An exploration of delegation practices regarding the utilization of genetic counseling assistants for disclosure of genetic testing results

Genetic counselors (GCs) play a crucial role in the healthcare system, providing education, support and guidance regarding genetic risk assessment, testing and results interpretation. To help GCs practice at the highest level of their expertise, the role of the genetic counseling assistant (GCA) was introduced, focusing on tasks like administrative support and patient care coordination. Although GCs typically handle the disclosure of test results, there is limited research on the delegation of results disclosure to GCAs. This study explores GCs' perspectives on delegating negative and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) genetic test results disclosures to GCAs. A quantitative survey was conducted among GCs practicing in the United States and Canada. Results revealed that while the majority of GCs were willing to delegate both negative and VUS results, few currently do so. Oncology GCs exhibited greater willingness and actual delegation of VUS disclosures relative to other specialties. Effective communication skills, level of genetics knowledge, and willingness to seek help were identified as the most influential attributes on GCs' confidence in GCAs' abilities to disclose test results. The most frequent concern about GCAs disclosing negative and VUS results was remaining suspicion for an underlying genetic etiology. Additionally, GCs were concerned about delegating VUS disclosures since patients more frequently struggle to understand those results. A triaging system to determine suitable results for a GCA to disclose and extensive shadowing of GCs disclosing results were proposed as methods of building GCs' confidence in the ability of a GCA to disclose test results. Ultimately, a better understanding of the discrepancy between GCs' willingness to delegate results disclosures and actual delegation practices is essential if the GCA scope of practice were to include results disclosure.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.2015
Citations
2
Primary Topic
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.63

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An exploration of delegation practices regarding the utilization of genetic counseling assistants for disclosure of genetic testing results

Camille O. Allison, Kristyne Stone, Paula R. Delk, Leah Flury Wetherill et al.
2 citations
Journal of Genetic Counseling
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
3.63
article

An exploration of delegation practices regarding the utilization of genetic counseling assistants for disclosure of genetic testing results

Camille O. Allison, Kristyne Stone, Paula R. Delk, Leah Flury Wetherill, David Ranson
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Genetic counselors (GCs) play a crucial role in the healthcare system, providing education, support and guidance regarding genetic risk assessment, testing and results interpretation. To help GCs practice at the highest level of their expertise, the role of the genetic counseling assistant (GCA) was introduced, focusing on tasks like administrative support and patient care coordination. Although GCs typically handle the disclosure of test results, there is limited research on the delegation of results disclosure to GCAs. This study explores GCs' perspectives on delegating negative and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) genetic test results disclosures to GCAs. A quantitative survey was conducted among GCs practicing in the United States and Canada. Results revealed that while the majority of GCs were willing to delegate both negative and VUS results, few currently do so. Oncology GCs exhibited greater willingness and actual delegation of VUS disclosures relative to other specialties. Effective communication skills, level of genetics knowledge, and willingness to seek help were identified as the most influential attributes on GCs' confidence in GCAs' abilities to disclose test results. The most frequent concern about GCAs disclosing negative and VUS results was remaining suspicion for an underlying genetic etiology. Additionally, GCs were concerned about delegating VUS disclosures since patients more frequently struggle to understand those results. A triaging system to determine suitable results for a GCA to disclose and extensive shadowing of GCs disclosing results were proposed as methods of building GCs' confidence in the ability of a GCA to disclose test results. Ultimately, a better understanding of the discrepancy between GCs' willingness to delegate results disclosures and actual delegation practices is essential if the GCA scope of practice were to include results disclosure.

Journal of Genetic CounselingVol. 34(2)
Indiana University Indianapolis (US), Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
3.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.