Nancy Callanan

Telephoned BRCA1/2 Genetic Test Results: Prevalence, Practice, and Patient Satisfaction.

While the traditional model of genetic evaluation for breast cancer risk recommended face-to-face disclosure of genetic testing results, BRCA1/2 testing results are increasingly provided by telephone. The few existing studies on telephone genetic counseling provide conflicting results about its desirability and efficacy. The current study aimed to (1) Estimate the prevalence among genetic counselors of providing BRCA1/2 genetic test results by phone (2) Assess patient satisfaction with results delivered by telephone versus in-person. A survey was sent to members of the Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group via the NSGC listserve and was completed by 107 individuals. Additionally, 137 patients who had received BRCA genetic testing results either by phone or in-person at UNC Chapel Hill Cancer Genetics Clinic were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the mode of their BRCA1/2 results delivery. The genetic counseling survey revealed that the majority of responding counselors (92.5%) had delivered BRCA1/2 genetic test results by telephone. Patients having received results either in person or by phone reported no difference in satisfaction. Most patients chose to receive results by phone and those given a choice of delivery mode reported significantly higher satisfaction than those who did not have a choice. Those who waited less time to receive results once they knew they were ready also reported higher satisfaction. This study found supportive results for the routine provision of BRCA1/2 genetic test results by telephone. Results suggest that test results should be delivered as swiftly as possible once available and that offering patients a choice of how to receive results is desirable. These are especially important issues as genetic testing becomes more commonplace in medicine.

Supervision of psychosocial skills in genetic counseling.

Little has been written about how genetic counseling supervisors can help students develop psychosocial skills in their clinical rotations. The authors describe several approaches supervisors can use, ranging from preventive measures (e.g., normalizing anxiety), to skill-enhancing interventions (e.g., modeling and thinking aloud), to more direct approaches (e.g., immediacy, confrontation) that may be necessary for students who are reluctant, or even resistant, to using psychosocial skills with their clients.

Boundary Issues and Multiple Relationships in Genetic Counseling Supervision: Supervisor, Non-supervisor, and Student Perspectives

Boundary issues and multiple relationships potentially affect all supervision interactions. Boundary crossings are departures from the strictest professional role and may or may not benefit supervisees. Boundary violations are outside common practice and may place supervisees at significant risk. Multiple relationships occur when supervisors concurrently or consecutively hold two or more roles with supervisees. Studies in other fields indicate supervisors and supervisees may be uncertain about professional conduct regarding these issues. In this study, genetic counselor supervisors (n = 126), non-supervisors (n = 72), and genetic counseling students (n = 129) completed an anonymous survey investigating four major questions: 1) Are various boundary issues and multiple relationships perceived as differentially appropriate? 2) Do supervisor, non-supervisor, and student perceptions differ? 3) What challenging situations have respondents experienced? and 4) What management strategies did they use? There was general agreement among groups in their appropriateness ratings of 56 hypothetical supervisor behaviors, although supervisor ratings tended to reflect stricter boundaries regarding the appropriateness of interactions than student ratings. A majority rated unavoidable boundary crossings and supervisor multiple relationships involving an academic relationship as most appropriate, and romantic/sexual multiple relationships and/or boundary violations as least appropriate. Analysis of respondents’ actual challenging situations revealed many involved boundary violations, placed students at risk of harm, and often resulted in student compliance.

Genetic Counseling Supervisors’ Self-Efficacy for Select Clinical Supervision Competencies

Supervision is a primary instructional vehicle for genetic counseling student clinical training. Approximately two-thirds of genetic counselors report teaching and education roles, which include supervisory roles. Recently, Eubanks Higgins and colleagues published the first comprehensive list of empirically-derived genetic counseling supervisor competencies. Studies have yet to evaluate whether supervisors possess these competencies and whether their competencies differ as a function of experience. This study investigated three research questions: (1) What are genetic counselor supervisors’ perceptions of their capabilities (self-efficacy) for a select group of supervisor competencies?, (2) Are there differences in self-efficacy as a function of their supervision experience or their genetic counseling experience, and 3) What training methods do they use and prefer to develop supervision skills? One-hundred thirty-one genetic counselor supervisors completed an anonymous online survey assessing demographics, self-efficacy (self-perceived capability) for 12 goal setting and 16 feedback competencies (Scale: 0–100), competencies that are personally challenging, and supervision training experiences and preferences (open-ended). A MANOVA revealed significant positive effects of supervision experience but not genetic counseling experience on participants’ self-efficacy. Although mean self-efficacy ratings were high (>83.7), participant comments revealed several challenging competencies (e.g., incorporating student’s report of feedback from previous supervisors into goal setting, and providing feedback about student behavior rather than personal traits). Commonly preferred supervision training methods included consultation with colleagues, peer discussion, and workshops/seminars.

Time Flies: an Examination of Genetic Counselor Professional Development: Introduction to Special Issue on Genetic Counselor Development

Oh, how time flies! It was just over 50 years ago that Melissa Richter, a professor of biology at Sarah Lawrence College, envisioned a professional who would Bbridge the gap between the increasingly complex scientific knowledge on human genetics and the severely inadequate services provided by most hospitals to physicians and to the patients at risk for or affected by these diseases^ (Human Genetics Graduate Program History n.d.). These professionals genetic counselors are now flourishing, particularly with advancements in genetic technology and an increasing demand for genetic services in many aspects of medicine. Thus, it is more than timely (and necessary) for us to stop and take this opportunity to reflect on genetic counselor professional development. Before introducing the many invaluable perspectives on genetic counselor development contained in this issue, it is important to first define and understand what we mean by professional development. Professional development is not specifically defined or well-researched in genetic counseling (McCarthy Veach, et al., 2010). Drawing from the field of psychology and an extensive literature review conducted by the American Psychological Association (APA), professional development can be defined as:

Attitudes and Practice of Genetic Counselors Regarding Anonymous Testing for BRCA1/2

Patients and clinicians alike view anonymous testing as a potential way to avoid perceived risks of genetic testing such as insurance and employment discrimination and the potential loss of privacy. To assess their experience with and attitudes towards anonymous testing for BRCA1/2, genetic counselors were invited to complete an internet-based survey via the NSGC Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group (FCRC-SIG) listerv. A majority of the 115 respondents (70%) had received requests from patients for anonymous BRCA1/2 testing at some point in their careers and 43% complied with this request. Most counselors, however, encountered such requests infrequently, 1–5 times per year. Although genetic counselors do not generally encourage anonymous testing and over a third of respondents feel it should never be offered, a substantial subset support its use under specific circumstances. In general, a strong consensus exists among counselors that anonymous testing should not be offered routinely. In light of the current legislative landscape, it is of note that a substantial proportion of respondents (42.7%) cited the threat of life insurance discrimination as a reason for pursuing AT, and fewer cited health insurance (30.0%) or employment discrimination (29.1%) as justifications. Since there exists no federal legislative protections against discrimination by life insurance companies, it makes sense that genetic counselors were more responsive to this issue as opposed to the threat of discrimination in health insurance and employment.

Parental Communication and Experiences and Knowledge of Adolescent Siblings of Children with 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome

Abstract22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is the most common microdeletion in humans. There have been few studies assessing the impact of this condition on the family and no previous studies conducted on unaffected siblings of children with 22q11DS. The goal of this study was to determine the frequency, method, and content of information being communicated by parents to unaffected siblings about the condition and to assess unaffected siblings’ knowledge of 22q11DS and perceptions of the impact of the condition on their affected sibling and themselves. Families were recruited from several 22q11DS educational and support organizations and asked to complete a single anonymous online survey. Families were eligible to participate if they had one child with 22q11DS and at least one unaffected child between the ages of 12 and 17. Survey questions were developed based on previous literature and authors’ expertise with individuals with 22q11DS. Responses to quantitative and qualitative questions were analyzed to calculate frequencies and proportions and to extract themes, respectively. A total of 25 families (defined as a unit of at least one parent, one affected child, and at least one unaffected child) participated in the study. Parents shared genetic information less often as compared to behavioral and medical information. Siblings of children with 22q11DS had both positive and negative experiences in having a brother or sister with this condition. Genetic counselors can use the results of this study to develop anticipatory guidance for parents of children with 22q11DS in talking with their unaffected children about the condition.

Code of Ethics of the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Explication of Revisions

The Code of Ethics (COE) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) was adopted in 1992. In 2004, the NSGC leadership appointed the Code of Ethics Work Group (COEWG) to consider revisions to the NSGC COE based on advice from the NSGC legal counsel, and to consider additional changes given growth in the scope of genetic counseling practice since the adoption of the original COE. After input from the NSGC membership, changes to the COE addressing the recommendations of the NSGC legal counsel were approved in December 2004. The COEWG then reviewed ethical codes and codes of professional conduct from 22 professional organizations, deemed to have similar goals and philosophies to the NSGC, searching for themes that encompassed genetic counseling practice that might not yet be addressed in the NSGC COE. Additional revisions to the COE were proposed, and after feedback from the NSGC membership, the revised COE was approved in January 2006 by majority vote of full members of the NSGC. The explications for the 2004 and 2006 revisions are presented.

Development and Initial Assessment of a Patient Education Video about Pharmacogenetics

As few patient-friendly resources about pharmacogenetics are currently available, we aimed to create and assess a patient educational video on pharmacogenetic testing. A primary literature and resources review was conducted to inform the content and the format of the video. The educational video was then created using a commercially available animation program and pilot tested in focus groups of the general public and by an online survey of pharmacists. Emerging themes from the focus groups and survey indicate a desire for appropriate risk contextualization and specific examples when pharmacogenetic testing may be beneficial. Focus group participants also expressed a preference for a video with live action, and more text to reinforce concepts. Pharmacists generally felt that the video was understandable for patients and relevant for decision-making regarding testing. Using this initial feedback and the identification of important concepts to include in pharmacogenetics educational tools, we plan to revise the video, perform additional evaluations, and publish the video for public use in the future.

Communication of Psychiatric Risk in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: A Pilot Project.

Individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) have an increased chance of developing a psychiatric disorder. While parents of children affected by 22q11.2DS typically receive counseling about risk for non-psychiatric health concerns, genetic counselors may be reluctant to discuss psychiatric risk. Further education of genetic counselors may be necessary to encourage discussion of psychiatric risk with these families. The goal of this project was to develop recommendations for genetic counselors to provide psychiatric risk information to families affected by 22q11.2DS. The recommendations were developed by synthesizing resources in the literature about risk communication. These recommendations were refined following an online focus group meeting with five health care professionals who were recruited for participation from 22q11.2DS clinics across the U.S.A. The focus group data revealed three themes related to discussion of psychiatric risk: 1) Stepwise approach, 2) Discussing treatment options and reducing risks, and 3) Addressing stigma. These recommendations may be used as a foundation for a future clinical protocol to encourage discussion about the risk for psychiatric illness at an earlier point in the diagnostic process for 22q11.2DS and to provide improved information, support and resources to affected families.