Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Health-system leaders and primary care providers weigh in.

purposeThe fourth phase of the Electronic Medical Records and Genome Network is testing the return of 10 polygenic risk scores (PRS) across multiple clinics. Understanding the perspectives of health-system leaders and frontline clinicians can inform plans for implementation of PRS.

methodsA total of 15 health-system leaders and 20 primary care providers took part in semistructured interviews. A descriptive thematic analysis was performed.

resultsInterviewees generally perceived PRS to have limited clinical utility, although they saw value in the potential to identify and act upon risks that are not otherwise detectable. Perceived potential drawbacks included negative psycho-emotional effects on patients, unnecessary follow-up, distracting from population health priorities, opportunity costs, and medicolegal liability. Implementation considerations included increased encounter time and the need for clinical practice guidelines, provider training, care coordination, and point-of-care resources.

conclusionParticipants generally expressed favorable views of precision medicine and also identified potential challenges to introducing PRS in clinical care. Implementation will require careful assessment of clinical utility vs usual care; ensuring that the benefit to be realized merits the time and resources required to interpret, return, and act on results and developing guidelines and other decision-making supports for providers and patients.