Amanda Bergner

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs ( n = 80) and GCs ( n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5–10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade.

Objective Exome sequencing (ES) has played an important role in the identification of causative variants for individuals with epilepsy and has proven to be a valuable diagnostic tool. Less is known about its clinical utility once a diagnosis is received. This study systematically reviewed the impact of ES results on clinical decision‐making and patient care in a pediatric epilepsy cohort at a tertiary care medical center. Methods Pediatric patients with unexplained epilepsy were referred by their neurologist, and informed consent was obtained through an institutional review board–approved research ES protocol. For patients who received a genetic diagnosis, a retrospective chart review was completed of the probands and their relatives' medical records prior to and after genetic diagnosis. The following outcomes were explored: provider management recommendations, changes in care actually implemented, and anticipatory guidance provided regarding the proband's condition. Results Fifty‐three probands met the inclusion criteria. Genetic diagnosis led to at least one provider recommendation in 41.5% families (22/53). Recommendations were observed in the following categories: medication, screening for non‐neurological comorbidities/referrals to specialists, referrals to clinical research/trials, and cascade testing. Anticipatory guidance including information about molecular diagnosis, prognosis, and relevant foundations/advocacy groups was also observed. Significance Results demonstrate the clinical utility of ES for individuals with epilepsy across multiple aspects of patient care, including anti‐seizure medication (ASM) selection; screening for non‐neurological comorbidities and referrals to appropriate medical specialists; referral to reproductive genetic counseling; and access to research, information, and support resources. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the clinical utility of ES for a pediatric epilepsy cohort with broad epilepsy phenotypes. This work supports the implementation of ES as part of clinical care in this population.