2013 Review and Update of the Genetic Counseling Practice Based Competencies by a Task Force of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling

Doyle, Debra Lochner; Awwad, Rawan; Austin, Jehannine; Baty, Bonnie J.; Bergner, Amanda L.; Brewster, Stephanie Jo; Erby, Lori H.; Franklin, Cathi Rubin; Greb, Anne; Grubs, Robin E.; Hooker, Gillian W.; Noblin, Sarah; Ormond, Kelly E.; Palmer, Christina G.S.; Petty, Elizabeth M.; Singletary, Claire N.; Thomas, Matthew; Toriello, Helga V.; Walton, Carol S.; Uhlmann, Wendy R.

doi:10.1007/s10897-016-9984-3

Cited by 50 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, GC supervisors learn better supervision techniques through consultation with others (Finley et al, ; Lindh et al, ; Suguitan et al, ). This is also supported by the ACGC practice‐based competencies, which note that genetic counselors should be involved in active reflection of one's supervision experiences (Doyle et al, ). Using peer supervision groups, genetic counselors can have a supportive environment to discuss challenging student issues or reflect on personal supervision styles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Supervision in genetic counselor training in North America: A systematic review

Siskind

Atzinger

2019

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetic counseling has been a profession for over 40 years, and training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling are required to have students supervised in at least 50 patient‐facing cases prior to graduation. However, there is no standardized information or training for supervisors of genetic counseling students. As a first step toward creating formal and standardized supervision training, we undertook a systematic review of the genetic counseling student supervision literature. A formal systematic review was conducted including establishing a research question with inclusion and exclusion criteria, establishing search terms, searching databases, reading/screening abstracts, examining full texts for inclusion, assessing for quality, and finally extracting data with a standardized form to provide the basis of the review. In all, 151 papers were screened, of which 19 and two erratum were found to meet inclusion criteria and pass quality measures. Main themes from these papers were as follows: Training Model, Competencies, Investigation of Techniques, Difficulties in Supervision, and Barriers. In total, 19 papers provided evidence for the way that supervision is currently being performed and suggestions for what needs further investigation to direct supervision training. Recommendations for genetic counseling student supervision include the following: provide a review of training models to supervisors; provide a copy of the supervision competencies to supervisors; use competencies with lowest self‐efficacy to inform future supervision trainings; and find ways to support genetic counselors in becoming student supervisors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Supervision in genetic counselor training in North America: A systematic review

Siskind

Atzinger

2019

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a deletion variant in the PMP22 gene, associated with Hereditary Neuropathy with Liability to Pressure Palsies (HNPP), may be reported incidentally to the primary indication of rES testing for a neonate with respiratory distress, who is currently asymptomatic for HNPP. Genetic counseling is recommended to fully discuss these considerations (Doyle et al, ; Green et al, ; Markel & Yashar, ), and this was a core responsibility of the RIGhT team clinical GCs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid clinical exome sequencing in a pediatric ICU: Genetic counselor impacts and challenges

Candadai

Sikes

Thies

et al. 2019

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exome sequencing (ES) has revolutionized molecular diagnosis in children with genetic disease over the past decade. However, exome sequencing in the inpatient setting has traditionally been discouraged, in part due to an increased risk of providers failing to retrieve and act upon results, as many patients are discharged before results return. The development of rapid turn‐around‐times (TATs) for genomic testing has begun to shift this paradigm. Rapid exome sequencing (rES) is increasingly being used as a diagnostic tool for critically ill infants with likely genetic disease and presents significant challenges to execute. We implemented a program, entitled the Rapid Inpatient Genomic Testing (RIGhT) project, to identify critically ill children for whom a molecular diagnosis is likely to change inpatient management. Two important goals of the RIGhT project were to provide appropriate genetic counseling, and to develop protocols to ensure efficient test coordination‐ both of which relied heavily on laboratory and clinic‐based genetic counselors (GCs). Here, rES was performed on 27 inpatient trios from October 2016 to August 2018; laboratory and clinical GCs encountered significant challenges in the coordination of this testing. The GCs involved retrospectively reviewed these cases and identified three common challenges encountered during pretest counseling and coordination. The aim of this paper is to define these challenges using illustrative case examples that highlight the importance of including GCs to support rES programs.

show abstract

“…In 1994, the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) and subsequently in 2012, the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC), have served to define the core curricular elements that training programs must incorporate in order to attain and maintain program accreditation. As such, the training of genetic counselors is influenced, in large measure, by the ACGC Standards (previously known as the Required Criteria) and the Practice Based Competencies (PBC's) (Doyle et al, ; Fiddler, Fine, Baker, & ABGC Consensus Development Consortium, ).…”

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%