Integrating genetic assistants into the workforce: An 18-year productivity analysis and development of a staff mix planning tool

Survey of the training needs of genetic assistants supports the creation of genetic assistant training programs

Despite the increasing numbers of genetic assistants (GAs) in the genomics workforce, their training needs and how to best prepare GAs for their role have not been well defined. We sought to identify the current educational status of GAs, opinions on their training needs, and attitudes about GA training programs (GATPs). Survey links were emailed to NSGC members, 17 state genetic counseling (GC) professional organizations, and genomic medicine researchers. Respondents (n = 411) included GCs (n = 231) and GAs (n = 136). Like other studies, we found that the GA position is filled by a range of education levels and career aspirations. Most respondents supported the creation of GATPs, with 63% endorsing that GATPs would be helpful and half endorsing a short-term (3 months or less) program. Most believed GATPs should focus on general knowledge, with almost all practical skills learned on-the-job. If more GATPs are created, our survey provides evidence that graduates would be hired. Indeed, of those whose work setting required a bachelor's degree, the number of respondents who favored keeping that requirement was similar to the number who favored hiring a GA without a degree if they attended a GATP. However, there were concerns about GATPs. Many (44%) believed creating GATPs could discourage candidates from becoming GAs. We observed that there are two types of GAs: entry-level and bachelor's-level, with the entry-level being those who do not have and are not working to obtain a bachelor's degree and the bachelor's-level being those who do/are. GATPs could focus on the education of entry-level GAs, while gaps in the knowledge base of bachelor's-level GAs could be addressed by augmenting bachelor's curriculum or providing additional training after hire. Further research on the training needs of GAs and hiring practices of institutions will be vital to understanding their training needs and designing and implementing effective GATPs.

Insights into genetic assistant practice and the workforce in North America

Genetic assistant positions are now widely integrated in genetic services to address genetic counselor shortages and ultimately improve efficiency. While over 40% of genetic counselors report working with a genetic assistant ("NSGC Professional Status Survey: Work Environment," 2022), there is limited information about the genetic assistant workforce. The present study surveyed 164 genetic assistants and 139 individuals with experience working with genetic assistants (specifically genetic counselors, residents, geneticists, and administrative staff). Information was collected about genetic assistant demographics, positions, roles and responsibilities, and career paths. The data revealed that the genetic assistant workforce is demographically similar to the genetic counselor workforce and that most genetic assistants intend to pursue a career in genetic counseling. The genetic assistant positions were heterogeneous in terms of the roles and responsibilities assigned, even when separated by work setting. Lastly, participants reported that there were at least 144 genetic assistants across their institutions, a number that has likely grown since the time of the survey. The findings from this study highlight important opportunities for future research and focus, especially development of a scope of practice and competencies for genetic assistants, as well as the potential to use genetic assistant positions as an avenue to improve diversity within the genetic counseling workforce.

Refining the activities of genetic assistants: Development of task statements applicable across practice settings

Although genetic (counseling) assistants (GAs) have been implemented in many institutions, their roles vary widely. Therefore, this study aimed to refine our knowledge of GA tasks across work settings and specialties. Tasks performed by GAs were extracted from peer-reviewed articles, publicly available theses, and job postings, then analyzed using directed content analysis. Briefly, task statements were coded using broad categories from previous studies, with new categories added as emergent. Coded tasks were combined and condensed to produce a final task list, which was reviewed by subject matter experts. Sixty-one task statements were extracted from previous studies and 335 task statements were extracted from job descriptions. Directed content analysis produced a list of 40 unique tasks under 10 categories (8 from original research and 2 from the data). This study design resulted in a refined list of GA tasks that may be applicable across work settings and specialties, which is an essential step towards defining the scope of GA work. Beyond the human resource applications of the refined task list, this work may also benefit genetics services by reducing role overlap, improving efficiencies, improving employee satisfaction, and informing the development/improvement of training and other educational materials.

Exploring the evolving roles of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors in the era of genomic medicine

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs (n = 80) and GCs (n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5-10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade.

Paving a pathway for large-scale utilization of genomics in precision medicine and population health

Having worked with two large population sequencing initiatives, the separation between the potential for genomics in precision medicine and the current reality have become clear. To realize this potential requires workflows, policies, and technical architectures that are foreign to most healthcare systems. Many historical processes and regulatory barriers currently impede our progress. The future of precision medicine includes genomic data being widely available at the point of care with systems in place to manage its efficient utilization. To achieve such vision requires substantial changes in billing, reimbursement, and reporting as well as the development of new systemic and technical architectures within the healthcare system. Clinical geneticist roles will evolve into managing precision health frameworks and genetic counselors will serve crucial roles in both leading and supporting precision medicine through the implementation and maintenance of precision medicine architectures. Our current path has many obstacles that hold us back, leaving preventable deaths in the wake. Reengineering our healthcare systems to support genomics can have a major impact on patient outcomes and allow us to realize the long-sought promises of precision medicine.