Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

When clinical genetics turns the risk lens on itself

European Journal of Human Genetics volume 34, pages 449–450 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

The Original Article was published on 27 October 2025

While remarkable and life-saving innovations in human genetics continue to make headlines worldwide, genetics professionals are now raising increasingly urgent warnings about how these advances are being delivered in practice [1,2,3]. In this journal, Lambert et al. [4] report on tools developed to prospectively evaluate risk in clinical genetics service delivery. The tools allow monitoring across the patient journey so that controls can be put in place to mitigate risks.

This quality improvement work emerges amid a lack of consensus on optimal models of genomic care and marked inconsistency in how services are delivered across, and even within, countries. It also raises a different kind of risk: the toll on the well-being of clinical staff delivering frontline genetics care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Ward AJ, Lambert DM, Butterly D, O’Byrne JJ, McGrath V, Lynch SA Genetic services survey-experience of people with rare diseases and their families accessing https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00664-w

  2. Bensend TA, Veach PM, Niendorf KB. What’s the harm? Genetic counselor perceptions of adverse effects of genetics service provision by non-genetics professionals. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:48–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9605-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brierley KL, Campfield D, Ducaine W, et al. Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice. Conn Med. 2010;74:413–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lambert DM, Stewart H, Bandiola M, et al. What is risk in clinical genetics? Designing and piloting tools to evaluate risk in clinical genetics using failure modes and effects analysis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-025-01961-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dragojlovic N, Borle K, Kopac N, Ellis U, Birch P, Adam S, et al. The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review. Genet Med. 2020;22:1437–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0825-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 31000:2018: Risk management - Guidelines. [Internet]. International Organization for Standardization; 2018. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html (accessed 27 Oct 2025).

  7. Kristoffersson U, Macek M. From Mendel to Medical Genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:S53–S59. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2017.157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. McEwen A, Ormond KE, Cathcart-King Y. Developing global consensus about core knowledge and skills for genetic counselor education. J Genet Couns. 2025;34:e70116. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.70116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Woodhouse S, Burney B, Coste K. To err is human: improving patient safety through failure mode and effect analysis. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2004;18:32–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No specific funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Victoria, 3198, Australia

    Michaela Cormack

  2. Macquarie University, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2113, Australia

    Michaela Cormack

Authors
  1. Michaela Cormack
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.C. conceived the commentary and drafted the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Cormack.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cormack, M. When clinical genetics turns the risk lens on itself. Eur J Hum Genet 34, 449–450 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-025-01985-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-025-01985-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links