Referrals to Mental Health Services: Exploring the Referral Process in Genetic Counseling

A qualitative exploration of interprofessional collaborative practice between genetic counselors and mental health providers

Genetic counselors (GCs) typically provide short-term counseling and assess patient needs, including the need for ongoing psychosocial support. While some patients may benefit from a referral to a mental health provider (MHP), previous research identified barriers to this process due to patient characteristics, the GC work environment, and MHP availability. Adoption of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), a model where multiple healthcare professionals from diverse training disciplines collaborate to deliver patient care, may mitigate these barriers. Evidence suggests that IPCP both increases patient satisfaction and reduces healthcare spending. Anecdotal evidence suggests that GCs and MHPs may use IPCP in select institutions, but there is limited research examining these relationships. This study aims to characterize the benefits, barriers, and limitations of current IPCP practice between GCs and MHPs. Six semi-structured interviews with GCs and MHPs were completed and analyzed thematically. Four themes emerged: (1) mental health concerns in GC sessions and GC scope of practice; (2) establishing and maintaining IPCP between GCs and MHPs; (3) benefits, barriers, and limitations of IPCP; and (4) next steps to develop future IPCP. The findings suggest that there are varying approaches to IPCP that are influenced by perceptions of provider scope of practice. IPCP may mitigate some previously described referral barriers related to logistics, and the availability of trusted MHPs with knowledge of a GCs specialty, thereby improving patient and provider satisfaction.

Investigating factors that influence genetic counselors' decisions to refer patients to mental health providers

Genetic counselors (GC) serve patients who are often in distress at the time of their consultation. GC competency includes providing short-term, client-centered counseling, while using community resources, such as mental health providers (MHPs), for psychosocial support. The purpose of this study was to assess the mental health referral practices of GCs; specifically, the rate of referrals, factors influencing a GC's decision to refer, and barriers to referrals. GCs working in direct patient care for at least one year were recruited to take a novel 27 question survey created based on the results of a previous qualitative study. A link to the web-based survey was distributed through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Student Research Program and American Board of Genetic Counselors by email. A total of 144 individuals opened the survey for an estimated response rate of 3%. A majority of respondents (54.3%) reported they assess a patient's need for a mental health referral at least half of the time. The mean number of referrals made in the past 12 months was 5.13. After post-hoc analyses, there were no differences in referral rates between specialties. Common referral indications included patient history of mental illness, distress about having a genetic condition, and limited social support. Common barriers to referral were financial or insurance related, patient receptiveness, and the patient not perceiving a benefit. GCs felt that providing psychosocial support is within their scope of practice, but that MHPs are better equipped to manage long-term needs and those related to a mental health condition. This study provides insight into how GCs decide when they can manage patient distress, circumstances that prompt a referral to MHPs, and barriers. Recognizing common referral indications and barriers may lead to better strategies for connecting patients with such services.

Leveraging electronic health records to inform genetic counseling practice surrounding psychiatric disorders

Since nearly one-fifth of US adults have a psychiatric disorder, genetic counselors (GCs) will see many patients with these indications. However, GCs' reports of inadequate preparation and low confidence in providing care for patients with psychiatric disorders can limit their ability to meet patient's needs. How frequently psychiatric disorders present in GC sessions is currently unclear. Here, we used deidentified electronic health records (EHR) to estimate the prevalence of 16 psychiatric disorders. In 7,155 GC patients, 34% had a diagnostic code associated with a psychiatric disorder; 23% with anxiety/phobic disorders; 21% with mood disorder/depression; 5% with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and 1% with psychotic disorders. Compared to 415,709 demographically matched controls, GC patients showed a significantly higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders (GC prevalence: 34%, matched prevalence: 30%, p-value < 0.0001) driven predominantly by anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD. Within GC specialties (prenatal: n = 2,674, cancer: n = 1,474, pediatric: n = 465), only pediatric GC patients showed a significant increase in psychiatric disorder prevalence overall (pediatric GC prevalence: 28%, matched prevalence: 13%, p-value < 0.0001). However, significant evidence of increased prevalence existed for generalized anxiety disorder (prenatal GC prevalence 6.4%, matched prevalence: 4.9%, p-value < 0.0001), anxiety disorders (cancer GC prevalence: 26%, matched prevalence: 21%, p-value < 0.0001 and pediatric GC prevalence: 12%, matched prevalence: 5.5%), and ADHD (pediatric GC prevalence: 18%, matched prevalence: 7.9%, p-value < 0.0001). These results highlight the need for additional guidance around care for patients with psychiatric disorders and the value of EHR-based research in genetic counseling.

A new era of genetic testing in congenital heart disease: A review

Genetic and genomic testing in pediatric CHD is becoming increasingly routine, and can have important psychosocial, clinical and reproductive implications. In this paper we highlight important challenges and considerations when providing genetics consults and testing in pediatric CHD and illustrate the role of a dedicated CHD genetics clinic. Key lessons include that a) a genetic diagnosis can have clinical utility that justifies testing early in life, b) adequate genetic counselling is crucial to ensure families are supported, understand the range of possible results, and are prepared for new or unexpected health information, and c) further integration of the clinical genetics and cardiology workflows will be required to effectively manage the burgeoning information arising from genetic testing. Our experience demonstrates that a dedicated CHD genetics clinic is a valuable addition to a multidisciplinary team providing care to children with CHD.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING

Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES

Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.