Graduate training, credentialing, and continuing education to prepare genetic counselors for laboratory roles-Results of a national survey.

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.

Perceived barriers, recommendations, and resources for multistate licensure in the United States: A mixed-methods study of laboratory genetic counselors.

With genetic counselor licensure now available in 32 states, the number of laboratory genetic counselors (LGCs) who are required to be licensed in multiple states has risen substantially. Although previous studies have documented the complexity of the multistate licensing (MSL) process, there has been little research on the experiences of LGCs applying for and maintaining licensure. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived barriers, recommendations, and resources for LGCs pursuing MSL. A 15-item mixed-methods, anonymous questionnaire was used to survey genetic counselors currently or formerly employed by genetic testing laboratories. Responses were analyzed with a combination of descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis. Of the 150 eligible participants who completed the survey, the majority worked at a commercial, non-academic laboratory (84%, n = 126), had 1-4 years of laboratory genetic counseling experience (54%, n = 81), held non-patient-facing roles (65%, n = 97), and were required by their employer to hold licensure in at least one state (73%, n = 110). Most participants (86%, n = 129) felt there were barriers to MSL for LGCs, with three emergent themes: (1) resource burden, (2) complexity, and (3) legislative ambiguity. Participants described the current MSL process as tedious, cumbersome, confusing, overwhelming, and redundant. Several shared that the current licensing system undermines the intent to improve the status of the profession and actually negatively impacts patient care. Recommendations to improve MSL included overall process enhancements, like transitioning to online systems and a single central information repository for licensees, increased professional advocacy, and investing in collaborative pathways to licensure such as interstate compacts. Participants found national genetic counseling organizations, state-based genetic counseling organizations, and genetic counseling colleagues to be the most helpful resources for understanding licensure law and where to apply for licensure.

Need for additional training to be a laboratory genetic counselor-A qualitative exploration.

Opportunities 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.

Easing the burden of multi-state genetic counseling licensure in the United States: Process, pitfalls, and possible solutions.

State-based genetic counseling licensure creates standardization, ensures high-quality care, and supports the credentialing of genetic counselors (GCs) in the United States. However, it also has the unintended consequence of requiring substantial time and resources from genetic counselors who need to obtain licensure in multiple states. There is a wide range of variability among state licensure applications, required supporting documentation, verification processes, and cost-all of which are barriers for genetic counselors. New licensure laws are being passed on a regular basis, further complicating this process. Resources may be available to some genetic counselors such as employer reimbursement and administrative support; however, access to this support is not universal. This paper reviews the current condition of genetic counseling multi-state licensure, including barriers, unique challenges, and possible solutions for increased efficiencies, based on the authors' experiences and examples found in other healthcare fields.