Dataset Information

Scope of practice distinctions based on primary work setting for genetic counselors in assisted reproductive technologies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To elucidate the tasks within various work settings that assisted reproductive technologies (ART) genetic counselors believe to be within their scope of practice.

Design

A survey was constructed and administered to genetic counselors who practice in the field of ART.

Setting

Genetic counselors were asked to self-identify with a primary ART work setting: genetic testing laboratory (preimplantation genetic testing, carrier screening, or both), in vitro fertilization clinic, gamete donor agency, telegenetic practice (either private practice or telemedicine company), or other.

Patients

N/A.

Interventions

N/A.

Main outcome measures

The number of years of practice in ART, tasks performed within various ART work settings representing the reality or the ideal, and perception of understanding of the scope of practice by nongenetics colleagues.

Results

The majority of respondents reported <10 years of experience in this field. There were differences in what was considered the scope of practice among the various work settings. ART genetic counselors believed that their scope of practice was not well understood by their nongenetics colleagues. They also reported differences between the actual duties performed and what they ideally believed would be within their job function.

Conclusions

The genetic counseling specialty of ART is a new work setting for genetic counselors. There is a need for education regarding the various roles of genetic counselors in ART. Better definition of the appropriate duties for genetic counselors in the various ART work settings is needed to foster effective working relationships with their nongenetics colleagues and optimize patient care.

SUBMITTER: Snider AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244313 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Societal changes and the increasing desire and opportunity to preserve fertility have increased the demand for effective assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and have increased the range of scenarios in which ART is now used. In recent years, the "freeze-all" strategy of cryopreserving all oocytes or good quality embryos produced in an IVF cycle to transfer later-at a time that is more appropriate for reasons of medical need, efficacy, or desirability-has emerged as an accepted and valuable alternative to fresh embryo transfer. Indeed, improvements in cryopreservation techniques (vitrification) and the development of more efficient ovarian stimulation protocols have facilitated a dramatic increase in the practice of elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET). Alongside these advances, debate continues about whether eFET should be a standard treatment option available to the whole IVF population or if it is important to identify patient subgroups who are most likely to benefit from such an approach. Achieving successful outcomes in ART, whether by fresh or frozen embryo transfer, is influenced by a wide range of factors. As well as the efficiency of IVF and embryo transfer protocols and techniques, factors affecting implantation include maternal aging, sperm quality, the vaginal and endometrial microbiome, and peri-implantation levels of serum progesterone. The safety of eFET, both during ART cycles and on longer-term obstetric and neonatal outcomes, is also an important consideration. In this review, we explore the benefits and risks of freeze-all strategies in different scenarios. We review available evidence on the outcomes achieved with elective cryopreservation strategies and practices and how these compare with more traditional IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfers, both in the general IVF population and in subgroups of special interest. In addition, we consider how to optimize and individualize "freeze-all" procedures to achieve successful reproductive outcomes.