Jessica Forsyth

Publications (2)34.26 Total impact

• Article: HIV testing in emergency departments in the United States: a national survey.

  Jason S Haukoos, Emily Hopkins, Amber Hull, Christian Dean, Kevin Donahoe, Christopher M Ruzas, Jessica D Bauerle, Brian Terrien, Jessica Forsyth, Brian Kalish, Mark Thrun, Richard Rothman
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published recommendations for HIV testing in health care settings, calling for nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in most settings, including emergency departments (EDs). Although a number of ED-based testing strategies exist, it is unclear to what extent they are used. The objective of this study is to survey academic and community EDs throughout the United States to determine ED-based HIV testing practices. This was a cross-sectional survey study of all academic EDs and a weighted random sample of all community-based EDs in the United States. A standardized survey instrument was developed and administered with an Internet-based survey platform, followed by direct contact and mail. The survey included domains related to perceived HIV testing barriers, whether HIV testing was performed and methods used, and familiarity with the CDC recommendations and whether they had been adopted. Of the 131 total academic sites and the 435 community sites, 99 (76%) and 150 (35%) completed the survey, respectively. A larger proportion of academic sites believed HIV testing was needed (P=.02) and a larger proportion actually provided HIV testing (65% versus 50%; P=.04). Among the academic and community EDs that provided testing, 74% and 62% performed diagnostic testing, 26% and 22% performed targeted screening, and 16% and 6% performed nontargeted screening, respectively. A larger proportion of academic EDs reported receiving external funding to support testing (23% versus 4%; P=.001), whereas a large proportion of community sites considered costs a significant barrier to testing (P=.03). A larger proportion of academic EDs reported being familiar with the 2006 CDC recommendations (64% versus 40%; P<.001), although only 26% and 37% reported having implemented any part of them, respectively. Academic EDs only make up approximately 3% of all EDs in the United States. Significant differences exist between academic and community EDs as they relate to performing HIV testing. Increased efforts should be made to improve the ability of community EDs to provide this service.
  Annals of emergency medicine 07/2011; 58(1 Suppl 1):S10-6.e1-8. · 4.23 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: coloradoemresearch.org

  Article: Routine opt-out rapid HIV screening and detection of HIV infection in emergency department patients.

  Jason S Haukoos, Emily Hopkins, Amy A Conroy, Morgan Silverman, Richard L Byyny, Sheri Eisert, Mark W Thrun, Michael L Wilson, Angela B Hutchinson, Jessica Forsyth, Steven C Johnson, James D Heffelfinger
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine (nontargeted) opt-out HIV screening in health care settings, including emergency departments (EDs), where the prevalence of undiagnosed infection is 0.1% or greater. The utility of this approach in EDs remains unknown. To determine whether nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED was associated with identification of more patients with newly diagnosed HIV infection than physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing. Quasi-experimental equivalent time-samples design in an urban public safety-net hospital with an approximate annual ED census of 55,000 patient visits. Patients were 16 years or older and capable of providing consent for rapid HIV testing. Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening and physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing alternated in sequential 4-month time intervals between April 15, 2007, and April 15, 2009. Number of patients with newly identified HIV infection and the association between nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening and identification of HIV infection. In the opt-out phase, of 28,043 eligible ED patients, 6933 patients (25%) completed HIV testing (6702 patients were screened; 231 patients were diagnostically tested). Ten of 6702 patients (0.15%; 95% CI, 0.07%-0.27%) who did not decline HIV screening in the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses, and 5 of 231 patients (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.7%-5.0%) who were diagnostically tested during the opt-out phase had new HIV diagnoses. In the diagnostic phase, of 29,925 eligible patients, 243 (0.8%) completed HIV testing. Of these, 4 patients (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.5%-4.2%) had new diagnoses. The prevalence of new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) and in the diagnostic phase was 15 in 28,043 (0.05%; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.09%) and 4 in 29,925 (0.01%; 95% CI, 0.004%-0.03%), respectively. Nontargeted opt-out HIV screening was independently associated with new HIV diagnoses (risk ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.2-10.8) when adjusting for patient demographics, insurance status, and whether diagnostic testing was performed in the opt-out phase. The median CD4 cell count for those with new HIV diagnoses in the opt-out phase (including those diagnostically tested) and in the diagnostic phase was 69/microL (IQR, 17-430) and 13/microL (IQR, 11-15) , respectively (P = .02). Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED, vs diagnostic testing, was associated with identification of a modestly increased number of patients with new HIV diagnoses, most of whom were identified late in the course of disease.
  JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2010; 304(3):284-92. · 30.03 Impact Factor