Tag Archives: communication

Questioning the “genetic counselor” professional title

A few weeks ago, while listening to a presentation at the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellor’s (CAGC) Annual Education Conference in Vancouver, I learned that a newly created genetic counseling clinic had decided to remove the term “genetic counseling” from their clinic name. The term seemed to be confusing potential clients, and it was ultimately determined to be a barrier to getting people in the door.

Just two days earlier, I had sat in a room with the CAGC board of directors while we undertook a brainstorming exercise to try and come up with a simple and straightforward definition of “genetic counselor.” Led by a local PR & communications professional, our goal was to try and get the definition to less than 10 words. After 3 hours of lively discussion and long contemplative silences, we decided we had done the best we could do: our sentence was 17 words long. It was interesting to watch the response of the communications professional throughout the process. Clearly she has hosted similar sessions with countless organizations, but I sensed our challenge was unique. “You really do have quite a dilemma here, don’t you?” she noted more than once.

Communicators with a communication problem

Genetic counseling isn’t simple and genetics isn’t straightforward. Unfortunately, we live in a society that seems hell-bent on fitting genetics and genetic testing into a nice, neat, easy-to-handle box. As a result, we expend a lot of energy trying to describe why genetics is rarely nice, neat and easy-to-handle. We explain ad nauseam how complex, intricate and emotionally and ethically charged genetics can be. So, how do you simplify a message, when the message itself is intended to express the complexity and complicated nature of the subject?

As the chair of the CAGC Media and Communications committee, I have spent the past two years contemplating this question. The irony is not lost on me: communication is one of the most fundamental skills of our profession. We are highly trained to translate complex scientific information into manageable lay-mans terms. Yet, we continue to struggle to effectively communicate who we are to the public and other healthcare providers.

Which brings me back to what we call ourselves: Genetic Counselors. Our name is our first impression, our lasting brand and its descriptive nature should easily and accurately reflect the work that we do. As Sean Hazell argued in his recent guest post, the time is right to make a push for increasing our professional awareness. Given the huge communications challenge we have at hand, I think it is crucial we ensure our name is helping our cause, or at the very least, not hindering it.

As is highlighted by this recent tweet by a genetic counseling student researching GC awareness for her thesis project, it appears we certainly have a lot of work to do:

Screen shot 2014-12-16 at 10.01.21 PM

The name game

I’m sure we have all had the conversation at some point or another. I remember during my training a pretty heated class discussion about whether the name “genetic counselor” is the most appropriate title for our role. As Bob Resta has previously pointed out, the name is not technically correct; as he explains “genetics counselor” is a more grammatically appropriate term. And many argue that we should consider replacing “genetic” with “genomic” to represent a more contemporary reflection of the times. Further, some believe that using the terms “consultant,” “specialist,” or “associate” in place of “counselor” more accurately reflects the broad range of roles we now hold.

While distinct, this subject is intricately tied to the discussion about expanding roles that genetic counselors now hold and will potentially hold in the future (For more on this see Bob Resta’s post: Who the hell do we think we are?).

The way forward

As far as I know there has yet to be a formalized discussion or review of the name “genetic counselor” by our professional organizations, despite the fact that this has been the topic of informal conversation since the establishment of the profession in the 1970’s. I think it is time we officially take a look at this subject. While our professional organizations are accustomed to creating an internal task force to manage this type of task, I think this particular issue may warrant a unique approach.

Specifically, I’d suggest:

  • The project would ideally be a collaboration between US, Canadian and potentially international organizations—as creating one united brand would benefit all of us (and creating different names in different countries would likely hurt us).
  • We conduct research and engage external stakeholders— patients, physicians and the general public—in the process. If the goal is to ensure our name accurately reflects what we do to the outside world, then the “outside world” should most certainly be at the table.
  • We partner with professionals to help with this task. Whether it is a communications consultancy, a naming firm or a branding agency, there are trained professionals dedicated to helping organizations solve these types of problems.

Changing our professional title would be messy and fraught with logistical issues. And I’m aware that at the end of this type of exercise we may learn that “genetic counselor” really is the most appropriate name for us. Alternatively, we may learn that creating one single term to describe the range of work we now do (or may do in the future) is just not feasible. Whatever the case, I think we owe it to ourselves and to future generations of genetic counselors (or whatever they might be called!) to take a good in-depth look at this issue, in order to ensure we are doing everything we can to enable our professional awareness.

I’m keen to see how others feel about the idea of considering a professional name change. Putting logistical issues aside, do you feel the time is right to officially evaluate our professional title? Cast your vote in the poll below.

Do you have an alternative name you favour? I look forward to reading your thoughts and suggestions in the comments section.

 

16 Comments

Filed under Allie Janson Hazell

Communication in the Genomic Era

Last month the Genomics Law Report, a blog about the “intersection of genomics, personalized medicine and the law,” launched a series called “What ELSI is New?” They invited guest commentaries from various disciplines to provide a short post on what they felt was the most important ELSI issue facing the fields of genomics and personalized medicine. If you haven’t had a chance to peruse the series of commentaries, I’d definitely recommend it. I love the idea of looking at an issue from 360 degrees.

In full disclosure, I was very excited to be invited to contribute to this series. And you can find contributions from familiar players such as the NSGC Board of directors and Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance here and here. In considering the series in it’s entirety, I was struck by how many submissions centered on communication: between scientists, physicians, patients, the public. Below are a couple of excerpts I found particularly relevant to the field of genetic counseling.

From Chris Gunter of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology:

I am struck by the absolute hunger of the public to understand genomics and personalized medicine… I propose our field engage in our own form of personalization: using education and media in all forms to convert the energy of the public into an army for science…

From Mathew Harper of Forbes:

…if genomics is really going to impact medicine, we’re going to have to start bridging the gap between the companies and scientists doing this early work and the traditional medical establishment…23andMe’s big contribution has been to start this conversation, but we’re still a long way from figuring out how genomics will fit into medical culture, no less into the regulatory framework.

From Zoe Mitchell and Dr. Gavin Harper of Oxford Nanopore Technologies:

As we enter an era of personalized, genomic medicine, the understanding and communication of probabilities is likely to be a stumbling block, not only for the public but for clinicians too…How to provide context, interpretation and counselling around these complex sets of probabilities is a new challenge in statistics, ethics and psychology.

I realize that the importance of communication isn’t news to anyone in the genetic counseling world. However, I like that it seems to be a focal point for the early thought leaders in the genomic era. This, in turn, will hopefully make our job of ensuring that our voice is heard in this discussion, just a little bit easier.

Leave a comment

Filed under Allie Janson Hazell