Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 3/2010

01-09-2010

Assessment of clinical practices among cancer genetic counselors

Authors: Deborah Wham, Thuy Vu, Gayun Chan-Smutko, Christine Kobelka, Diana Urbauer, Brandie Heald

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Various models of cancer genetics service delivery have been published, and practice guidelines were set forth by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) in 2004. While the demand for services has increased, there has not been a comprehensive study of current practice models. An online survey of the NSGC Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group was conducted to study current methods of providing clinical cancer genetics services. Respondents were asked to quantify patient volume, support staff availability, and physician involvement in cases. Two case examples were used to further describe current practices including the number of genetic counseling tasks performed, time spent in these tasks, and number of in-person visits versus phone encounters. Although published cancer genetic counseling guidelines advise a 3-visit model (initial consult, sample draw, and result disclosure), 29.3% of respondents have adopted a 1-visit model, where the sample is drawn at the first visit and phone disclosure replaces the third visit. The content of the initial consult does not vary significantly, and is consistent with the NSGC practice guidelines. Furthermore, 56% report spending >15 min on case preparation, and 27 respondents self-reported redundancy in tasks such as documentation. It appears that a proportion of genetic counselors are following a new model of service delivery. However, insufficient documentation and case preparation are apparent, and many respondents reported lack of support staff as a barrier to efficient patient care. Factors contributing to the variability in current practice, and how they affect efficiency, require further study.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Biesecker BB, Boehnke M et al (1993) Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA 269(15):1970–1974CrossRefPubMed Biesecker BB, Boehnke M et al (1993) Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA 269(15):1970–1974CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference International Huntington Association and the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s Chorea (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. Neurology 44(8):1533–1536 International Huntington Association and the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s Chorea (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. Neurology 44(8):1533–1536
3.
go back to reference International Huntington Association and the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s Chorea (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. J Med Genet 31(7):555–559CrossRef International Huntington Association and the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Huntington’s Chorea (1994) Guidelines for the molecular genetics predictive test in Huntington’s disease. J Med Genet 31(7):555–559CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brain K, Sivell S et al (2005) An exploratory comparison of genetic counselling protocols for HNPCC predictive testing. Clin Genet 68(3):255–261CrossRefPubMed Brain K, Sivell S et al (2005) An exploratory comparison of genetic counselling protocols for HNPCC predictive testing. Clin Genet 68(3):255–261CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 21(12):2397–2406CrossRef American Society of Clinical Oncology (2003) American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 21(12):2397–2406CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 24(31):5091–5097CrossRefPubMed Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC et al (2006) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 24(31):5091–5097CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Lancaster JM, Powell CB et al (2007) Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 107(2):159–162CrossRefPubMed Lancaster JM, Powell CB et al (2007) Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 107(2):159–162CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Murphy CD, Lee JM et al (2008) The American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with magnetic resonance imaging: an argument for genetic testing. Cancer 113(11):3116–3120CrossRefPubMed Murphy CD, Lee JM et al (2008) The American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with magnetic resonance imaging: an argument for genetic testing. Cancer 113(11):3116–3120CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Winawer S, Fletcher R et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124(2):544–560CrossRefPubMed Winawer S, Fletcher R et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124(2):544–560CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Trepanier A, Ahrens M et al (2004) Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 13(2):83–114CrossRefPubMed Trepanier A, Ahrens M et al (2004) Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 13(2):83–114CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Bernhardt BA, Tumpson JE, Pyeritz RE (1992) The economics of clinical genetics services. IV. Financial impact of outpatient genetic services on an academic institution. Am J Hum Genet 50(1):84–91PubMed Bernhardt BA, Tumpson JE, Pyeritz RE (1992) The economics of clinical genetics services. IV. Financial impact of outpatient genetic services on an academic institution. Am J Hum Genet 50(1):84–91PubMed
12.
go back to reference Bernhardt BA, Weiner J et al (1987) The economics of clinical genetics services. II. A time analysis of a medical genetics clinic. Am J Hum Genet 41(4):559–565PubMed Bernhardt BA, Weiner J et al (1987) The economics of clinical genetics services. II. A time analysis of a medical genetics clinic. Am J Hum Genet 41(4):559–565PubMed
13.
go back to reference Cooksey JA, Forte G et al (2006) The medical genetics workforce: an analysis of clinical geneticist subgroups. Genet Med 8(10):603–614CrossRefPubMed Cooksey JA, Forte G et al (2006) The medical genetics workforce: an analysis of clinical geneticist subgroups. Genet Med 8(10):603–614CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Schneider K (2002) Counseling about cancer, 2nd edn. Wiley-Liss, Inc., New York City Schneider K (2002) Counseling about cancer, 2nd edn. Wiley-Liss, Inc., New York City
15.
go back to reference McPherson E, Zaleski C et al (2008) Clinical genetics provider real-time workflow study. Genet Med 10(9):699–706CrossRefPubMed McPherson E, Zaleski C et al (2008) Clinical genetics provider real-time workflow study. Genet Med 10(9):699–706CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kausmeyer DT, Lengerich EJ et al (2006) A survey of patients’ experiences with the cancer genetic counseling process: recommendations for cancer genetics programs. J Genet Couns 15(6):409–431CrossRefPubMed Kausmeyer DT, Lengerich EJ et al (2006) A survey of patients’ experiences with the cancer genetic counseling process: recommendations for cancer genetics programs. J Genet Couns 15(6):409–431CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Stopfer JE (2000) Genetic counseling and clinical cancer genetics services. Semin Surg Oncol 18(4):347–357CrossRefPubMed Stopfer JE (2000) Genetic counseling and clinical cancer genetics services. Semin Surg Oncol 18(4):347–357CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Armel SR, McCuaig J et al (2009) The effectiveness of family history questionnaires in cancer genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 18(4):366–378CrossRefPubMed Armel SR, McCuaig J et al (2009) The effectiveness of family history questionnaires in cancer genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 18(4):366–378CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Jenkins J, Calzone KA et al (2007) Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 9(8):487–495CrossRefPubMed Jenkins J, Calzone KA et al (2007) Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 9(8):487–495CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Baumanis L, Evans JP et al (2009) Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice, and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns 18(5):447–463CrossRefPubMed Baumanis L, Evans JP et al (2009) Telephoned BRCA1/2 genetic test results: prevalence, practice, and patient satisfaction. J Genet Couns 18(5):447–463CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Baker D, Eash T et al (2002) Guidelines for writing letters to patients. J Genet Counsel 11(5):399–418CrossRef Baker D, Eash T et al (2002) Guidelines for writing letters to patients. J Genet Counsel 11(5):399–418CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessment of clinical practices among cancer genetic counselors
Authors
Deborah Wham
Thuy Vu
Gayun Chan-Smutko
Christine Kobelka
Diana Urbauer
Brandie Heald
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9326-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

Familial Cancer 3/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine