Optimizing efficiency and skill utilization: Analysis of genetic counselors' attitudes regarding delegation in a clinical setting.

This study assessed genetic counselors' (GCs) perceptions of delegation as a tool to increase workforce efficiency and help meet the current gap between the number of genetic service providers and the number of patients. GCs were recruited to participate via an online survey that assessed activities (categorized as typical genetic counseling, administrative, or professional development) performed by a clinical genetic counselor. Respondents indicated which activities represent their largest time consumers, their willingness to delegate these activities, and barriers to and perceived outcomes of delegation. Overall, respondents indicated that they spend 25% of their time performing administrative activities that they would largely be willing to delegate; however, respondents were generally unwilling to delegate many typical genetic counseling and professional development activities, citing concerns regarding accuracy and liability, and highlighting the belief that these activities constitute the core role of a genetic counselor. Respondents indicated that delegation of time-consuming administrative activities would increase access to genetic services and improve job satisfaction. Additionally, differences were identified among clinical specialties regarding which activities were selected as top time consumers, indicating that potential targets of re-allocation of time or delegation may be variable. This research indicates a need to reduce the number of administrative tasks in which GCs are directly involved to re-allocate time toward core responsibilities, direct patient care, and professional development, the result of which is more efficient use of the GC skill-set.

Genetic Counseling Assistants: an Integral Piece of the Evolving Genetic Counseling Service Delivery Model.

This study explores the potential impact of the genetic counseling assistant (GCA) position on the efficiency of the genetic counseling field, evaluates attitudes regarding expansion of the genetic counseling field to include the GCA, and presents data on GCA endeavors and GCA job tasks as reported by GCAs, certified genetic counselors (CGCs), and program directors (PDs). Data on GCA roles and attitudes toward different aspects of the GCA position were collected via surveys of CGCs who have worked with GCAs, PDs who have and have not had experience with GCAs in their programs, and GCAs. We analyzed responses from 63 individuals: 27 PDs, 22 CGCs, and 14 GCAs. GCAs' impact on efficiency was calculated via internal analysis of genetic patient volume per genetic counselor within the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) patient database prior to, and since the addition of, a GCA to the practice. The response rates for PDs, CGCs, and GCAs were 27 %, 79 %, and 61 %, respectively. Every CGC stated the GCA increased their efficiency. CGCs with a GCA reported a 60 % average increase in patient volume. This figure was congruent with internal data from the UTSW cancer genetics program (58.5 % increase). Appropriate responsibilities for GCAs as reported by CGCs and PDs (>90 %) include: data entry, shipping tests, administrative tasks, research, and ordering supplies. Regarding GCAs delivering test results, there was response variation whether this should be a job duty: 42 % of CGCs agreed to GCAs delivering negative results to patients, compared to 22 % of program directors. Twenty-two percent of PDs expressed concern about the job title "Genetic Counseling Assistant." Ninety percent of CGCs felt that GCA was a career path to becoming a CGC, compared to 42 % of PDs. Eighty-three percent of GCAs who decided to apply to CGC graduate programs were accepted. We conclude the addition of a GCA to a genetic counseling practice contributes to increased efficiency and is one way to expand the reach of the profession.

Prediction of Cancer Prevention: From Mammogram Screening to Identification of BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers in Underserved Populations.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventative Service Task Force recommends that physicians perform a genetic risk assessment to identify women at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. However, outcomes data after a diagnosis of HBOC syndrome especially in diverse populations, are minimal. Here we asked if genetic screening of high-risk underserved women identified in the mammogram population reduces cancer incidence. METHODS: We evaluated 61,924 underserved women at screening mammography for family histories suggestive of HBOC syndrome over the course of 21 months. Data were collected retrospectively from patients at two safety net hospitals through chart review. A computer model was used to calculate the long-term effect of this screening on cancer incidence by assessing both the mutation detection rate and the completion of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. FINDINGS: We identified 20 of the 85 (23.5%) expected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the underserved population. The frequencies of prophylactic mastectomies and oophorectomies in the mutation carriers were 25% and 40%, respectively. Using these data, our model predicted only an 8.8% reduction in both breast and ovarian cancer in the underserved patients. This contrasts with a 57% reduction in breast cancer and 51% reduction in ovarian cancer in an insured reference population. Our data indicate that underserved patients with HBOC syndrome are difficult to identify and when identified are limited in their ability to adhere to NCCN guidelines for cancer prevention. INTERPRETATION: Screening for women at risk for HBOC syndrome in mammogram populations will only prevent cancers if we can increase compliance with management guidelines. This study provides prototypic baseline data for step-wise analysis of the efficacy of the use of family history analysis in the mammography setting for detection and management of HBOC syndrome.