Developing a genomics rotation: Practical training around variant interpretation for genetic counseling students

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in genomic variant interpretation: An innovative education strategy for the growing genetic counselor workforce

The growth in genomic testing in healthcare requires a highly trained specialist workforce to ensure evidence based clinical germline variant interpretation. Genetic counselors form a core part of the clinical genomics multidisciplinary team (MDT) and represent a growing workforce participating in variant interpretation from data analysis to the patient consultation. Standardized, high-quality variant interpretation training for Genetic Counselors has historically been ad hoc and variable, with existing programs lacking capacity to reach the entire workforce. To address the requirement for scalable variant interpretation training for genomics healthcare professionals (HCPs), two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were developed. We analyzed the data from 17 Genetic counselors, as part of an evaluation cohort completing the first run of these MOOCs. Overall genetic counselors enjoyed the courses, felt they were clinically relevant and would recommend them to colleagues. Common challenges amongst the genetic counseling workforces included utilizing relevant databases and finding time in the workday to complete training. These findings suggest MOOCs could be an acceptable option to ensure a consistent and transferrable high standard of training, complimentary to existing curricula. They also hold the potential to facilitate large-scale education to update the genetic counseling workforce when changes in variant interpretation guidance occur.

Genetic counselors' perceptions of student supervision across service delivery models

Genetic counseling (GC) services are increasingly delivered by phone or video, resulting in more telehealth student rotations. The purpose of this study was to describe genetic counselors' utilization of telehealth for student supervision and to compare how their comfort, preferences, and perception of the difficulty of selected student supervision competencies vary between phone, video, and in-person student supervision. In 2021, patient-facing genetic counselors in North America with ≥1-year GC experience who supervised ≥3 GC students in the last 3 years received an invitation via the American Board of Genetic Counseling or the Association of GC Program Directors listservs to complete a 26-item online questionnaire. There were 132 responses eligible for analysis. Demographics were fairly consistent with the National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey. The majority of participants used more than one service delivery model to provide GC services (93%) and supervise students (89%). Six supervisory competencies related to the student-supervisor communication (Eubanks HIggins et al., 2013) were perceived to be most difficult to accomplish by phone and easiest in-person (p < 0.0001). Participants were most comfortable in-person and least comfortable by telephone for both patient care and student supervision (p < 0.001). The majority of participants predicted continued use of telehealth for patient care but preferred in-person service delivery for both patient care (66%) and student supervision (81%). Overall, these findings indicate service delivery model changes in the field have an impact on GC education and suggest that the student-supervisor relationship may be different via telehealth. Furthermore, the stronger preference for in-person patient care and student supervision, despite predicted continued telehealth utilization, points to a need for multifaceted telehealth education initiatives.

Shifts in the genetic counseling workforce highlight a need for laboratory fieldwork experience for genetic counseling trainees

As the genetic counseling workforce experiences an increase in genetic counselors (GCs) in non-direct patient care roles, it is essential that genetic counseling students are trained in these settings. The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) standards regarding laboratory exposure have evolved over time, but laboratory fieldwork experience continues to remain a suggestion for a diversified setting. As more trainees seek laboratory exposure and an increasing number of new graduates opt for laboratory positions, learning firsthand from GCs employed in this setting is a valuable experience that should be available to all trainees. Historically, laboratory educational offerings consisted of onsite rotations for students from local training programs focused on understanding diagnostic testing methodologies and shadowing GCs. Through the years, multiple laboratories have expanded their curriculums to expose students to variant interpretation and report writing, research, client services, marketing, and product development. Alongside the growth of laboratory rotation curriculum grew opportunities for remote rotations. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, GeneDx offered remote education options including both individualized rotations and a webinar series. These offerings expanded due to the pandemic coupled with increased demand and have positive implications for future trainees. The evolution of the rotation also included conscious efforts to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into the curriculum, as well as to improved accessibility to laboratory rotations. Notably, there are inconsistencies in laboratory rotation curricula and requirements, and a standardized evaluation and definition of competencies are lacking. ACGC guidelines defining common core concepts required from laboratory rotations would help ensure students receive an equitable minimum skill set, regardless of training site. Stakeholders in GC education should collaborate to enhance the experiences of future trainees and provide the skills needed by a workforce shifting to remote work and increasing numbers of non-direct patient-facing laboratory roles. Drawing upon our years of experience, GeneDx aims to actively contribute to discussions around these questions. Alongside other laboratories and training programs, we hope to foster further innovation surrounding the training needs of our future GC colleagues. This educational innovation illustrates an approach to helping genetic counseling students achieve competencies related to lab-based roles.

A Formative Study of the Implementation of Whole Genome Sequencing in Northern Ireland

Background: The UK 100,000 Genomes Project was a transformational research project which facilitated whole genome sequencing (WGS) diagnostics for rare diseases. We evaluated experiences of introducing WGS in Northern Ireland, providing recommendations for future projects. Methods: This formative evaluation included (1) an appraisal of the logistics of implementing and delivering WGS, (2) a survey of participant self-reported views and experiences, (3) semi-structured interviews with healthcare staff as key informants who were involved in the delivery of WGS and (4) a workshop discussion about interprofessional collaboration with respect to molecular diagnostics. Results: We engaged with >400 participants, with detailed reflections obtained from 74 participants including patients, caregivers, key National Health Service (NHS) informants, and researchers (patient survey n = 42; semi-structured interviews n = 19; attendees of the discussion workshop n = 13). Overarching themes included the need to improve rare disease awareness, education, and support services, as well as interprofessional collaboration being central to an effective, mainstreamed molecular diagnostic service. Conclusions: Recommendations for streamlining precision medicine for patients with rare diseases include administrative improvements (e.g., streamlining of the consent process), educational improvements (e.g., rare disease training provided from undergraduate to postgraduate education alongside genomics training for non-genetic specialists) and analytical improvements (e.g., multidisciplinary collaboration and improved computational infrastructure).

Genetic counselor roles in the undiagnosed diseases network research study: Clinical care, collaboration, and curation

Genetic counselors (GCs) are increasingly filling important positions on research study teams, but there is limited literature describing the roles of GCs in these settings. GCs on the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) study team serve in a variety of roles across the research network and provide an opportunity to better understand genetic counselor roles in research. To quantitatively characterize the tasks regularly performed and professional fulfillment derived from these tasks, two surveys were administered to UDN GCs in a stepwise fashion. Responses from the first, free-response survey elicited the scope of tasks which informed development of a second structured, multiple-select survey. In survey 2, respondents were asked to select which roles they performed. Across 19 respondents, roles in survey 2 received a total of 947 selections averaging approximately 10 selections per role. When asked to indicate what roles they performed, respondent selected a mean of 50 roles (range 22-70). Survey 2 data were analyzed via thematic coding of responses and hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patterns in responses. From the thematic analysis, 20 non-overlapping codes emerged in seven categories: clinical interaction and care, communication, curation, leadership, participant management, research, and team management. Three themes emerged from the categories that represented the roles of GCs in the UDN: clinical care, collaboration, and curation. Cluster analyses showed that responses were more similar among individuals at the same institution than between institutions. This study highlights the ways GCs apply their unique skill set in the context of a clinical translational research network. Additionally, findings from this study reinforce the wide applicability of core skills that are part of genetic counseling training. Clinical literacy, genomics expertise and analysis, interpersonal, psychosocial and counseling skills, education, professional practice skills, and an understanding of research processes make genetic counselors well suited for such roles and poised to positively impact research experiences and outcomes for participants.

Genomics Education in the Era of Personal Genomics: Academic, Professional, and Public Considerations

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, genomic sequencing has become a prominent tool used by diverse disciplines in modern science. In the past 20 years, the cost of genomic sequencing has decreased exponentially, making it affordable and accessible. Bioinformatic and biological studies have produced significant scientific breakthroughs using the wealth of genomic information now available. Alongside the scientific benefit of genomics, companies offer direct-to-consumer genetic testing which provide health, trait, and ancestry information to the public. A key area that must be addressed is education about what conclusions can be made from this genomic information and integrating genomic education with foundational genetic principles already taught in academic settings. The promise of personal genomics providing disease treatment is exciting, but many challenges remain to validate genomic predictions and diagnostic correlations. Ethical and societal concerns must also be addressed regarding how personal genomic information is used. This genomics revolution provides a powerful opportunity to educate students, clinicians, and the public on scientific and ethical issues in a personal way to increase learning. In this review, we discuss the influence of personal genomics in society and focus on the importance and benefits of genomics education in the classroom, clinics, and the public and explore the potential consequences of personal genomic education.

Variant interpretation is a component of clinical practice among genetic counselors in multiple specialties

PURPOSE

Genomic testing is routinely utilized across clinical settings and can have significant variant interpretation challenges. The extent of genetic counselor (GC) engagement in variant interpretation in clinical practice is unknown. This study aimed to explore clinical GCs' variant interpretation practice across specialties, understand outcomes of this practice, and identify resource and educational needs.

METHODS

An online survey was administered to National Society of Genetic Counselors members providing clinical counseling.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 239) represented all major clinical specialties. The majority (68%) reported reviewing evidence documented by the laboratory for most (>60%) variants reported; 45.5% report seeking additional evidence. Prenatal GCs were less likely to independently assess reported evidence. Most respondents (67%) report having reached a different conclusion about a variant's classification than the testing laboratory, though infrequently. Time was the most commonly reported barrier (72%) to performing variant interpretation, though the majority (97%) indicated that this practice had an important impact on patient care. When presented with three hypothetical scenarios, evidence typically used for variant interpretation was generally applied correctly.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to document variant interpretation practice broadly across clinical GC specialties. Our results suggest that variant interpretation should be considered a practice-based competency for GCs.

Translating genomic testing results for pediatric critical care: Opportunities for genetic counselors

Genomic sequencing (GS), such as whole genome and exome sequencing, is rapidly being integrated into pediatric critical care settings. Results are being used to make high impact decisions including declarations of futility, withdrawal of care, and rationing of scarce resources. In this qualitative study, we conducted interviews with clinicians involved in the care of critically ill children with congenital heart disease (CHD) to investigate their views on implementation of GS into clinical practice. Interviews were transcribed and inductively analyzed for major themes using grounded theory and thematic analysis. Three major themes emerged surrounding the use of genomic information in the high-stakes, time pressured decision making that characterizes clinical care of critically ill children with CHD: (a) that clinicians felt they did not have sufficient training to accurately assess genetic results despite pressure to incorporate results into clinical decisions; (b), that they desire knowledge support from genetic specialists, such as genetic counselors, who both understand the critical care context and are available within the time constraints of critical care clinical pressures; and (c), that clinicians feel a pressing need for increased genetics education to be able to safely and appropriately incorporate GS results into clinical decisions Our data suggest that genetics specialists may need a stronger presence in the pediatric critical care setting.