Is it Time for Genomic Counseling? Retrofitting Genetic Counseling for the Era of Genomic Medicine

An European overview of genetic counselling supervision provision

Genetic testing is becoming more commonplace in general and specialist health care, and should always be accompanied by genetic counselling, according to legislation in many European countries and recommendations by professional bodies. Personal and professional competence is necessary to provide safe and effective genetic counselling. Clinical and counselling supervision of genetics healthcare practitioners plays a key role in quality assurance, providing a safe environment not only for patients but for professionals too. However, in many European countries, genetic counsellors are still an emerging professional group and counselling supervision is not routinely offered and there are no enough evidences on the impact of these insufficiencies. This study aimed to explore the current status of genetic counselling supervision provision across Europe and to ascertain factors that might be relevant for the successful implementation of counselling supervision. A total of 100 practitioners responded to an online survey; respondents were from 18 countries, with the majority working in France (27%) and Spain (17%). Only 34 participants reported having access to genetic counselling supervision. Country of origin, the existence of a regulation system and years of experience were factors identified as relevant, influencing access and characteristics of counselling supervision. Although there is a growing number of genetic counsellors trained at European level, just a few countries have implemented and required as mandatory the access to genetic counselling supervision. Nevertheless, this is essential to ensure a safe and effective genetic counselling and should be regulated at the European genetic healthcare services.

A new scale informed by the Reciprocal-Engagement Model for quality evaluation of genetic counselling by patients: Development and initial validation

Monitoring the quality of genetic counselling is essential to ensure appropriate provision. This study describes the development and initial psychometric validation of a novel scale for genetic counselling quality evaluation by patients. A deductive approach was taken to formulate scale items. Exploratory factor analysis with the principal axis factoring method was used to assess the scale's factor structure (n = 118). Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was also examined. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a single overarching construct consisting of seven factors, which account for 59% of the variance explained. Items showed, in general, strong factor loadings (>0.5). Some items focused on patient satisfaction with services provision did not load onto the factors. Thus, another factor analysis was performed with these items, which resulted in one-factor. The identified factor accounted for 57% of variance explained, and communalities were strong (≥0.5) for most items. Cronbach's alpha score for the scale was 0.85, indicating high internal consistency. Factors were significantly and moderately interrelated (from r = 0.31 to r = 0.71). Further studies are needed to establish the psychometric validity of the scale.

Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing

Despite the increased utilization of genome and exome sequencing, little is known about the actual content and process of informed consent for sequencing. We addressed this by interviewing 29 genetic counselors and research coordinators experienced in obtaining informed consent for sequencing in research and clinical settings. Interviews focused on the process and content of informed consent; patients/participants' common questions, concerns and misperceptions; and challenges to obtaining informed consent. Content analysis of transcribed interviews revealed that the main challenges to obtaining consent related to the broad scope and uncertainty of results, and patient/participants' unrealistic expectations about the likely number and utility of results. Interviewees modified their approach to sessions according to contextual issues surrounding the indication for testing, type of patient, and timing of testing. With experience, most interviewees structured sessions to place less emphasis on standard elements in the consent form and technological aspects of sequencing. They instead focused on addressing misperceptions and helping patients/participants develop realistic expectations about the types and implications of possible results, including secondary findings. These findings suggest that informed consent sessions should focus on key issues that may be misunderstood by patients/participants. Future research should address the extent to which various stakeholders agree on key elements of informed consent.