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
 · 
131 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients comprise a high-risk population for alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV. In order to design future interventions to increase HIV screening uptake, we examined the interrelationship among alcohol misuse, sexual risk for HIV and HIV screening uptake among these patients. METHODS: A random sample of 18-64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients at two EDs during July-August 2009 completed a self-administered questionnaire about their alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the HIV Sexual Risk Questionnaire. Study participants were offered a rapid HIV test after completing the questionnaires. Binging (>= five drinks/occasion for men, >= four drinks for women) was assessed and sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Analyses were limited to participants who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the associations between HIV screening uptake and (1) alcohol misuse, (2) sexual risk for HIV, and (3) the intersection of HIV sexual risk and alcohol misuse. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics and separate models for men and women were constructed. RESULTS: Of 524 participants (55.0% female), 58.4% identified as white, non-Hispanic, and 72% reported previous HIV testing. Approximately 75% of participants reported drinking alcohol within the past 30 days and 74.5% of men and 59.6% of women reported binge drinking. A relationship was found between reported sexual risk for HIV and alcohol use among men (AOR 3.31 [CI 1.51-7.24]) and women (AOR 2.78 [CI 1.48-5.23]). Women who reported binge drinking were more likely to have higher reported sexual risk for HIV (AOR 2.55 [CI 1.40-4.64]) compared to women who do not report binge drinking. HIV screening uptake was not higher among those with greater alcohol misuse and sexual risk among men or women. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent disconnection between HIV screening uptake and alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV among ED patients in this study is concerning. Brief interventions emphasizing these associations should be evaluated to reduce alcohol misuse and sexual risk and increase the uptake of ED HIV screening.
    BMC Emergency Medicine 05/2013; 13(1):9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : Oral rapid HIV testing has been reported to have a lower sensitivity and specificity than rapid HIV testing with whole blood and has been associated with clusters of false-positive results. Patient preference for oral rapid HIV testing compared with more invasive whole blood fingerstick may influence the acceptance of rapid HIV testing. : To compare HIV test acceptance rates among patients routinely offered fingerstick compared with those routinely offered oral fluid screening in an urban hospital emergency department. : The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room Phase II was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial that randomized subjects to either fingerstick or oral rapid HIV screening in an urban academic emergency department. From May 5, 2009, to January 4, 2010, eligible patients aged 18-75 years were invited to participate in the trial. The primary outcome measure was HIV test acceptance rate. : 2012 eligible patients were approached, of whom 1651 (82%) consented to trial participation and enrolled. Among those enrolled, 830 and 821 were randomized to the fingerstick and oral fluid arms, respectively. Acceptance of rapid HIV testing was similar in both arms; 67% (553 of 830) of subjects accepted fingerstick testing compared with 69% (565 of 821) who accepted oral (P = 0.34). : Although fingerstick rapid HIV testing is more invasive than oral fluid testing, test acceptance rates did not differ. Given the option, preference should therefore be given to fingerstick testing because of its slightly superior test characteristics. System factors such as ease of staff use, necessary Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments waivers, laboratory capacity, and HIV prevalence should also be considered.
    JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 12/2012; 61(5):588-92. · 4.65 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

View
2 Downloads
Available from