4.6 Article

Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 311-318

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0047-z

关键词

Return of research results; Unsolicited genomic results; Physicians; Attitudes; Ethics

资金

  1. Vanderbilt University Medical Center [U01HG8672]
  2. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center [U01HG8666]
  3. Geisinger [U01HG8679]
  4. Coordinating Center [U01HG008701]
  5. Office of Medical Student Research at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Physicians increasingly receive genomic test results they did not order, which we term unsolicited genomic results (UGRs). We asked physicians how they think such results will affect them and their patients. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult and pediatric primary care and subspecialty physicians at four sites affiliated with a large-scale return-of-results project led by the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Twenty-five physicians addressed UGRs and (1) perceived need for actionability, (2) impact on patients, (3) health care workflow, (4) return of results process, and (5) responsibility for results. Results: Physicians prioritize actionability of UGRs and the need for clear, evidence-based paths for action coupled with clinical decision support (CDS). They identified potential harms to patients including anxiety, false reassurance, and clinical disutility. Clinicians worried about anticipated workflow issues including responding to UGRs and unreimbursed time. They disagreed about who was responsible for responding to UGRs. Conclusion: The prospect of receiving UGRs for otherwise healthy patients raises important concerns for physicians. Their responses informed development of an in-depth survey for physicians following return of UGRs. Strategic workflow integration of UGRs will likely be necessary to empower physicians to serve their patients effectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据