User login
Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: a pilot study
Background Limited access to cancer genetic counselors (GC) may result in the lack of patient identification and/or failure to show due to travel distance and complicated treatment schedules.
Objective We hypothesized that access would improve when a GC collaborated with distant nongenetics health care providers to provide services locally.
Methods Patients at a collaborative site were offered a risk assessment survey that was reviewed remotely by a licensed, boardcertified GC. Patients were triaged such that the onsite registered nurse (RN) provided basic risk assessment and offered genetic testing for straight-forward hereditary breast and ovarian cases. Ongoing training and support was provided by the GC. Followup and complex cases were scheduled with the GC during a monthly outreach visit to the collaborative site.
Results During the 1-year study period, the total number of patients who accessed genetic counseling services from the target region was 4 times greater than the previous year. Ten of 17 patients who were triaged for genetic counseling and testing underwent genetic risk assessment services as a result of this identification and triage protocol.
Conclusion This defines a workable approach for patient identification and triage for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling in a community setting. This collaborative approach may be applicable to centers that do not have access to a board-certified GC, especially important in light of the 2012 Commission on Cancer Standards that require cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling and testing services on site or by referral.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Background Limited access to cancer genetic counselors (GC) may result in the lack of patient identification and/or failure to show due to travel distance and complicated treatment schedules.
Objective We hypothesized that access would improve when a GC collaborated with distant nongenetics health care providers to provide services locally.
Methods Patients at a collaborative site were offered a risk assessment survey that was reviewed remotely by a licensed, boardcertified GC. Patients were triaged such that the onsite registered nurse (RN) provided basic risk assessment and offered genetic testing for straight-forward hereditary breast and ovarian cases. Ongoing training and support was provided by the GC. Followup and complex cases were scheduled with the GC during a monthly outreach visit to the collaborative site.
Results During the 1-year study period, the total number of patients who accessed genetic counseling services from the target region was 4 times greater than the previous year. Ten of 17 patients who were triaged for genetic counseling and testing underwent genetic risk assessment services as a result of this identification and triage protocol.
Conclusion This defines a workable approach for patient identification and triage for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling in a community setting. This collaborative approach may be applicable to centers that do not have access to a board-certified GC, especially important in light of the 2012 Commission on Cancer Standards that require cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling and testing services on site or by referral.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Background Limited access to cancer genetic counselors (GC) may result in the lack of patient identification and/or failure to show due to travel distance and complicated treatment schedules.
Objective We hypothesized that access would improve when a GC collaborated with distant nongenetics health care providers to provide services locally.
Methods Patients at a collaborative site were offered a risk assessment survey that was reviewed remotely by a licensed, boardcertified GC. Patients were triaged such that the onsite registered nurse (RN) provided basic risk assessment and offered genetic testing for straight-forward hereditary breast and ovarian cases. Ongoing training and support was provided by the GC. Followup and complex cases were scheduled with the GC during a monthly outreach visit to the collaborative site.
Results During the 1-year study period, the total number of patients who accessed genetic counseling services from the target region was 4 times greater than the previous year. Ten of 17 patients who were triaged for genetic counseling and testing underwent genetic risk assessment services as a result of this identification and triage protocol.
Conclusion This defines a workable approach for patient identification and triage for hereditary cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling in a community setting. This collaborative approach may be applicable to centers that do not have access to a board-certified GC, especially important in light of the 2012 Commission on Cancer Standards that require cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling and testing services on site or by referral.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.