Comparison of missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis in 3 geographically proximate emergency departments.
ABSTRACT Differences in the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV between different types of emergency departments (EDs) are not well understood. We seek to define missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis within 3 geographically proximate EDs serving different patient populations in a single metropolitan area.
For an urban academic, an urban community, and a suburban community ED located within 10 miles of one another, we reviewed visit records for a cohort of patients who received a new diagnosis of HIV between July 1999 and June 2003. Missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis were defined as ED visits in the year before diagnosis, during which there was no documented ED HIV testing offer or test. Outcomes were the number of missed opportunity visits and the number of patients with a missed opportunity for each ED. We secondarily reviewed medical records for missed opportunity encounters, using an extensive list of indications that might conceivably trigger testing.
Among 276 patients with a new HIV diagnosis, 123 (44.5%) visited an ED in the year before diagnosis or received a diagnosis in the ED. The urban academic ED HIV testing program diagnosed 23 (8.3%) cases and offered testing to 24 (8.7%) patients who declined. Missed opportunities occurred during 187 visits made by 76 (27.5%) patients. These included 70 patients with 157 visits at the urban academic ED, 9 patients with 24 visits at the urban community ED, and 4 patients with 6 visits at the suburban community ED. Medical records were available for 172 of the 187 missed opportunity visits. Visits were characterized by the following potential testing indicators: HIV risk factors (58; 34%), related diagnosis indicating risk (7; 4%), AIDS-defining illness (8; 5%), physician suspicion of HIV (29; 17%), and nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness potentially consistent with HIV (126; 73%).
Geographically proximate EDs differ in their opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis, but all 3 sites had missed opportunities. Many ED patients with undiagnosed HIV have potential indications for testing documented even in the absence of a dedicated risk assessment, although most of these are nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness that may not be clinically useful selection criteria.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although routine HIV testing is recommended for jails, little empirical data exist describing newly diagnosed individuals in this setting. Client-level data (CLD) are available on a subset of individuals served in EnhanceLink, for the nine of the 10 sites who enrolled newly diagnosed persons in the client level evaluation. In addition to information about time of diagnosis, we analyzed data on initial CD4 count, use of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and linkage to care post discharge. Baseline data from newly diagnosed persons were compared to data from persons whose diagnoses predated jail admission. CLD were available for 58 newly diagnosed and 708 previously diagnosed individuals enrolled between 9/08 and 3/11. Those newly diagnosed had a significantly younger median age (34 years) when compared to those previously diagnosed (41 years). In the 30 days prior to incarceration, 11% of those newly diagnosed reported injection drug use and 29% reported unprotected anal intercourse. Median CD4 count at diagnosis was 432 cells/mL (range: 22-1,453 cells/mL). A minority (21%, N = 12) of new diagnoses started antiretroviral treatment (ART) before release; 74% have evidence of linkage to community services. Preliminary results from a cross-sectional analysis of this cohort suggest testing in jails finds individuals early on in disease progression. Most HIV(+) detainees did not start ART in jail; therefore screening may not increase pharmacy costs for jails. Detainees newly diagnosed with HIV in jails can be effectively linked to community resources. Jail-based HIV testing should be a cornerstone of "test and treat" strategies.PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(5):e37603. · 4.09 Impact Factor