Article

Counselor- versus provider-based HIV screening in the emergency department: results from the universal screening for HIV infection in the emergency room (USHER) randomized controlled trial.

Division of Infectious Diseases and General Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 07/2011; 58(1 Suppl 1):S126-32.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.03.023
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compare rates of rapid HIV testing, test offer, and acceptance in an urban emergency department (ED) when conducted by dedicated HIV counselors versus current members of the ED staff.
The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room [USHER] trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial that implemented an HIV screening program in the ED of an urban tertiary medical center. ED patients were screened and consented for trial enrollment by an USHER research assistant. Eligible subjects were randomized to rapid HIV testing (oral OraQuick) offered by a dedicated counselor (counselor arm) or by an ED provider (provider arm). In the counselor arm, counselors-without other clinical responsibilities-assumed nearly all testing-related activities (consent, counseling, delivery of test results). In the provider arm, trained ED emergency service assistants (nursing assistants) consented and tested the participant in the context of other ED-related responsibilities. In this arm, ED house officers, physician assistants, or attending physicians provided HIV test results to trial participants. Outcome measures were rates of HIV testing and test offer among individuals consenting for study participation. Among individuals offered the test, test acceptance was also measured.
From February 2007 through July 2008, 8,187 eligible patients were approached in the ED, and 4,855 (59%) consented and were randomized to trial participation. The mean age was 37 years, 65% were women, and 42% were white. The overall testing rate favored the counselor arm (57% versus 27%; P<.001); 80% (1,959/2,446) of subjects in the counselor arm were offered an HIV test compared with 36% (861/2,409) in the provider arm (P<.001). HIV test acceptance was slightly higher in the provider arm (counselor arm 71% versus provider arm 75%; P = .025).
Routine rapid HIV testing in the ED was accomplished more frequently by dedicated HIV counselors than by ED staff in the course of routine clinical work. Without dedicated staff, HIV testing in this setting may not be truly routine.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
136 Views
  • ACOG Clinical Review 01/2000; 5(6):10-13.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, Increasing Viral Testing in the Emergency Department (InVITED), the authors investigated if a brief intervention about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk-taking behaviors and drug use and misuse in addition to a self-administered risk assessment, compared to a self-administered risk assessment alone, increased uptake of combined screening for HIV and HCV, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and impacted beliefs and opinions on HIV/HCV screening.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 07/2014; 21(7):752-767. · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Pilot data suggest that a multifaceted approach may increase HIV testing rates, but the scalability of this approach and the level of support needed for successful implementation remain unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of a scaled-up multi-component intervention in increasing the rate of risk-based and routine HIV diagnostic testing in primary care clinics and the impact of differing levels of program support. DESIGN Three arm, quasi-experimental implementation research study. SETTING Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. PATIENTS Persons receiving primary care between June 2009 and September 2011 INTERVENTION A multimodal program, including a real-time electronic clinical reminder to facilitate HIV testing, provider feedback reports and provider education, was implemented in Central and Local Arm Sites; sites in the Central Arm also received ongoing programmatic support. Control Arm sites had no intervention MAIN MEASURES Frequency of performing HIV testing during the 6 months before and after implementation of a risk-based clinical reminder (phase I) or routine clinical reminder (phase II). KEY RESULTS The adjusted rate of risk-based testing increased by 0.4 %, 5.6 % and 10.1 % in the Control, Local and Central Arms, respectively (all comparisons, p < 0.01). During phase II, the adjusted rate of routine testing increased by 1.1 %, 6.3 % and 9.2 % in the Control, Local and Central Arms, respectively (all comparisons, p < 0.01). At study end, 70–80 % of patients had been offered an HIV test. CONCLUSIONS Use of clinical reminders, provider feedback, education and social marketing significantly increased the frequency at which HIV testing is offered and performed in VHA facilities. These findings support a multimodal approach toward achieving the goal of having every American know their HIV status as a matter of routine clinical practice.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine · 3.28 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
2 Downloads
Available from

Similar Publications