Movement of Genetic Counselors from Clinical to Non‐clinical Positions: Identifying Driving Forces

Abstract

A previous study of genetic counselors (GCs) in the state of Indiana identified movement out of clinical positions within the past 2 years. The aims of this study were to determine if this trend is nationwide and identify reasons why GCs are leaving their positions and factors that might help employers attract and retain GCs. An email was sent to members of the American Board of Genetic Counseling with a link to an online confidential survey. There were 939 responses (23.5% response rate). Overall, 52% of GCs report being highly satisfied in their current position, although almost two thirds think about leaving and one third had changed jobs within the past 2 years. Of those who had changed jobs (n = 295), 74.9% had been working in a hospital/clinic setting but only 46.3% currently do, demonstrating a major shift out of the clinic (p < 0.001). The top three reasons cited for leaving a position were work environment/institutional climate, salary/benefits, and a lack of feeling valued/recognized as a professional. These results confirm that GCs are moving out of clinical positions and document elements of job satisfaction. We suggest points for employers to consider when trying to recruit or retain GCs.

Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States

“…In 2008, 82% of counselors reported working in clinical settings and providing direct patient care [6], dropping to 59% in 2018 [5] and 2019 [7]. With a wider range of job opportunities in administration, research, public health, industry, and public policy [8], the number of counselors practicing in clinical settings is declining [7,9].…”

Optimizing efficiency and skill utilization: Analysis of genetic counselors' attitudes regarding delegation in a clinical setting

“…It is therefore also important to recognize the utility of GCs within leadership positions that allow them to make similarly impactful changes to their practices. Multiple respondents in this study indicated institutional barriers to delegation, and GCs in other studies have noted lack of institutional/clerical support as common reasons for leaving their clinical positions (Cohen & Tucker, ). While managerial and leadership training is not part of formal genetic counseling training, the development of this complementary expertise can create an administrator able to champion an environment where genetic counselors can function at the top of their scope of practice.…”

“…Multiple respondents in this study indicated institutional barriers to delegation, and GCs in other studies have noted lack of institutional/clerical support as common reasons for leaving their clinical positions (Cohen & Tucker, 2018…”

“…Administrative issues, lack of support, and performing additional roles outside of one's scope of practice can lead to burnout, which may negatively impact quality of care (Block, Wu, Feldman, Yeh, & Desai, 2013;Shanafelt, Bradley, Wipf, & Back, 2002;West, Tan, Habermann, Sloan, & Shanafelt, 2009). It may also lead to increases in GCs leaving clinical care positions, exacerbating the already prominent issue of providing care to a rapidly growing patient population (Cohen & Tucker, 2018).…”

“…As efforts to address workforce shortages are ongoing, the impact of increasing demands on the genetic counseling workforce and care delivery remains significant. Some GCs have transitioned away from direct patient care, citing feeling overworked and undervalued and perceiving poor management and lack of support (Cohen & Tucker, ). Those GCs that continue to work in clinical care note effects on patient care such as reduction in time spent with patients and longer wait times for appointments (Wham et al, ).…”