseling graduate programs in North America and gathered demographic data, admissions variables, and certification examination outcome data for 1,494 trainees from 24 training programs, representing approximately 60.5% of matriculants between 2007 and 2016. Univariable analysis was performed to assess associations between admissions variables and categorical outcome (pass vs. fail) on the certification examination using Wilcoxon rank-sum or Fisher's exact test. Variables significantly associated with the categorical board outcome were then entered in a stepwise model selection procedure. In stepwise logistic regression, trainees with higher GPA (OR = 3.41; 95% CI = 1.99, 5.83), higher verbal (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) and quantitative (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01, 1.03) GRE® scores, female trainees (OR = 2.95; 95% CI = 1.70, 5.12), and White trainees (OR 3.37; 95% CI = 2.14, 5.30) had higher odds of passing the certification examination on the first attempt. As programs move to a holistic approach to graduate admissions in order to improve access to the genetic counseling profession, our results may influence programs to provide additional preparation for the certification examination for all trainees. In addition, genetic counseling professional organizations should continue to work together to assess and eliminate outcome disparities in admissions, training, and certification processes.

Genesurance counseling: Current training practices of genetic counseling graduate programs in the United States.

In recent years, it has become apparent that patients expect genetic counselors to be able to address questions about insurance coverage for genetic testing and perform 'genesurance' tasks in and out of genetic counseling sessions. Anecdotally, many genetic counseling graduate programs have begun to incorporate genesurance training in some capacity. However, the amount, modality, and potential barriers to this training had not been previously studied; therefore, this study aimed to elucidate current graduate program practice regarding genesurance. Program Directors of Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) accredited programs who had students enrolled as of July 2019(n=50) were recruited through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) listserv and invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey via Qualtrics. Program Directors (PDs) from 25 ACGC accredited programs located in the United States completed the survey and were included in the analysis, responses from two ACGC Canadian programs were excluded due to small sample size and differences in healthcare systems. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and open-ended responses were coded utilizing latent qualitative content analysis. The majority of respondents from the United States, 96.0% (24/25), report incorporating genesurance training into their curriculum utilizing a variety of training modalities including classroom, clinical, and online experiences. Most (81.0%) felt their trainees were adequately or very prepared to discuss genesurance issues.Despite varied methods of teaching modalities, PDs identified barriers to providing this training, including time constraints within the curriculum, lack of interest in the subject, as well as acknowledging the constantly changing landscape of billing and insurance. Despite these barriers, a baseline understanding of the impact of insurance on offering genetic testing and insight into how insurance impacts clinical practice may be beneficial to genetic counseling trainees, as it reflects the current genetic counselor's workflow and practice patterns.

Examining career shadowing in genetic counseling: Perspectives of shadowees, program directors, and genetic counselors.

Career shadowing can be a valuable opportunity for individuals to experience the daily activities of a working professional. However, there is no published research regarding the impact of shadowing for individuals hoping to pursue a career as a genetic counselor (GC) (termed 'shadowees'). Additionally, little is known about the impact of shadowing on practicing GCs, nor the value of shadowing in the application and admission process for genetic counseling graduate programs. For this study, three independent surveys were developed and sent to three stakeholder groups: shadowees in the Minnesota Genetic Counseling Experience Program, program directors within the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors, and members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on responses. The survey of shadowees (n=55) found that the majority believed that shadowing had either a 'very' or 'somewhat positive' impact on their decision to become a GC and on their application to a genetic counseling graduate program (81.8% and 91.3%, respectively). Of the participating program director respondents (n=43), the majority indicated that having shadowing experience was either 'moderately' or 'extremely important' in offering an interview or for acceptance into a graduate program (63% and 56%, respectively). While programs differ in evaluation of shadowing experiences, most program directors indicated that an applicant's ability to speak to their shadowing experience was the most important factor in admissions consideration (71%). Among the GCs surveyed (n=325), 69.2% have hosted shadowees; of these, 82.7% indicated that hosting a shadowee decreases their efficiency at work. Despite this drawback, the majority of respondents expressed a willingness and motivation to host shadowees to help the shadowee (64.8%) and to promote the genetic counseling profession (32.6%). These findings suggest the need for additional research and the development of resources for GCs to increase access of career shadowing.

Characterizing standardized patients and genetic counseling graduate education.

Standardized patients (SPs) are laypersons trained to portray patients, family members, and others in a consistent, measurable manner to teach and assess healthcare students, and to provide practice for emotionally and medically challenging cases. SP methodology has been studied with practicing genetic counselors; however, there is minimal empirical evidence characterizing its use in genetic counseling (GC) education. The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) Standards of Accreditation for Graduate Programs in Genetic Counseling include SP sessions as one way to achieve up to 20% of the 50 participatory cases required for graduation. The purpose of the current project was to determine the scope, frequency, and timing of SP methodology in ACGC-accredited programs to establish baseline usage, which happened prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A 40-item investigator-created survey was developed to document the scope and frequency of SP use among programs. The survey was distributed through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors' (AGCPD) listserv to 43 accredited and 6 programs under development. Surveys were analyzed from 25 accredited programs (response rate=58%). Seventeen of these programs report inclusion of SP methodology in the curricula (68%), of which 13 report working with an established SP program. SPs are used predominantly for role-plays (70.6%), individualized instruction and remediation (29.4%), and for other reasons such as lecture demonstration, final examinations, practicing skills, and assessing students' goals. Sixteen of the participating programs use SPs to give GC students experience disclosing positive test results. Other details vary among the GC programs including the use of trained SPs, volunteer or paid SPs, actors with and without SP training, or GC students acting as patients. This study demonstrates that GC program SP experiences differ, but are largely viewed as valuable by the programs. Many GC programs report using SP encounters to create multiple opportunities for students to practice and refine clinical skills similar to SPs in medical school.

Genetic counseling graduate training to address religion and spirituality in clinical practice: A qualitative exploration of programs in North America.

Patients receiving clinical genetics services often navigate emotionally difficult situations and may utilize their faith as a source of support, an aid in decision-making, or a core coping strategy. Although patients have expressed interest in discussing their religious or spiritual (R/S) beliefs with their genetic counselor (GC), GCs may avoid such conversations because they feel they do not have the necessary skills to discuss R/S beliefs (Reis, Baumiller, Scrivener, Yager, & Warren, 2007). This qualitative study explored how GC programs in North America currently prepare their students to discuss R/S matters with their patients. The aims of this study were to identify (1) the R/S topics genetic counseling programs currently cover in the curriculum, (2) how genetic counseling programs evaluate their students within the R/S topics and activities that are included in the curriculum, and (3) the value or importance placed on R/S training by genetic counseling program directors. Leaders of 12 (36%) of the 33 eligible GC programs at the time of the study participated in a semi-structured phone interview. Their responses were coded using open and axial coding techniques and analyzed using grounded theory. Results revealed that R/S issues are often covered during the psychosocial portions of the curriculum through writing assignments, in class exercises, and role plays. Almost all participating programs include information on pastoral care services, but have little to no training about specific R/S beliefs or the use of spiritual surveys. While participating program directors emphasized that it is critical for students to be prepared to hold conversations about patients' R/S beliefs, the strategies used to prepare students are inconsistent and often not evaluated. We provide suggestions for enriching the R/S training in genetic counseling graduate programs in order to prepare students to facilitate discussions around patients' religion and/or spirituality in genetic counseling sessions.

An analysis of growth in the genetic counseling profession 2009 to 2019.

e13526 Background: Genetic counselors (GCs) are health care professionals who provide support to patients and physicians navigating the rapidly changing landscape of genetic testing and the genetic underpinnings of disease. Increased demand for genetic counseling services prompted an analysis of changes in the workforce over the last decade. Methods: To quantify the growth in the GC profession in the U.S and Canada in the last decade, we acquired data from the American Board of Genetic Counseling, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors, Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling and Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors. Results: Between 2009 and 2019, the workforce more than doubled, growing from 2,205 ABGC-certified GCs to 5,172. In Canada, the number of CAGC-certified GCs has grown from 211 in 2009 to 327 in 2019. Growth is striking in cancer genetic counseling; the proportion of GCs providing direct patient care in North America who report cancer as a primary specialty has increased from 25% in 2008 to 50% in 2019. Similar growth has been seen in training opportunities for GCs. The number of accredited graduate programs has increased from 33 in 2009 to 51 in 2019, with several more in development. Combined, these programs had 464 training slots in 2019, up from 223 in 2009. In 2019, 1569 applicants registered for the applicant match for training. Training opportunities and clinical genetic counselors are concentrated in large metropolitan areas, with over half of GCs working in 28 metro regions. GC services in rural areas are increasingly provided remotely via telemedicine, with 59% of GCs in direct patient care in 2018 reporting providing services by phone and 19% using web or video services to deliver care. In cancer genetics, about 50% of GCs nationwide reported in 2018 their 3rd next available appointment for new patients was within 14 days. Conclusions: The past decade has seen significant growth in the numbers of GCs and more patients have access to GCs than a decade ago. Reimbursement for services remains a significant barrier to access. Further research is warranted to understand additional political, administrative and logistical facilitators and barriers to providing care to all who need genetics services.

Projecting the Supply and Demand for Certified Genetic Counselors: a Workforce Study.

As of May 2017, there were 4242 Certified Genetic Counselors (CGC) (American Board of Genetic Counseling, Inc. 2017) and 41 graduate-level genetic counseling training programs (Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling 2017) in North America, and the demand for CGCs continues to increase. In the Fall of 2015 the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group, comprised of representatives from the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC), the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC), the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD), the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) commissioned a formal workforce study to project supply of and demand for CGCs through 2026. The data indicate a shortage of genetic counselors engaged in direct patient care. Assuming two scenarios for demand, supply is expected to reach equilibrium between 2024 and 2030. However, given the rate of growth in genetic counseling training programs in the six months since the study was completed, it is reasonable to expect that the number of new programs may be higher than anticipated by 2026. If true, and assuming that growth in programs is matched by equivalent growth in clinical training slots, the supply of CGCs in direct patient care would meet demand earlier than these models predict.

Expanding the genetic counseling workforce: program directors' views on increasing the size of genetic counseling graduate programs.

Although there is an anticipated need for more genetic counselors, little is known about limitations at the graduate training level. We evaluated opportunities for growth of the genetic counseling (GC) workforce by exploring program directors' perspectives on increasing number of graduate trainees. Thirty US-based GC program directors (PDs) were recruited through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors' listserv. Online surveys and semistructured phone interviews were used to explore factors impacting the expansion of the GC workforce. Twenty-five PDs completed the survey; 18 interviews were conducted. Seventy-three percent said they believe that the workforce is growing too slowly and the number of graduates should increase. Attitudes were mixed regarding whether the job market should be the main factor driving workforce expansion. Thematic analysis of transcripts identified barriers to program expansion in six categories: funding, accreditation requirements, clinical sites, faculty availability, applicant pool, and physical space. General consensus among participants indicates the importance of increasing the capacity of the GC workforce pipeline. Addressing funding issues, examining current accreditation requirements, and reevaluating current education models may be effective strategies to expanding GC program size. Future research on increasing the number of GC programs and a needs assessment for GC services are suggested.Genet Med 18 8, 842-849.

Developing a Model of Advanced Training to Promote Career Advancement for Certified Genetic Counselors: An Investigation of Expanded Skills, Advanced Training Paths, and Professional Opportunities.

There are currently multiple paths through which genetic counselors can acquire advanced knowledge and skills. However, outside of continuing education opportunities, there are few formal training programs designed specifically for the advanced training of genetic counselors. In the genetic counseling profession, there is currently considerable debate about the paths that should be available to attain advanced skills, as well as the skills that might be needed for practice in the future. The Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) convened a national committee, the Committee on Advanced Training for Certified Genetic Counselors (CATCGC), to investigate varied paths to post-master's training and career development. The committee began its work by developing three related grids that view career advancement from the viewpoints of the skills needed to advance (skills), ways to obtain these skills (paths), and existing genetic counselor positions that offer career change or advancement (positions). Here we describe previous work related to genetic counselor career advancement, the charge of the CATCGC, our preliminary work in developing a model through which to view genetic counselor advanced training and career advancement opportunities, and our next steps in further developing and disseminating the model.

Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model.

The need for evidence-based medicine, including comparative effectiveness studies and patient-centered outcomes research, has become a major healthcare focus. To date, a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes, as espoused by genetic counselors, has not been established and thus, identification of outcomes unique to genetic counseling services has become a priority for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The purpose of this study was to take a critical first step at identifying a more comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes. This paper describes the results of a focus group study using the Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM) as a framework to characterize patient-centered outcomes of genetic counseling clinical practice. Five focus groups were conducted with 27 peer nominated participants who were clinical genetic counselors, genetic counseling program directors, and/or outcomes researchers in genetic counseling. Members of each focus group were asked to identify genetic counseling outcomes for four to five of the 17 goals of the REM. A theory-driven, thematic analysis of focus group data yielded 194 genetic counseling outcomes across the 17 goals. Participants noted some concerns about how genetic counseling outcomes will be measured and evaluated given varying stakeholders and the long-term nature of genetic concerns. The present results provide a list of outcomes for use in future genetic counseling outcomes research and for empirically-supported clinical interventions.

Report on an Investigation into an Entry Level Clinical Doctorate for the Genetic Counseling Profession and a Survey of the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors.

The master's degree is the required entry-level degree for the genetic counseling profession in the US and Canada. In 2012 the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) passed resolutions supporting retention of the master's as the entry-level and terminal degree and opposing introduction of an entry-level clinical doctorate (CD) degree. An AGCPD workgroup surveyed directors of all 34 accredited training programs with the objective of providing the Genetic Counseling Advanced Degrees Task Force (GCADTF) with information regarding potential challenges if master's programs were required to transition to an entry-level CD. Program demographics, projected ability to transition to an entry-level CD, factors influencing ability to transition, and potential effects of transition on programs, students and the genetic counseling workforce were characterized. Two programs would definitely be able to transition, four programs would close, thirteen programs would be at risk to close and fourteen programs would probably be able to transition with varying degrees of difficulty. The most frequently cited limiting factors were economic, stress on clinical sites, and administrative approval of a new degree/program. Student enrollment under an entry-level CD model was projected to decrease by 26.2%, negatively impacting the workforce pipeline. The results further illuminate and justify AGCPD's position to maintain the master's as the entry-level degree.

Career Research Interests and Training of Genetic Counseling Students

Research is important to validate clinical services, provide information on the effectiveness of practice techniques, and develop the knowledge base of a clinical profession. Genetic counseling students from American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) accredited training programs were surveyed to determine their career research interests and interest in pursuing a hypothetical doctoral degree in genetic counseling. Genetic counseling program directors were surveyed to assess the emphasis on research training within their programs. A substantial number (46%, n = 92) of genetic counseling students are interested in performing research in their careers and many (40%, n = 80) would pursue a doctoral degree in genetic counseling if it was available. Students and directors from programs with a thesis requirement reported a significantly higher emphasis on career research preparation than those from programs without a thesis requirement. The results of this study indicate that future genetic counselors are interested in contributing to the research base that will advance the field. This study suggests a need to strengthen research training within ABGC accredited graduate programs and explore the development of a doctoral degree option in genetic counseling.

Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Genetic Counseling Research I Learned from Attending the Jane Engelberg Memorial Fellowship Grantmanship Seminar.

In 1995 the Board of the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ (NSGC) Jane Engelberg Memorial Fellowship (JEMF) had the foresight to fund an invited 2-day grantsmanship seminar for 22 genetic counselors. The mix of attendees ranged from new genetic counseling graduates to genetic counseling program directors. However, our outstanding faculty had few familiar faces. Most of the instructors were intellectual visitors to our profession, with minimal experience in genetic counseling. They were expert writers and stellar researchers in qualitative and quantitative methodology. By the end of our retreat, the faculty was enthusiastic about our research ideas in this emerging field of genetic counseling, and our minds were opened to applying qualitative and quantitative research methodology to questions in our everyday practice. A new partnership began. We attendees could converse in the language of focus groups, grounded-theory, narrative analysis, ethnography/participant observation, and participation action research, and the faculty became die-hard fans of genetic counseling research. Each aspect of the seminar was excellent, and I soaked in the soothing retreat atmosphere and the support of new colleagues. Our learning environment was nestled in the dramatic Colorado Rockies in Colorado Springs. Both mornings I rose early and walked through the hills colored by a spectacular sunrise and swam in the pool hoping to catch a glimpse of the resident moose. I even found a fossil. I was struck by Section I of the NSGC Code of Ethics, which states that we are responsible for our own physical and emotional health. For me to advance in my field, I must also take care of myself (a hard lesson for a mother of three). The camaraderie of the participants was also remarkable. Each of us