Search

Genetic counselors (GCs) and healthcare interpreters (HIs) are key members of the healthcare team when providing genetic counseling services to patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP); however, the working relationship between GCs and HIs and the role each member plays within a genetic counseling session is unclear. Previous studies assessing this relationship have been qualitative and limited in sample size (Agather et al., 2018, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 1388; Krieger et al., 2018, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26, 1388; Lara-Otero et al., 2019, Health Communication, 34, 1608; Rosenbaum et al., 2020, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29, 352). This study utilized a quantitative approach to allow for sampling of larger populations and to simultaneously understand current perspectives of GCs and HIs regarding each other's and their own roles within a genetic counseling session. GC and HI participants from the United States were recruited via email to complete an online survey with questions regarding interactions prior to a session, roles during a session, and opportunities for collaboration and constraints in the working relationship. Descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized to analyze responses of GCs and HIs. 130 GC and 40 HI participants were included in this study. There were statistically significant differences (p < .001) in responses between GC and HI participants on the expected distribution of roles during a session in advocacy, psychosocial and cultural domains. Additionally, this study identified that HI desired resources and training regarding genetics and genetic counseling are currently not being met. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to simultaneously survey GC and HI perspectives on these topics. Our findings suggest the need for greater communication and collaboration between GCs and HIs to ensure high-quality care for patients with LEP. Integrating a pre-session meeting between the GC and HI for sessions with patients with LEP and increasing education for GCs and HIs on the roles each group brings into a session is warranted to optimize this collaborative relationship and patient care., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

Objective: While screening for psychosocial distress is now the standard of care in oncology, little guidance is available on how best to deliver services in response to identified needs. The American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS) convened a task force with the goal of creating a framework that could aid in planning services and justifying requests for resources., Methods: Ten experts from multiple disciplines within psychosocial oncology served on the task force, first meeting together as a larger group over 2 days to set an agenda and then subsequently working in smaller teams to execute the goals. The task force used consensus methods for developing recommendations., Results: Three principles were identified for the framework. First, psychosocial oncology is a key component of population health, and population-based approaches to care delivery are required. Second, several key parameters shape psychosocial oncology services: resources, aims, and scope. To guide resource allocation, example priorities were identified for the aims and scope of services. Finally, cancer care centers should strive to ensure the delivery of high-quality psychosocial oncology care across all components of care. A range of practices was ranked by their potential contributions to achieving that goal., Conclusions: This framework may aid in planning, evaluating, and refining the delivery of responsive psychosocial oncology services., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)