Skip to main content
Log in

The need for developing standardized family pedigree nomenclature

  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

To assess the variation in usage of symbols used in recording a genetic family history, full members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors were surveyed by questionnaire. The questionnaire return rate was 55.3% and genetic counselors from a broad range of clinical experience, genetic counseling training programs and geographic regions responded. There was striking variation in symbols used for recording routine medical information in a genetic family history (i.e., pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, termination of pregnancy). There was even less consensus in recording situations representing new reproductive technologies (i.e., artificial insemination by donor semen, donor ovum, surrogate motherhood). The results of this survey document the need for developing standardized nomenclature in recording genetic family histories as a quality assurance measure in the delivery of genetic services. Such standardization will reduce the chance of incorrect interpretation of patient and family medical and genetic information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • McGoldrick M, Gerson R (1985).Genograms in Family Assessment. New York W. W. Norton and Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris Conference (1971).Supplement (1975) Standardization in Human Cytogenetics. Birth Defects Original Article Series XI (Vol. 9). New York: The National Foundation.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bennett, R.L., Steinhaus, K.A., Uhrich, S.B. et al. The need for developing standardized family pedigree nomenclature. J Genet Counsel 2, 261–273 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00961575

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00961575

Key words

Navigation