Laboratory genetic counseling is becoming increasingly common as a result of increased laboratory services and genetic testing menus, as well as growing job responsibilities. Christian et al. (2012) provided the first quantitative data regarding the roles of the laboratory-based genetic counselor (LBGC) finding that two of the most prevalent roles are as customer liaisons and communicators of test results. The goal of the present study was to further delineate the role of the LBGC by addressing specific tasks that LBGCs are involved with on a day-to-day basis. A survey was designed to expand upon themes identified in the Christian et al. (2012) study by querying specific tasks performed in several categories of potential LBGC job duties. An invitation for LBGCs to participate was distributed via email to the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC). We identified 121 genetic counselors who primarily work in the laboratory setting or whose job role includes a laboratory component. Almost all respondents performed customer liaison/case coordination (95 %), and interpretation and result reporting (88 %). The most frequently performed tasks within these categories involved addressing questions from clients, making phone calls with genetic testing results, obtaining clinical or family history information for results interpretation, and composing case-specific interpretations for unique results and/or obtaining literature references to support interpretations. The study results also point to trends of expanding roles in sales and marketing, variant interpretation and management responsibilities. Results of this study may be useful to further define the full scope of practice of LBGCs, aid in the development of new LBGC positions and expand current positions to include roles related to test development, research, and student supervision. It may also aid in curriculum updates for training programs to increase exposure to LBGC roles.

The ordering of molecular genetic tests by health providers not well trained in genetics may have a variety of untoward effects. These include the selection of inappropriate tests, the ordering of panels when the assessment of individual or fewer genes would be more appropriate, inaccurate result interpretation and inappropriate patient guidance, and significant unwarranted cost expenditure. We sought to improve the utilization of molecular genetic tests by requiring providers without specialty training in genetics to use genetic counselors and molecular genetic pathologists to assist in test selection. We used a genetic and genomic test review process wherein the laboratory-based genetic counselor performed the preanalytic assessment of test orders and test triage. Test indication and clinical findings were evaluated against the test panel composition, methods, and test limitations under the supervision of the molecular genetic pathologist. These test utilization management efforts resulted in a decrease in genetic test ordering and a gross cost savings of $1,531,913 since the inception of these programs in September 2011 through December 2013. The combination of limiting the availability of complex genetic tests and providing guidance regarding appropriate test strategies is an effective way to improve genetic tests, contributing to judicious use of limited health care resources.

No abstract

No abstract

Genetic counselors (GCs) play a pivotal role in selecting clinically appropriate and cost‐effective genetic testing. Several single‐institution reports over the past decade provide evidence of the value GCs bring to this stewardship role across diverse settings in healthcare, including hospital laboratories, commercial laboratories, and insurance companies. This multi‐center, prospective, and quantitative study describes the outcomes of GC review of genetic test requests over a four‐week period at six hospital laboratories and three commercial laboratories, thus expanding our understanding of this emerging specialty in the genetic counseling field. This study also highlights the added value of utilizing GC expertise in stewardship efforts, namely selecting the most appropriate genetic testing and realizing significant cost savings. GC review of genetic test requests led to an average order modification rate of 22%–25%. It also resulted in significant cost savings to institutions. The projected average annual savings after GC review of genetic test requests approximated $665,600 for hospital laboratories and $1,651,000 for commercial laboratories. These study findings demonstrate the significant value of GC‐led genetic test stewardship programs, allow for comparisons across institutions currently performing genetic test stewardship, and support the implementation of a GC‐led stewardship program at institutions who currently do not have one.