ABSTRACT
Genetic counselors (GCs) practice in critical care settings. Some GCs have full-time inpatient roles, while most GCs who see inpatients do so as needed or on a rotating schedule in addition to seeing patients in an outpatient setting. Few studies have tracked and compared the amount of time it takes GCs to perform tasks in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Genetic counselors were invited to participate in this study via the National Society of Genetic Counselors research listserv. Participants completed an online survey asking how their role is structured and what types of support are available to them while seeing inpatients. They also performed time tracking for 16 tasks known to be associated with inpatient and/or outpatient care via RedCap. These tasks include direct patient care, care coordination, and other tasks which encapsulate a new patient encounter from beginning to end. Forty-two inpatient encounters and 26 outpatient encounters were analyzed. The total average time spent on an inpatient consult (3 h and 38.5 min) was significantly higher than the time spent on an outpatient consult (2 h and 24.7 min; p < 0.05). Individually, genetic counselors spent significantly more time on the following tasks in an inpatient setting: direct follow-up encounters, multidisciplinary team communication, results disclosure encounters, results disclosure documentation, traveling, and waiting. Follow-up encounters, traveling, and waiting happen almost exclusively in inpatient settings. Short answer prompts regarding structure of GC role and available support revealed themes including lack of inpatient role structure, challenges with balancing between inpatient and outpatient tasks, and varied institutional support. These results promote further discussion about how to support GCs who see inpatients as these roles expand. Some suggestions include increased FTE/protected time and/or GCA support specific to the inpatient role.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer spares no demographic or socioeconomic group; it is indeed the great equalizer. But its distribution is not equal; when structural discrimination concentrates poverty and race, zip code surpasses genetic code in predicting outcomes. Compared with White patients in the United States, Black patients are less likely to receive appropriate treatment and referral to clinical trials, genetic testing, or palliative care/hospice. METHODS: In 2021, we administered a survey to 369 oncologists measuring differences in perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and adverse influence on clinical interactions, treatment, and outcomes for non-White patients. We analyzed responses by generational age group, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, US region, and selection of "decline to respond." RESULTS: The most significant differences occurred by age group followed by race/ethnicity. Racial disparity was perceived as moderate to very high by 84% of millennial, 69% of Generation X, and 57% of baby boomer oncologists, who were also 86% more likely than millennials and 63% more likely than Generation Xers to perceive low/nonexistent levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists rarely or never perceived racial anxiety/unconscious bias as adversely influencing clinical treatment or survival outcomes in non-White patients, and White oncologists were 85% more likely than non-White oncologists to perceive rare/nonexistent influence on referral of non-White patients to palliative care/hospice. The discrepancy between 62% of oncologists perceiving moderate to very high levels of racial anxiety/unconscious bias and 37% associating them with adverse influence on non-White patients shows a disconnect, especially among older oncologists (baby boomers), who were also least likely to select the decline option. Together, these factors hinder effective patient-provider communication and result in differential care and outcomes. Oncologists should uncover their own perceptions surrounding racial disparity, racial anxiety, and unconscious bias and modify their behaviors accordingly. It is this simple-and this complicated. Cancer does not discriminate, and neither should cancer care.
