Genetic Counsellors and Private Practice: Professional Turbulence and Common Values

Abstract

Genetic counsellors face tensions between past and future identities: between established values and goals, and a broadening scope of settings and activities. This study examines the advent of genetic counsellors in private practice in Australia and New Zealand from the perspectives of the small numbers working in this sector and those who have only worked in public practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 genetic counsellors who had experience in private practice, and 14 genetic counsellors without private sector experience. Results demonstrated that circumstantial and personal factors can mitigate the challenges experienced and the amount of support desired by those who had established a private practice, and those who were employed by private companies. Notably, most participants with private sector experience perceived themselves to be viewed negatively by other genetic counsellors. Most participants without private sector experience expressed concern that the challenges they believed genetic counsellors face in private practice may impact service quality, but wished to address such concerns by providing appropriate support. Together, our results reinforce that participants in private and public sectors are strong advocates for peer support, multidisciplinary team work, and professional development. These core values, and seeking understanding of different circumstances and support needs, will enable genetic counsellors in different sectors to move forward together. Our results suggest supports that may be acted upon by members of the profession, professional groups, and training programs, in Australia, New Zealand, and overseas.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

“…27,37,[61][62][63] Frequently cited clinical specialties for GCs in direct patient care were cancer, prenatal care, general genetics, and pediatrics. 25,35,64 As well, areas of specialization for GCs involved in direct patient care were reported in private practice settings, 65 pharmacogenomics, 66 and public health. 67 A growing number of GCs take on roles beyond the provision of direct patient care, with the proportion of GCs in the United States working in direct patient care having decreased from 65% in 2016 to 59% in 2019.…”

The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study

“…However, the range of disciplines and the varied nature of practice between HPs could prove problematic for consumers in choosing an HP. Additionally, concerns remain that HPs may be inadequately trained to facilitate informed decision making 31,32 . Given that some nutrigenomic testing companies train the HPs in‐house, 19 this represents a potential conflict of interest and could translate to consumers receiving biased information and advice based on poor evidence.…”

Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors

“…It is currently not a requirement for an Australian health practitioner to be statutorily regulated in order to provide a medical service for which the Australian Government will pay a rebate; however, some recognized form of regulation is required to obtain these services. It is therefore possible that the formalization of self‐regulation in Australia may enhance genetic counselors' ability to expand into appropriately funded independent practice, as well as provide credibility for other health professionals and allow for more recognition and better access to Australian Government reimbursement, either through the public funded Medicare system or through private health insurance rebates (Collis et al., 2018; Skirton, Cordier, et al., 2013). With the increasing likelihood that genetic counselors will practice outside of public hospital genetics services, this is an important implication to consider.…”