Cassidy Gagne, Katelyn Geiser, Noelle R. Danylchuk, Jing Jin, Kirsty McWalter
Understanding the responsibilities, qualifications, future plans, and contributions of genetic counseling assistants (GCAs) across all work settings could aid in establishing a scope of practice, advocating for creation of GCA positions, and informing future education and training for GCAs and genetic counselors. We compared laboratory and clinical GCA responsibilities, sources of job satisfaction, background experience, and career goals. Sixty-five laboratory and 73 clinical GCAs participated in this study by completing an online survey. Most participants had a Bachelor of Science/Arts and aspired to become genetic counselors (GCs). Clinical GCAs had more interaction with patients, whereas laboratory GCAs had more interaction with ordering providers and little to no patient contact. On a scale from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (extremely satisfied), clinical GCAs had statistically significant higher satisfaction ratings (M = 8.56, SD = 1.42) than laboratory GCAs (M = 7.35, SD = 1.82, U = 3346, p = 0.001). While most participants were GCAs for 13–18 months, laboratory GCAs stayed in their positions (19–24 months, n = 20, 30.8%) for significantly longer than clinical GCAs (7–12 months, n = 21, 28.8%, X2(5) = 12.799, p = 0.025). GCAs noted increases in their knowledge and new skill development, though we also identified responsibilities for which they did not feel qualified. The results of this study can potentially help define a GCA scope of practice with data regarding background experiences and responsibilities. In addition, GCA employers may use the results to retain GCAs by addressing satisfaction issues, providing appropriate training, and adjusting roles. GC training program directors can use the results to manage expectations of applicants with GCA experience and inform training and curriculum needs based on the composition of a GC class.
Read More
Back to Journal of Genetic Counseling 