Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Current Genetic Counselor Practices in Post-Visit Written Communications to Patients

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Providing patients with post-visit written communication (PVWC) is a long-standing component of genetic counseling. However the depiction of this practice in today’s clinical landscape is limited. To better describe this practice, we surveyed practicing clinical genetic counselors to ask if they send post-visit communications to patients and if so, what are the types, the average length, and the average time spent writing. They were also asked the perceived purpose of providing PVWC, if/how the practice has changed over time, and factors influencing the practice. Eighty three percent (233/280) of participants reported sending patients PVWC. Of those, 93% sent at least one communication written in patient-friendly language. The type of communication varied by specialty. Prenatal genetic counselors were less likely to send patient-specific letters and hybrid letters (defined as letters with content intended for both a physician and a patient) than those in cancer genetics (p = 0.010, p = 0.001, respectively) or pediatric genetics (p = 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively). Prenatal genetic counselors spent less time on average writing post-visit communications (19.0 min) relative to those in cancer and pediatric genetics (30.6 min, p = 0.027 and 37.7 min, p = 0.001, respectively). The most commonly cited purpose for sending PVWC was to provide patients a formal account of what happened during the appointment. These data suggest PWVC are still regularly sent to patients but the practice is variable and is influenced by numerous factors including specialty, years of experience, and time constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, D. L., Eash, T., Schuette, J. L., & Uhlmann, W. R. (2002). Guidelines for writing letters to patients. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(5), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016841731426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassini, C., Thauvin-Robinet, C., Vinault, S., Binquet, C., Coron, F., Masurel-Paulet, A., et al. (2011). Written information to patients in clinical genetics: what's the impact? European Journal of Medical Genetics, 54(3), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2011.03.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group. (2009). Recommendations from the EGAPP working group: Genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from lynch syndrome in relatives. Genetics in Medicine, 11(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818fa2ff.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, L. E., Delatycki, M. B., Curnow, L., Skene, L., & Aitken, M. (2010). Genetic health professionals and the communication of genetic information in families: Practice during and after a genetic consultation. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A, 152(6), 1458–1466. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.33385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallowell, N., & Murton, F. (1998). The value of written summaries of genetic consultations. Patient Education and Counseling, 35(1), 27–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. J., & Hing, E. (2014). Use and characteristics of electronic health records systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001-2013. NCHS Data Brief, 143. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics.

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kausmeyer, D. T., Lengerich, E. J., Kluhsman, B. C., Morrone, D., Harper, G. R., & Baker, M. J. (2006). A survey of patients' experiences with the cancer genetic counseling process: Recommendations for cancer genetics programs. J Genet Counsel, 15(6), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9039-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobb, E. A., Butow, P. N., Barratt, A., Meiser, B., Gaff, C., Young, M. A., et al. (2004). Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: Influence on patient outcomes. British Journal of Cancer, 90(2), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) (2014). Professional Status Survey: Work Environment. Retrieved from www.nsgc.org.

  • National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) (2016). Professional Status Survey: Work Environment. Retrieved from www.nsgc.org.

  • Roggenbuck, J., Temme, R., Pond, D., Baker, J., Jarvis, K., Liu, M., Dugan, S., & Mendelson, N. J. (2014). The long and short of genetic counseling summary letters: A case-control study. J Genet Counsel. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9792-6.

  • Uhlmann, W. R., Schuette, J. L., & Yashar, B. M. (2009). A guide to genetic counseling (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wham, D., Vu, T., Chan-Smutko, G., Kobelka, C., Urbauer, D., & Heald, B. (2010). Assessment of clinical practices among cancer genetic counselors. Familal Cancer, 9, 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9326-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted to fulfill a degree requirement for the Wayne State University School of Medicine Genetic Counseling Graduate Program. The authors would like to thank all of the genetic counselors who provided feedback and comments during the piloting of our survey. We would also like to thank Lynnette Essenmacher for her assistance with the statistical analyses. We would also like to thank all the participants for their time and effort in completing the survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Genetic, Genomic and Metabolic Disorders, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, 3950 Beaubien Blvd, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Emily VandenBoom

  2. Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 540 E. Canfield St., 2375 Scott Hall, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA

    Angela M. Trepanier & Erin P. Carmany

Authors
  1. Emily VandenBoom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela M. Trepanier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin P. Carmany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin P. Carmany.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

E. VandenBoom, A.M. Trepanier and E.P. Carmany declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Animal Studies

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

VandenBoom, E., Trepanier, A.M. & Carmany, E.P. Assessment of Current Genetic Counselor Practices in Post-Visit Written Communications to Patients. J Genet Counsel 27, 681–688 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0163-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0163-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation