Article

Monitoring HIV Testing at Visits to Emergency Departments in the United States: Very-Low Rate of HIV Testing

National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (Impact Factor: 4.39). 09/2012; DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182742933
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND:: Early diagnosis and treatment of HIV infection results in improved clinical outcomes and decreased transmission, yet many infected persons are unaware of their infection or diagnosed late. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine opt-out testing of all persons aged 13-64 in high prevalence settings. STUDY OBJECTIVE:: To describe methods to estimate HIV testing rates at visits to emergency departments (EDs) for monitoring adherence to recommendations for opt-out testing. METHODS:: We analyzed data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). In 2009, two questions were added to the survey about HIV status and testing. We estimated the frequency of HIV testing at ED visits made by persons aged 13-64 years not known to be HIV infected. RESULTS:: In 2009, 90.5 million visits were made to EDs, including 60.0% by whites, 24.5% by blacks, and 12.1% by Hispanics; and 38.4% by privately insured, 25.7% by Medicaid insured, and 21.4% by uninsured persons. Among 89.9 million visits by patients not known to be HIV infected, HIV testing was performed at only 0.2% of visits. Among 3.4 million visits made by persons in whom targeted testing is recommended-those with increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, or pregnancy-only 2.3% were tested for HIV. CONCLUSIONS:: NHAMCS can be a useful tool to monitor trends in HIV testing in U.S. emergency departments. A high proportion of visits to EDs in the United States were made by persons in historically medically underserved populations and routine HIV testing was a rare event during ED visits.

0 Followers
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract In 2010, New York (NY) passed new legislation mandating Emergency Departments (EDs) to offer HIV tests to patients 13-64 presenting for care. We evaluated the requirement's implementation and determined differences based on HIV prevalence or site-specific designated AIDS centers (DACs). We also evaluated policies for linkage to care of new HIV positive patients. An electronic survey on testing practices and linkage to care was administered to all NY EDs, excluding VA hospitals. Basic descriptive statistics were used for analysis. The response rate was 96% (184/191). All respondents knew of the legislation and 86% offered testing, but only 65% (159/184) to all patients required by the law. EDs in NYC, high prevalence areas, and DACs were more likely to offer HIV testing. Most facilities (104/159, 65%) used separate written consent despite elimination of this requirement. Most EDs (67%) used rapid testing: oral point-of-care ED testing and rapid laboratory testing. Only 61% of EDs provided results to patients while in the ED. Most (94%) had a linkage-to-care protocol. However, only 29% confirm linkage. We provide the first report of NY ED HIV testing practices since the mandatory testing law. Most EDs offer HIV testing but challenges still exist. Linkage-to-care plans are in place, but few EDs confirm it occurs.
    AIDS patient care and STDs 02/2014; 28(2):91-7. DOI:10.1089/apc.2013.0124 · 3.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Despite recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that all adults be offered non-targeted HIV screening in all care settings, screening in acute-care settings remains unacceptably low. We performed an observational study to evaluate an HIV screening pilot in an academic-community partnership health center urgent care clinic. Methods We collected visit data via encounter forms and demographic and laboratory data from electronic medical records. A post-pilot survey of perceptions of HIV screening was administered to providers and nurses. Multivariable analysis was used to identify factors associated with completion of testing. Results Visit provider and triage nurse were highly associated with both acceptance of screening and completion of testing, as were younger age, male gender, and race/ethnicity. 23.5% of patients completed tests, although 36.0% requested screening; time constraints as well as risk perceptions by both the provider and patient were cited as limiting completion of screening. Post-pilot surveys showed mixed support for ongoing HIV screening in this setting by providers and little support by nurses. Conclusions Visit provider and triage nurse were strongly associated with acceptance of testing, which may reflect variable opinions of HIV screening in this setting by clinical staff. Among patients accepting screening, visit provider remained strongly associated with completion of testing. Despite longstanding recommendations for non-targeted HIV screening, further changes to improve the testing and results process, as well as provider education and buy-in, are needed to improve screening rates.
    AIDS Research and Therapy 08/2014; 11:24. DOI:10.1186/1742-6405-11-24 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Based on US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, New York State enacted legislation in 2010 requiring healthcare providers to offer non-targeted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing to all patients aged 13-64. Three New York City adult emergency departments implemented an electronic alert that required clinicians to document whether an HIV test was offered before discharging a patient. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the electronic alert on HIV testing rates and diagnosis of HIV positive individuals. During the pre-intervention period (2.5-4 months), an electronic "HIV Testing" order set was available for clinicians to order a test or document a reason for not offering the test (e.g., patient is not conscious). An electronic alert was then added to enforce completion of the order set, effectively preventing ED discharge until an HIV test was offered to the patient. We analyzed data from 79,786 visits, measuring HIV testing and detection rates during the pre-intervention period and during the six months following the implementation of the alert. The percentage of visits where an HIV test was performed increased from 5.4% in the preintervention period to 8.7% (p<0.001) after the electronic alert. After the implementation of the electronic alert, there was a 61% increase in HIV tests performed per visit. However, the percentage of patients testing positive per total patients-tested was slightly lower in the post-intervention group than the pre-intervention group (0.48% vs. 0.55%), but this was not significant. The number of patients-testing positive per total-patient visit was higher in the post-intervention group (0.04% vs. 0.03%). An electronic alert which enforced non-targeted screening was effective at increasing HIV testing rates but did not significantly increase the detection of persons living with HIV. The impact of this electronic alert on healthcare costs and quality of care merits further examination.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(1):299-312. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2013-09-RA-0075 · 0.39 Impact Factor