These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The current state of genetic counseling assistants in the United States.
    Author: Hnatiuk MJ, Noss R, Mitchell AL, Matthews AL.
    Journal: J Genet Couns; 2019 Oct; 28(5):962-973. PubMed ID: 31290196.
    Abstract:
    Genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) have the potential to address the high demand for genetic counselors by promoting task-sharing, increasing genetic counselor efficiency, and allowing for higher level duties to be optimized by genetic counselors. However, little research has been published on the role of GCAs. This study explored current tasks of GCAs in the United States, the appropriateness of those tasks, the perceived impact on the profession, and how these findings compared between genetic counselors with and without GCAs. Full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) with and without experience working with GCAs were recruited via the NSGC Student Research listserv to complete an online survey and 271 surveys were analyzed. Participants working in both clinical and laboratory settings and in all primary specialties reported working with GCAs (n = 131); GCAs were reported to frequently perform clerical tasks but were involved less often in clinical tasks such as calling patients with genetic test results. There was no difference between participants with GCAs and those without GCAs in tasks they reported GCAs are or may be performing, yet participants without GCAs believed GCAs performed more tasks on average than those with GCAs reported (p < 0.001). Participants did not differ on the appropriateness of tasks, reporting clerical tasks as more appropriate for GCAs than clinically involved tasks, with the exception of calling patients with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) results in which more participants working with GCAs reported it as an appropriate task (13%) than those without GCAs (4%; p < 0.05). Review of open-ended responses revealed themes pertaining to primary limitations, benefits, and concerns of the GCA role. The most commonly reported concern about GCAs was their poorly defined scope of practice (n = 182). Other reported limitations included a heavy workload, lack of training, and lack of experience for GCAs while the benefits of working with GCAs included increased time available for higher level duties, patient volumes, and efficiency. These data provide genetic counselors, their institutions, and the NSGC with a more generalizable understanding of current GCA roles on a national level, across specialties. Additionally, these data may help establish a scope of practice for GCAs by creating a baseline job description for genetic counselors and their institutions interested in implementing a GCA into their practice to increase patient access to genetic counseling services. It is recommended that further research objectively quantify the value added by GCAs using efficiency metrics and further clarify the role of laboratory GCAs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]