Evaluation of a Clinical Genetics Service--a Quality Initiative

Overview

Journal J Genet Couns

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Genetics

Date 2014 Mar 21

PMID 24647747

Citations 4

Authors

Alison M Elliott

Bernard N Chodirker

Patricia Bocangel

Aizeddin A Mhanni

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Paper-based surveys are an effective means of evaluating the quality of a clinical service. As part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives within our Genetics Program, new patients were invited to participate in a paper-based survey. Issues related to the quality of counseling based on educational/informational aspects (e.g. whether testing was explained fully, testing options, the meaning of normal/abnormal testing), competency, respect and nondirectiveness of counseling in addition to clinical environment/setting were evaluated. Data related to demographics, discipline seen within the program and whether the patient was seen by a physician or genetic counselor were also captured. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed. One hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 29.4 %. The majority of patients seen were prenatal (pregnant) patients and comprised a heterogeneous group including those seen for advanced maternal age and abnormal maternal serum screening. Overall, 98.6 % of respondents felt their appointment in genetics was a positive experience. Issues related to confidentiality, pros and cons of testing, meaning of an abnormal test result and time allotted for decision making were significantly different in some disciplines between genetic counselor and geneticist. However, when controlling for referral indication, these differences lost significance with the exception of issues relating to confidentiality and perceived time allotted to organize thoughts and questions. This survey provided valuable information to allow for improvement in the quality of the provision of service.

Citing Articles

Personalising genetic counselling (POETIC) trial: Protocol for a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of a patient screening tool to improve patient empowerment after cancer genetic counselling.

Forrest L, Tutty E, De Silva A, Petelin L, Ruscigno A, Purvis R Trials. 2023; 24(1):712.

PMID: 37941026 PMC: 10631179. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07723-0.

Evaluation of telephone genetic counselling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Tutty E, Petelin L, McKinley J, Young M, Meiser B, Rasmussen V Eur J Hum Genet. 2019; 27(8):1186-1196.

PMID: 30962500 PMC: 6777607. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0390-9.

Elucidating Genetic Counseling Outcomes from the Perspective of Genetic Counselors.

Zierhut H, Shannon K, Cragun D, Cohen S J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(5):993-1001.

PMID: 26781258 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9930-9.

Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.

Peshkin B, Kelly S, Nusbaum R, Similuk M, DeMarco T, Hooker G J Genet Couns. 2015; 25(3):472-82.

PMID: 26455498 PMC: 4829475. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9897-6.

References

Kessler S . Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. Am J Med Genet. 1997; 72(2):164-71. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19971017)72:2<164::aid-ajmg8>3.0.co;2-v. View

Davey A, Rostant K, Harrop K, Goldblatt J, OLeary P . Evaluating genetic counseling: client expectations, psychological adjustment and satisfaction with service. J Genet Couns. 2005; 14(3):197-206. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-005-0519-6. View

Nisselle A, Forbes R, Bankier A, Hughes E, Aitken M . Consumer contribution to the delivery of genetic health services. Am J Med Genet A. 2008; 146A(17):2266-74. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32271. View

Zellerino B, Milligan S, Gray J, Williams M, Brooks R . Identification and prioritization of quality indicators in clinical genetics: an international survey. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2009; 151C(3):179-90. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30220. View

Vadaparampil S, Quinn G, Lee J, Malo T, Zhao X, Miree C . Satisfaction with physician recommendation for and information about genetic counseling among breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2010; 17(1):79-82. PMC: 4603559. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.01027.x. View

Clarke A . Response to: What counts as success in genetic counselling?. J Med Ethics. 1993; 19(1):47-9. PMC: 1376169. DOI: 10.1136/jme.19.1.47. View

Hartley J, Greenberg C, Mhanni A . Genetic counseling in a busy pediatric metabolic practice. J Genet Couns. 2010; 20(1):20-2. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-010-9324-y. View

Elliott A, Mhanni A, Marles S, Greenberg C, Chudley A, Nyhof G . Trends in telehealth versus on-site clinical genetics appointments in Manitoba: a comparative study. J Genet Couns. 2011; 21(2):337-44. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-011-9406-5. View

Rantanen E, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I, Schmidtke J, Sequeiros J . What is ideal genetic counselling? A survey of current international guidelines. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008; 16(4):445-52. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201983. View

10.

Williams M . Quality in clinical genetics. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2009; 151C(3):175-8. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30216. View

11.

Michie S, Bron F, Bobrow M, Marteau T . Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. Am J Hum Genet. 1997; 60(1):40-7. PMC: 1712566. View

12.

Shiloh S, Avdor O, Goodman R . Satisfaction with genetic counseling: dimensions and measurement. Am J Med Genet. 1990; 37(4):522-9. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.1320370419. View

13.

Zellerino B, Milligan S, Brooks R, Freedenberg D, Collingridge D, Williams M . Development, testing, and validation of a patient satisfaction questionnaire for use in the clinical genetics setting. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2009; 151C(3):191-9. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30214. View