Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Thinking Differently About Genetic Counseling Service Delivery

  • Genetic Counseling and Clinical Testing (BS LeRoy & N Callanan, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Genetic Medicine Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the increasing integration of genomic testing into medical care, there is a need to evaluate how genetic counseling services are provided, identify barriers to obtaining services, and establish ways to improve service delivery to ensure adequate patient access to high quality services. This article reviews the current status of genetic counseling service delivery including recent innovations. We describe some key factors that affect access and delivery including the time-intensiveness of genetic counseling sessions, the labor intensiveness of case preparation and follow-up services, and geographic barriers. Current remedies for improving access to genetic counseling services and their effectiveness are reviewed. Factors that potentially pose barriers for increasing access, such as reimbursement for services, are discussed. Finally, we propose ways for genetic and non-genetic professionals to work together to develop targeted strategies for enhancing access to genetic counseling services in their own practice areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bernhardt BA, et al. The economics of clinical genetics services. II. A time analysis of a medical genetics clinic. Am J Hum Genet. 1987;41(4):559–65.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McPherson E, et al. Clinical genetics provider real-time workflow study. Genet Med. 2008;10(9):699–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gilchrist V, et al. Physician activities during time out of the examination room. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):494–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wham D, et al. Assessment of clinical practices among cancer genetic counselors. Fam Cancer. 2010;9(3):459–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Cohen, S.A., et al., Identification of genetic counseling service delivery models in practice: a report from the NSGC Service Delivery Model Task Force. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(4): 411–21.Comprehensive assessment of use of current service delivery model use amongst genetic counselors.

  6. National Society of Genetic Counselors. Professional status survey work environment report. 2014; http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=68.

  7. Bick D, Dimmock D. Whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2011;23(6):594–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taber KAJ, Dickinson BD, Wilson M. The promise and challenges of next-generation genome sequencing for clinical care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):275–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tabor HK, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(6):1310–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Williams J, et al. An assessment of time involved in pre-test case review and counseling for a whole genome sequencing clinical research program. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(4):516–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Society of Genetic Counselors. Professional status survey: executive summary. 2015; http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=68.

  12. United States Census Bureau. Resident population by age and state. 2010; http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projections—states_metropolitan_areas_cities.html.

  13. Trepanier AM, Allain DC. Models of service delivery for cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(2):239–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baumanis L, et al. Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice, and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(5):447–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sutphen R, et al. Real world experience with cancer genetic counseling via telephone. Fam Cancer. 2010;9(4):681–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bradbury AR, et al. Genetic counselor opinions of, and experiences with telephone communication of BRCA1/2 test results. Clin Genet. 2011;79(2):125–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwartz MD, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(7):618–26.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kinney AY, et al. Expanding access to BRCA1/2 genetic counseling with telephone delivery: a cluster randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(12):328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Butrick M, et al. Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling. Genet Med. 2014. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.125.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zilliacus E, et al. The virtual consultation: practitioners’ experiences of genetic counseling by videoconferencing in Australia. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(3):350–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Elliott AM, et al. Trends in telehealth versus on-site clinical genetics appointments in Manitoba: a comparative study. J Genet Couns. 2012;21(2):337–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stalker HJ, et al. Telegenetic medicine: improved access to services in an underserved area. J Telemed Telecare. 2006;12(4):182–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Hilgart JS, et al. Telegenetics: a systematic review of telemedicine in genetics services. Genet Med. 2012;14(9):765–76. Systematic review of the current knowledge base regarding the benefits and limits of telegenetic services.

  24. D’Agincourt-Canning L, McGillivray B, Panabaker K, Scott J, Pearn A, Ridge Y, Portigal-Todd C. Evaluation of genetic counseling for hereditary cancer by videoconference in British Columbia. B C Med J. 2008;50:554–9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cohen S, et al. Report from the National Society of Genetic Counselors service delivery model task force: a proposal to define models, components, and modes of referral. J Genet Couns. 2012;21(5):645–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brinton JT, et al. Breast cancer risk assessment in 64,659 women at a single high-volume mammography clinic. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(1):95–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Buchanan A, et al. Use of a patient-entered family health history tool with decision support in primary care: impact of identification of increased risk patients on genetic counseling attendance. J Genet Couns. 2015;24(1):179–88. doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9753-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Edelman EA, et al. Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care. Am J Med Genet Part C. 2014;166(1):34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Facio FM, et al. Validation of My Family Health Portrait for six common heritable conditions. Genet Med. 2010;12(6):370–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang C, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual counselor (VICKY) to collect family health histories. Genet Med. 2015. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.198.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen S, McIlvried D. Impact of computer-assisted data collection, evaluation and management on the cancer genetic counselor’s time providing patient care. Fam Cancer. 2011;10(2):381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu RR, et al. Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Widmer C, et al. Genetic counselors’ current use of personal health records-based family histories in genetic clinics and considerations for their future adoption. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(3):384–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Albada A, et al. Follow-up effects of a tailored pre-counseling website with question prompt in breast cancer genetic counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(1):69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Albada A, et al. A pre-visit tailored website enhances counselees’ realistic expectations and knowledge and fulfils information needs for breast cancer genetic counselling. Fam Cancer. 2012;11(1):85–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hilgart J, Hayward JA, Iredale R. E-genetics: exploring the acceptability and feasibility of using technology in cancer genetics services. Clin Genet. 2012;81(6):514–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heald B, et al. A time study of cancer genetic counselors using a genetic counselor-only patient care model versus a traditional combined genetic counselor plus medical geneticist care model. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(9):1076–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. • Hannig VL, et al. Expansion of genetic services utilizing a general genetic counseling clinic. J Genet Couns. 2014;23(1):64–71. Excellent example of how triaging appropriate patients to a genetic counselor service can increase patient access to services.

  39. Gustafson SL, Pfeiffer G, Eng C. A large health system’s approach to utilization of the genetic counselor CPT(R) 96040 code. Genet Med. 2011;13(12):1011–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dungan J et al. Reimbursement for genetic counseling and related services. In: American Society of Human Genetics. San Diego; 2007

  41. Gilvary S, Wilson K. Ohio’s experience with licensure: a look at The Ohio State University. Perspect Genet. 2014;36:18–9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. National Society of Genetic Counselors. 2014-2016 Strategic plan. 2014; http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=6.

  43. Pass S, Read P, Pirzadeh Miller S, Robinson L, Crawford B. Presentation, NSGC 2014 Annual Education Conference. Genetic counseling assistants: an integral piece of the evolving genetic counseling service delivery model. 2014.

  44. MacDonald DJ, Blazer KR, Weitzel JN. Extending comprehensive cancer center expertise in clinical cancer genetics and genomics to diverse communities: the power of partnership. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(5):615–24.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cohen SA, McIlvried D, Schnieders J. A collaborative approach to genetic testing: a community hospital’s experience. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(6):530–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cohen S, McIlvried D. Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: a pilot study. Community Oncol. 2013;10(8):227–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. National Human Genome Institute. NHGRI Policy roundtable summary—The future of genomic medicine: policy implications for research and medicine. 2005; http://www.genome.gov/17516574.

  48. King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA. 2014;312(11):1091–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chaudhry B, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. •• Grinzaid KA, et al. Creation of a national, at-home model for Ashkenazi Jewish carrier screening. J Genet Couns. 2014. doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9800-x. Example of an innovative way to use technology and alternative service delivery models to increase access to genetic carrier screening.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield Street, 2375 Scott Hall, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Angela M. Trepanier

  2. Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, St. Vincent Hospital, 8301 Harcourt Rd. #100, Indianapolis, IN, 46260, USA

    Stephanie A. Cohen

  3. Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 2001 Polaris Parkway, Ste. 1000, Columbus, OH, 43240-2000, USA

    Dawn C. Allain

Authors
  1. Angela M. Trepanier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie A. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dawn C. Allain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela M. Trepanier.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Genetic Counseling and Clinical Testing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trepanier, A.M., Cohen, S.A. & Allain, D.C. Thinking Differently About Genetic Counseling Service Delivery. Curr Genet Med Rep 3, 49–56 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-015-0069-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40142-015-0069-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation