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

Genetic counseling (GC) services are increasingly delivered by phone or video, resulting in more telehealth student rotations. The purpose of this study was to describe genetic counselors' utilization of telehealth for student supervision and to compare how their comfort, preferences, and perception of the difficulty of selected student supervision competencies vary between phone, video, and in‐person student supervision. In 2021, patient‐facing genetic counselors in North America with ≥1‐year GC experience who supervised ≥3 GC students in the last 3 years received an invitation via the American Board of Genetic Counseling or the Association of GC Program Directors listservs to complete a 26‐item online questionnaire. There were 132 responses eligible for analysis. Demographics were fairly consistent with the National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey. The majority of participants used more than one service delivery model to provide GC services (93%) and supervise students (89%). Six supervisory competencies related to the student–supervisor communication (Eubanks HIggins et al., 2013) were perceived to be most difficult to accomplish by phone and easiest in‐person (p < 0.0001). Participants were most comfortable in‐person and least comfortable by telephone for both patient care and student supervision (p < 0.001). The majority of participants predicted continued use of telehealth for patient care but preferred in‐person service delivery for both patient care (66%) and student supervision (81%). Overall, these findings indicate service delivery model changes in the field have an impact on GC education and suggest that the student–supervisor relationship may be different via telehealth. Furthermore, the stronger preference for in‐person patient care and student supervision, despite predicted continued telehealth utilization, points to a need for multifaceted telehealth education initiatives.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Genetic counselors' perceptions of student supervision across service delivery models

Lichten

Murden

Ali

et al. 2023

“…This series could give potential supervisors a continuing education incentive and guidance needed to take on supervising students. A review from Siskind and Atzinger (2019) provides an overview of the supervisor perspective that could be useful in shaping these trainings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative focus group analysis: Increasing fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs

Jirik,

Redlinger‐Grosse,

Davis

et al. 2024

Genetic counselors are an integral part of the healthcare system; however, the number of genetic counselors in many parts of the United States is limited, impacting access to comprehensive healthcare for all patients. One solution to addressing this deficit includes modifying genetic counseling training programs to increase student enrollment. Fieldwork capacity, driven by a limited number of rotation sites and supervisors, produces a significant bottleneck to entering the profession. Other professions have reported on techniques to increase fieldwork capacity; however, the practicality of these techniques for genetic counseling training has yet to be explored. This study seeks to investigate the perspectives of key stakeholders in genetic counseling training programs on the practicality of techniques already posited in the literature from other allied health professions. Semi‐structured focus group interviews with 25 participants were conducted at the 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors conference. Participants included program directors and supervisors from clinical, industry, and laboratory backgrounds. The focus group responses were analyzed using directed content analysis and a split coding technique, after which several themes emerged within the larger domains of rotation structures, systems infrastructure, skill‐building methods, and other novel techniques to increase fieldwork capacity. Emerging themes included the importance of finding quality student placements rather than maximizing the quantity of participatory cases; a need for transparency about the transferability of skills learned from novel experiences; scaffolding student entrustment to expand supervisor capacity; and recognizing nuances in implementation for individual programs. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of openness in communication to manage expectations for students and supervisors, who may be more hesitant to try novel rotation placements and skill‐building techniques. Genetic counseling programs may use these results to address the bottleneck of fieldwork capacity, increasing student enrollment.

“…A 54-item Genetic Counseling Supervisory Self-Efficacy Scale (GCSSES) was developed and preliminarily validated using genetic counseling supervision competencies and Bandura's self-efficacy theory which was found to have genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors, it has been found that formal training courses are associated with increased self-reports of confidence and competence (Atzinger et al, 2014). In response to the deficit in training, the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group (GCWFWG), created between ABGC, ACGC, NSGC, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), and the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD), described a strategic plan in 2017 to initiate training, support, and recognition for genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors (Siskind & Atzinger, 2019).…”

Section: What This Paper Adds To the Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To do this, the GCWFWG planned to develop criteria and training materials for fieldwork supervisors. After conducting a literature review of 19 papers, Siskind and Atzinger (2019) suggested that if genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors were assessed on all supervisory competencies, training could be focused on competencies for which supervisors feel less confident.…”

Section: What This Paper Adds To the Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While there is no standardized training for genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors, it has been found that formal training courses are associated with increased self‐reports of confidence and competence (Atzinger et al, 2014). In response to the deficit in training, the Genetic Counselor Workforce Working Group (GCWFWG), created between ABGC, ACGC, NSGC, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), and the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD), described a strategic plan in 2017 to initiate training, support, and recognition for genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors (Siskind & Atzinger, 2019). To do this, the GCWFWG planned to develop criteria and training materials for fieldwork supervisors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Creation and initial validation of a genetic counseling supervisory self‐efficacy scale

Spencer-Hintze

Wusik

Yager

et al. 2023

Fieldwork supervision is the “signature pedagogy” for training genetic counseling students, ensuring that students have the experience necessary to become minimally competent genetic counselors. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2022 Professional Status Survey, roughly 40% of genetic counselors serve as supervisors for genetic counseling graduate students. Despite fieldwork supervision being essential for training, there are currently no validated supervision skill assessment tools for genetic counseling fieldwork supervisors to use for professional development. While a self‐efficacy scale for genetic counselors currently exists, a comprehensive self‐efficacy scale for genetic counseling supervision skills does not. The purpose of the study was to develop and validate a genetic counseling supervisory self‐efficacy scale (GCSSES). This study was comparative, quantitative, and cross‐sectional, with data collected via an online questionnaire which assessed supervision self‐efficacy (95 items), derived from 154 published GC supervision competencies, demographics (5), experience (9), and supervisory development (18), using the Psychotherapy Supervisory Development Scale (PSDS). A total of 119 board‐certified genetic counselors completed the survey. Factor analysis eliminated 40 items due to insufficient factor loading, and item‐item correlation eliminated one item with elevated inter‐item correlation, leaving 54 items on the finalized GCSSES. Exploratory factor analysis derived four GCSSES factors, which accounted for 65% of the variance in the scale: (a) Goal Setting, Feedback, and Evaluation; (b) Complex Aspects of Supervision; (c) Conflict Resolution; and (d) Working Alliance. Preliminary analyses show the GCSSES has high reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.99). Positive correlations between experience variables and supervisory self‐efficacy were identified. A 54 item GCSSES was developed by this study. The GCSSES may serve as a tool for genetic counseling supervisors and graduate programs to assess skills, monitor professional development, and target training. A genetic counseling supervisory self‐efficacy scale can also be used in future studies regarding training of genetic counseling supervisors.