Citations

ABSTRACT Genetic counselors describe their professional identity as who they are (personal characteristics and attributes), what they do (actions and skills), and what they possess (training and knowledge). A shared multidimensional perspective highlights the transferability of their skills across diverse roles and settings. This qualitative study aimed to identify factors that influence genetic counselors' perceptions and formation of their professional identities. Using Social Identity Theory as a theoretical framework, semi‐structured recorded interviews were conducted with 50 genetic counselors who were purposefully sampled to ensure diversity of personal demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and caregiver status), as well as years, settings, and roles in genetic counseling practice. Transcripts were coded and subjected to codebook thematic analysis using NVivo. Professional identity was influenced by internal validation (sense of purpose in work, pride, and confidence), external validation (from other colleagues, work system, degree of autonomy, and patients), one's personal identities (demographics, life experiences, and persona), and connections with others (professional network, peer support, role models, and giving back). Alignment and misalignment of these factors and the perceived collective identity of the profession impacted genetic counselors' sense of belonging to the profession both positively and negatively, respectively. Continued efforts to diversify the profession, as well as expanded opportunities for genetic counselors to work in new settings and roles, require critical reflection and discussion about the collective identity of the genetic counseling profession. The findings of this study can inform the recruitment, training, credentialing, continuing education, and retention of genetic counselors to ensure that genetic counselors, regardless of their personal identities or their work roles or settings, develop and maintain a sense of belonging and commitment to the profession and its values. In turn, the support of professional identity formation can positively impact genetic counselors' job satisfaction, competency, and delivery of healthcare to their patients and the populations they serve.

Abstract Professional identity is defined as the attitudes, behaviors, values, and experiences by which individuals define themselves in a professional role and is influenced by socialization during training and in the workplace. As professional identity develops and is integrated with one's personal identities, it allows an individual to think, act, and feel like a member of their chosen profession and to develop a sense of meaning, confidence, and satisfaction in their work. Conflicts may arise due to perceived differences between one's professional identity and the collective identity of the profession, resulting in stress, burnout, and attrition, all of which can negatively impact patient care and the collective identity of the genetic counseling profession. Using Social Identity Theory (SIT) as a theoretical framework to develop the semi‐structured interview protocol, recorded interviews were conducted with 50 genetic counselors who were purposefully sampled to ensure diversity of personal demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, and caregiver status), as well as years, settings, and roles in genetic counseling practice. Transcripts were coded and subjected to codebook thematic analysis using NVivo. Genetic counselors described their professional identity in terms of who they are (characteristics and attributes), what they do (actions and skills), and what they have (training and knowledge). The majority of participants had a multidimensional perspective of what it means to be a genetic counselor, noting the transferability of their skills to a broad set of roles and settings, which supported their sense of professional identity, particularly for those who were no longer seeing patients. Yet many expressed tension with the collective identity of the profession. Expanded opportunities for genetic counselors to work in new settings and roles require review and revision of key professional documents to ensure they are reflective of the collective identity of the genetic counseling profession.

Abstract Opportunities for genetic counselors to work in a variety of practice settings have greatly expanded, particularly in the laboratory. This study aimed to assess attitudes of genetic counselors working both within and outside of the laboratory setting regarding (1) the re‐wording and/or expansion of key measures of genetic counselors' competency, including practice‐based competencies (PBCs) and board examination, to include laboratory roles, (2) preparation and transferability of competencies developed in master's in genetic counseling (MGC) programs to different roles, (3) need of additional training for genetic counselors to practice in laboratory settings, and (4) preferred methods to obtain that training. An e‐blast was sent to ABGC diplomats ( N = 5458) with a link to a 29‐item survey with 12 demographic questions to compare respondents to 2021 NSGC Professional Status Survey (PSS) respondents. Statistical comparisons were made between respondents working in the laboratory versus other settings. Among 399 responses received, there was an oversampling of respondents working in the laboratory (52% vs. 20% in PSS) and in non‐direct patient care positions (47% vs. 25% in PSS). Most respondents agreed the PBCs were transferable to their work yet favored making the PBCs less direct patient care‐focused, expanding PBCs to align with laboratory roles, adding laboratory‐focused questions to the ABGC exam, and adding laboratory‐focused training in MGC programs. Most agreed requiring post‐MGC training would limit genetic counselors' ability to change jobs. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory reported being significantly less prepared by their MGC program for some roles ( p < 0.001) or how the PBCs applied to non‐direct patient care positions ( p < 0.001). Only 53% of all respondents agreed that NSGC supports their professional needs and others in their practice area, and genetic counselors working in the laboratory were significantly less likely to agree ( p = 0.002). These sentiments should be further explored.

AbstractOpportunities for genetic counselors to work in the laboratory have grown exponentially, yet the professional development needed to serve in these roles had not been previously explored. This study aimed to identify competencies required for entry‐level genetic counselors working in the laboratory, explore the perceived level of preparation of these competencies as noted by experts in the laboratories, and assess the perceived value of additional credentialing for genetic counselors practicing in these settings. Twenty genetic counselors working in the laboratory setting and five MD or PhD laboratory managers, identified through purposeful and snowball sampling and with at least 5 years of experience working in a laboratory, were interviewed using a semi‐structured protocol. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using deductive and inductive coding. Key findings included the distinction of laboratory and industry roles as involving nondirect patient care and differing from genetic counseling roles in the clinical setting. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory feel well prepared to transition into this setting and provide a unique patient‐focused perspective to laboratory roles, including variant interpretation, marketing, and product development. Practice‐based competencies (PBCs) were translatable to those used in the laboratory, yet variant interpretation, limitations of genomics‐based tests, and the business of health care were noted as important to these roles but not fully addressed in the PBCs. Additional skills were often developed through on‐the‐job training and interdisciplinary collaboration, but more exposure to diverse roles in genetic counseling programs' didactic and field training was recommended. The majority felt that requiring an additional post‐master's credential to work in the laboratory setting may restrict movement into these roles. Several questioned their identity as genetic counselors as they were no longer providing direct patient care and/or had been dissuaded by others from pursuing a laboratory position. Research focused on professional identity among genetic counselors working in nondirect patient care roles is warranted.

AbstractWe report a two‐generation family with four females harboring an 8.5Mb heterozygous deletion of 5q15‐q21.2 who present with dysmorphic craniofacial features and speech delay. We hypothesize haploinsufficiency of CHD1 to be contributing to the clinical features observed in this family.

AbstractLaboratory genetic counseling is becoming increasingly common as a result of increased laboratory services and genetic testing menus, as well as growing job responsibilities. Christian et al. (2012) provided the first quantitative data regarding the roles of the laboratory‐based genetic counselor (LBGC) finding that two of the most prevalent roles are as customer liaisons and communicators of test results. The goal of the present study was to further delineate the role of the LBGC by addressing specific tasks that LBGCs are involved with on a day‐to‐day basis. A survey was designed to expand upon themes identified in the Christian et al. (2012) study by querying specific tasks performed in several categories of potential LBGC job duties. An invitation for LBGCs to participate was distributed via email to the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC). We identified 121 genetic counselors who primarily work in the laboratory setting or whose job role includes a laboratory component. Almost all respondents performed customer liaison/case coordination (95 %), and interpretation and result reporting (88 %). The most frequently performed tasks within these categories involved addressing questions from clients, making phone calls with genetic testing results, obtaining clinical or family history information for results interpretation, and composing case‐specific interpretations for unique results and/or obtaining literature references to support interpretations. The study results also point to trends of expanding roles in sales and marketing, variant interpretation and management responsibilities. Results of this study may be useful to further define the full scope of practice of LBGCs, aid in the development of new LBGC positions and expand current positions to include roles related to test development, research, and student supervision. It may also aid in curriculum updates for training programs to increase exposure to LBGC roles.

AbstractThe number of available genetic testing options and the nuances associated with these options continue to expand. In addition, the scope of genetic testing has broadened to areas and specialties beyond Medical Genetics. In response to these changes, diagnostic laboratories have employed genetic counselors to help navigate the increasing complexity of genetic testing, given their expertise and training in human genetics. However a largely unrecognized aspect of this role involves the use of counseling skills. Counseling skills are used by laboratory genetic counselors in a variety of situations to convey information and facilitate understanding among clinicians and medical staff. This helps to reduce test ordering errors, promote optimal test utilization, and ensure best patient care practices. The specific counseling skills used by laboratory counselors will be explored using three fictional case vignettes, followed by a discussion of the applicability of these skills in other contexts. Exploration of the unique ways in which laboratory genetic counselors apply their counseling skills can be useful for professional development and instructive for graduate training programs.

Background The contribution of copy-number variation (CNV) to disease has been highlighted with the widespread adoption of array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) and microarray technology. Contiguous gene deletions involving ANKRD11 in 16q24.3 are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID), while 16q24.1 deletions affecting FOXF1 are associated with congenital renal malformations, alveolar capillary dysplasia, and various other abnormalities. The disease associations of deletions in the intervening region, 16q24.2, have only been defined to a limited extent. Aim To determine whether deletions affecting 16q24.2 are correlated with congenital anomalies. Methods 35 individuals, each having a deletion in 16q24.2, were characterised clinically and by aCGH and/or SNP-genotyping microarray. Results Several of the 35 16q24.2 deletions identified here closely abut or overlap the coding regions of FOXF1 and ANKRD11, two genes that have been previously associated with the disease. 25 patients were reported to have ASD/ID, and three were found to have bilateral hydronephrosis. 14 of the deletions associated with ASD/ID overlap the coding regions of FBXO31 and MAP1LC3B. These same genes and two others, C16orf95 and ZCCHC14, are also included in the area of minimal overlap of the three deletions associated with hydronephrosis. Conclusions Our data highlight 16q24.2 as a region of interest for ASD, ID and congenital renal malformations. These conditions are associated, albeit without complete penetrance, with deletions affecting C16orf95, ZCCHC14, MAP1LC3B and FBXO31. The function of each gene in development and disease warrants further investigation.