To be honest, I really dislike that phrase.
Related to Allie’s recent and timely post as well as my own recent job change, I have been thinking about “traditional versus non-traditional roles”. This phrase sometimes feels like code in “Genetic Counselor Speak” for seeing patients versus not seeing patients, or , employment in a genetics clinic in some capacity versus some engagement with genetic testing companies/interpretation of testing (admittedly, research counselors seem to fall somewhere in-between).
Non-traditional roles always seem to focus on the “genetics” side of being a genetic counselor, but there is little discussion regarding non-traditional roles related to the “counseling” side of being a genetic counselor.
Perhaps this is because GCs see some degree of counseling as intrinsic to the “traditional” model. Perhaps this focus on the genetics side is because there is little pay or other tangible incentive to take a counseling-centric approach. Perhaps it is primarily because we are not as well-trained to take on the more intensive, long-term counseling roles some patients made need as we are trained to take on the more intensive genetic interpretation roles. Perhaps many genetic counselors have less interest in this side of our field.
But, there is no doubt that the current emphasis in clinical genetics and genetic counseling is on factual information, patient education, patient autonomy, and yielding a profit (understandably) and NOT on therapeutic counseling. There is often less time to focus on the counseling side of our work unless you work extra hours, which leads to increased risk for burnout along with a decreasing ability to connect with patients and even coworkers. However, I think there is an alternative niche out here for us GCs with an interest in this type of “non-traditional” role. I think there is another way for GCs to remain interested in their work and grow.
I have been fortunate enough to feel that I frequently form a strong/meaningful patient-counselor bond and I do tend to derive a great deal of satisfaction from this, in both settings I have worked. But, I worry about burnout…I worry my abilities may diminish over time, or, equally scary, not improve without additional support.
Because I want to be as engaged and productive as possible in all areas of my life (as most of us want) without burning out, I can’t help asking myself the cliché question:
Do I work to live or live to work?
I think many genetic counselors face this question as the demands of “traditional” genetics roles become overwhelming and tiring (ordering and coordinating testing, keeping up on new trends in genetics, administrative tasks, insurances, attention to varied patient needs, etc, etc, etc..)
I do not want to live by either mantra above. I want my work to be meaningful, thought provoking, and impact others in varied ways. I want to be engaged with my work. At the same time, I do not want to work to be only defining factor to who I am or control my ability to engage in other interests, relationships, hobbies, travel, [insert your interest here]. I think the increasing demands on genetics departments from a genetics point of view can make it harder to find a satisfying work-life balance, particularly when it has been shown that the greatest deal of satisfaction from work often comes from the personal meaning we can find in our patient care. See quote from Genetics in Medicine in 2009:
We show here that increased “personal meaning in patient care” is inversely related to distress and burnout. Increased meaning may be derived by forming strong connections with patients. Such connections are fostered through bearing witness, which has been described by Naef as a fundamental process of “being there and being with, listening and attending to, and staying with persons as they live situations of health and illness, shape their quality of life, search for meaning, struggle to make difficult choices, and experience intense moments of recognition, fear, joy, and sorrow. (“Distress and burnout among genetic service providers” in Genetics in Medicine Volume 11, July 2009)
My recent silence on the public side of this blog has been partially related to some sense of disillusionment and internal confusion about where this profession is heading, where my own career is heading, and how much control I have over that in light of the economy and demands on genetics departments (perhaps common concerns to many GCs these days). When I hear or read someone is moving into a “non-traditional role” I get a little worried – where is the space for a “non-traditional” role that allows for more in-depth analysis with patients of the issues and implications of hereditary disease on people’s lives and families? Where is a role for me when/if I get “burnt-out” from the “traditional roles” of a GC in a genetics clinic?
Burnout and work-life balancing are big issues in many professions, but I wonder when and how often other GCs are feeling this strain. I wonder how many other GCs see furthering their counseling skills as another opportunity for a “non-traditional” role.