Genetic counselling is a complex process that helps people to understand and adopt medical, psychological and genetic aspects of the disease and enable them to make an appropriate decision. In this framework, we revisited all the existing models for decision-making and suggested their use in the process of genetic counselling, which may lead to more equitable and more favourable outcomes. Also, Donabedian's (Structure-Process-Outcome) model for the development of key performance indicators was applied to assess the quality in the process of genetic counselling. Quality indicators at SPO model in the process of genetic counselling were proposed. The social, economic and humanistic outcomes have also been identified. All defined quality indicators together represent a framework for monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement of the process of genetic counselling. Although the new medical services of genetic counselling tend to be developed as a powerful multidisciplinary field, the implementation of quality management model will certainly help the development of collaborative practice.
References
1.
Skirton H, Lewis C, Kent A, Coviello DA. Genetic education and the challenge of genomic medicine: development of core competences to support preparation of health professionals in Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2010;18(9):972–7.
2.
Biesecker BB, Peters KF. Process studies in genetic counseling: Peering into the black box. American Journal of Medical Genetics. 2001;106(3):191–8.
3.
Flowers CR, Veenstra D. The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Era of Pharmacogenomics. PharmacoEconomics. 2004;22(8):481–93.
4.
Payne K. Towards an Economic Evidence Base for Pharmacogenetics: Consideration of Outcomes is Key. Pharmacogenomics. 2008;9(1):1–4.
5.
Payne K, Shabaruddin FH. Cost–Effectiveness Analysis in Pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11(5):643–6.
6.
Kozma C, Reeder C, Schulz R. Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research. Clin Ther. 1993;15(6):1121–32.
7.
Payne K, Nicholls S, McAllister M, MacLeod R, Donnai D, Davies LM. Outcome Measurement in Clinical Genetics Services: A Systematic Review of Validated Measures. Value in Health. 2008;11(3):497–508.
8.
Bernhardt BA, Biesecker BB, Goals MCL. Benefits, and Outcomes of Genetic Counseling: Client and Genetic Counselor Assessment. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94(3):189–97.
9.
Beth B. Genetic Consultation/Counseling: The Process. Genzyme Genetics. 1996;
10.
Green MJ, McInerney AM, Biesecker BB, Fost N. Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: Patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor. American Journal of Medical Genetics. 2001;103(1):24–31.
11.
Ellingrod VL, Moline J. Incorporating Pharmacogenomics into Practice. Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2007;20(3):277–82.
12.
Haga S, Burke W, Ginsburg G, Mills R, Agans R. Primary care physicians’ knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing. Clinical Genetics. 2012;82(4):388–94.
13.
Donabedian A. Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 1966;44(3):166.
Elwyn G, Gray J, Clarke A. Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2000;37(2):135–8.
16.
Emanuel EJ. Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;267(16):2221.
17.
O’Grady L, Jadad A. Shifting from Shared to Collaborative Decision Making: A Change in Thinking and Doing. J Particip Med. 2010;2:13.
18.
Smets E, van Zwieten M, Michie S. Comparing genetic counseling with non-genetic health care interactions: Two of a kind? Patient Education and Counseling. 2007;68(3):225–34.
19.
Fraser FC. Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 1974;26(5):636–61.
20.
Mills R, Haga SB. Clinical Delivery of Pharmacogenetic Testing Services: A Proposed Partnership Between Genetic Counselors and Pharmacists. Pharmacogenomics. 2013;14(8):957–68.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
