HIV Testing In Emergency Department Research Articles

Feasibility of a selective targeted strategy of HIV testing in emergency departments: a before-after study.

The rates of hidden infection and late diagnosis of HIV still remain high in Western countries. Missed diagnostic opportunities represent the key point in changing the course of the epidemic. To evaluate the feasibility and results of implementation of a selective strategy to test for HIV in the emergency department (ED) in patients with six pre-defined medical situations: sexually transmitted infections, herpes zoster, community-acquired pneumonia, mononucleosis syndrome, practice of chemsex (CS) or request of post-exposure prophylaxis. This quasi-experimental longitudinal study evaluated the pre- and post-implementation results of HIV testing in the six aforementioned clinical scenarios. Patients attended 34 Spanish EDs. The intervention was an intensive educational program and pathways to facilitate and track orders and results were designed. We collected and compared pre- and post-implementation ED census and diagnoses, and HIV tests requested and results. The main outcome was adherence to the recommendations. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the effectiveness of the program by the rate of positive test and the new HIV diagnoses. Differences between first and second periods were assessed. The magnitude of changes (absolute and relative) was expressed with the 95% confidence interval (CI). HIV tests increasing from 7080 (0.42% of ED visits) to 13 436 (relative increase of 75%, 95% CI from 70 to 80%). The six conditions were diagnosed in 15 879 and 16 618 patients, and HIV testing was ordered in 3393 (21%) and 7002 (42%) patients (increase: 97%; 95% CI: 90-104%). HIV testing significantly increased for all conditions except for CS. The positive HIV test rates increased from 0.92 to 1.67%. Detection of persons with undiagnosed HIV increased from 65 to 224, which implied a 220% (95% CI: 143-322%) increase of HIV diagnosis among all ED comers and a 71% (95% CI: 30-125%) increase of positive HIV tests. Implementation of a strategy to test for HIV in selective clinical situations in the ED is feasible and may lead to a substantial increase in HIV testing and diagnoses.

High-level compliance to opt-out HIV testing in the emergency department (ED) of a large teaching hospital using the biochemistry sample as the sample type for HIV screening.

HIV remains a key public health issue. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and British HIV Association guidance recommends that patients should be offered HIV testing when admitted to hospital or attending emergency departments (EDs) in areas with a prevalence ≥ 2 per 1000. We report a novel method of testing and the first 3-year results from our HIV ED testing programme utilizing biochemistry samples for HIV testing, with the aim of improving uptake while ensuring no changes to clinical practice in EDs. Routine ED HIV testing was implemented on 1 October 2018; it was initially opt-in and was subsequently changed to opt-out on 1 February 2019. HIV testing was added to all ED blood test order sets and was performed on the biochemistry samples of those aged 18-59 years. The age range was extended to include those aged 16+ years on 1 March 2021 along with a move to notional consent. A total of 78 333 HIV tests were performed from an estimated 110 683 attendees who had bloods taken in the same age range, demonstrating an overall 69.5% testing coverage. On implementation of opt-out testing after the first 4 months, the proportion of tests increased (from 57.9% to 69%). After increase in age range to 16+ years and a move to notional consent, the overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%. Of 1054 reactive results, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, eight (0.8%) were not contactable, two (0.2%) re-tested elsewhere and three (0.3%) declined a re-test. A total of 259 false-positives were determined by follow-up testing and 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed with HIV. An HIV diagnosis was suspected in only 22%, and 48% had never previously tested for HIV. An opt-out HIV testing programme with notional consent and using biochemistry samples within the ED is feasible, acceptable and provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or have never tested before.

“I Didn’t Know What They’re Gonna Do to Me: So That’s Why I Said No”: Why Youth Decline HIV Testing in Emergency Departments

Youth between the ages of 13 and 24 account for over 20% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States but are the least likely age group to be HIV tested in healthcare settings including the emergency department. This is in part due to the fact that almost 50% of youth decline testing when offered. We elucidated youth patients’ perspectives on barriers to and facilitators of routine HIV testing of youth in an urban emergency department setting. Thirty-seven patients aged 13–24 years were recruited from the pediatric and adult emergency departments at a high-volume hospital in New York City from August 2019 to March 2020. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with all participants. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Youths’ main reasons for declining HIV testing when offered included low risk perception, privacy concerns, HIV-related stigma, and low levels of HIV-related knowledge. Participants’ responses suggested that HIV educational materials provided when testing is offered may be insufficient. Participants recommended providing additional HIV education and better incorporating HIV testing into the emergency department routine to increase testing among youth. Efforts are needed to help youth recognize their own HIV risk and increase their HIV-related knowledge. This may be accomplished by providing youth with additional educational materials on HIV, possibly via tablet-based interventions or other methods that may enhance privacy, combined with discussions with healthcare providers. Such efforts may help increase HIV testing acceptance among youth seen in the emergency department.

Changing HCW attitudes: a case study of normalizing HIV service delivery in emergency departments

ABSTRACTBackgroundDelays in the implementation of evidence-based practices are significant and ubiquitous, compromising health outcomes. Resistance to change is a key factor in hindering adoption and integration of new evidence-based interventions. This study seeks to understand the impact of exposure to HIV testing within a research context on provider attitudes towards HIV counselling and testing (HCT) in emergency departments (ED).MethodsThis is a pre-and-post study design measuring the effect of a new ED-based HCT intervention, conducted by lay counsellors, on provider attitudes in Eastern Cape, South Africa. A validated, anonymized, 7-item survey was self-completed by routine care providers (physicians, nurses, and case managers). Questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 consistently reflecting a positive attitude. Mean scores were calculated for each question and compared using a two-sample t-test to assess change in sample means for attitudes among providers surveyed before and after the intervention.ResultsA total of 132 surveys were completed across three EDs. Majority of respondents were female (70.5%), 20–29 years old (37.9%), of African race (81.1%), nurses (39.4%), and practicing medicine for 0–4 years (37.9%). Pre-intervention, providers displayed a positive attitude towards ‘the benefit of offering ED-based HCT to patients’ (4.33), ‘the ED offering HCT’ (3.53), ‘all ED patients receiving HCT’ (3.42), ‘concern about patient reaction to HCT’ (3.26), and ‘comfort with disclosing HCT results’ (3.21); and a mildly negative attitude towards ‘only high-risk ED patients receiving HCT’ (2.68), and ‘the burden of offering HCT in a clinical environment’ (2.80). Post-intervention, provider attitudes improved significantly towards ‘all ED patients receiving HCT’ (3.86, p < 0.05), ‘only high-risk ED patients receiving HCT’ (2.30, p < 0.05), ‘the burden of offering HCT in a clinical environment’ (3.21, p < 0.05), and ‘comfort with disclosing HCT results’ (3.81, p < 0.05).ConclusionsControlled exposure to new practices with a structured implementation period can shift attitudes beginning a process of practice normalization. In our study, we observed improvements in provider attitudes regarding the benefits of HCT and the burden of offering HCT to all patients in the ED. Research activities may have a role in mitigating resistance to change and supporting intervention adoption.

71. Using Quality Improvement Methodology to Increase Guideline-Compliant HIV Testing in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Adolescents newly diagnosed with HIV often have had interactions with the medical system in the year prior to diagnosis, potentially representing missed opportunities for HIV testing, earlier linkage to care, and prevention of HIV transmission. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines recommend that persons aged 13 and above be screened for HIV at least once, and that all patients seeking evaluation for STIs should be offered screening for HIV, including each visit for a new complaint. This project aimed to use quality improvement methodology and iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to increase rates of guideline-compliant HIV testing for adolescents presenting to a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Consentimento informado para a testagem do HIV em unidades de pronto-socorro e direitos humanos dos pacientes: à procura de equilíbrio

Abstract HIV exceptionalism refers to the fact that the illness is so different from other diseases that testing needs a special approach to informed consent. HIV infected people often visit health clinics, especially emergency departments, years before receiving a diagnosis without being tested for HIV. There is considerable public interest in increasing HIV testing in emergency departments. However, because these departments are sensitive environments that primarily provide urgent and emergency care, a number of ethical questions have been raised about the appropriateness of these settings for the implementation of universal screening programs. Human rights in patient care therefore constitutes an essential theoretical framework for analyzing ethical and legal dilemmas that arise in clinical encounters, thus strengthening the application of human rights principles to the context of patient care.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HIV testing rates across four geographically diverse urban centres in the United States: An observational study

BackgroundNon-emergent clinical services were limited or suspended during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States (U.S.). This could adversely impact epidemics of public health importance, such as HIV, and access to testing, which is a cornerstone of prevention efforts.MethodsIn this observational study, we collected HIV testing and positivity rate clinical data from four geographically diverse U.S. healthcare systems in New Orleans, Louisiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Providence, Rhode Island; and, Seattle, Washington. Data from 2019 to 2020 were examined to assess changes in HIV testing in community-based, emergency department, and outpatient settings. Poisson regression was used to explore trends in HIV testing through phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsIn outpatient settings, there was a 68-97% reduction in the number of HIV tests per week during each state's stay-at-home order period, compared to during the pre-stay-at-home order period in early 2020. HIV testing remained reduced 11-54% after states transitioned to advisory phases. The HIV positivity rate increased slightly at outpatient settings, except in New Orleans where it fell.InterpretationWe found a concerning trend of substantially decreased HIV testing across four geographically diverse sites. These findings suggest that new HIV infections within the U.S. may be undiagnosed and not yet linked to clinical care and services, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, augmented efforts to identify patients and link them to HIV services will be needed as healthcare settings return to full operation.FundingU.S. National Institute of Mental Health.

HIV testing among people with and without substance use disorder in emergency departments: A nationwide cohort study.

To determine HIV testing trends during emergency department (ED) visits among those with and without substance use disorder (SUD) and examine factors associated with test receipt. We identified individuals age ≥ 15 with an ED visit between 2014 and 2018 in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a representative sample of United States ED visits. We examined HIV testing trends by SUD status and used multivariable logistic regression accounting for NHAMCS's complex survey design to identify factors associated with HIV testing. We identified 6399 SUD and 75,498 non-SUD ED visits. Of SUD visits, 1.4% [95% Confidence Interval (95%CI 0.9-1.9)] resulted in HIV testing compared to 0.6% (95%CI 0.4-0.7) of non-SUD visits. During the second half of the study (Q3, 2016 - Q4, 2018), HIV testing increased from 1.1% (95%CI 0.6-1.6) to 1.7% (95%CI 1.0-2.5) among those with SUD and from 0.5% (95%CI 0.3-0.6) to 0.6% (95%CI 0.5-0.8) among those without SUD. In adjusted models, SUD status was associated with increased odds of HIV testing [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 1.6 (95%CI 1.1-2.2)]. Those receiving toxicology testing (AOR 2.2, 95%CI 1.6-3.2), Black (AOR 3.6, 95%CI 2.6-4.9) and Hispanic people (AOR 2.7, 95%CI 1.9-3.7), insured by Medicaid (AOR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.2) or self-pay (AOR 1.7, 95%CI 1.1-2.8), and with venipuncture (AOR 3.0, 95%CI 2.2-4.1) also had greater odds of HIV testing. HIV testing in the ED was rare, but slightly more common in individuals with SUD. Efforts to increase ED HIV testing among people with SUD are needed.

The importance of content and choice in a technology-based intervention to increase HIV testing

ABSTRACT Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends routine HIV testing in emergency departments and other facilities, many patients are never offered testing, and those who are offered testing frequently decline. In response, our team developed and evaluated a series of differently configured technology-based interventions to explore how we can most effectively increase HIV testing among reluctant patients. The current study examines how different videos (onscreen physician vs. onscreen community member), and different intervention configurations (enabling some participants to select a video while others are assigned to watch a video or to view bullet-point text), could potentially increase self-efficacy to test for HIV among patients who had never tested. Analyses of data from 285 emergency department patients in New York City who declined HIV testing offered by hospital staff indicated that participants reported highly significant differences in self-efficacy depending on their history of previous testing, whether they were enabled to select a video or were assigned a video, and which video they watched. Participants who reported no previous testing reported significantly lower pre-test self-efficacy compared to those who had tested at least once before. Among those who had not previously tested, the greatest pre-post increases in self-efficacy were reported by participants who were randomly enabled to select an intervention video and chose to watch video depicting a physician. Our findings highlight the importance, not only of intervention content, but how that content is delivered to specific participants. These findings may inform more effective technology-based behavioral health interventions.

955. Addressing Gaps and Disparities in HIV testing in the Emergency Department

BackgroundEarly diagnosis of HIV is key to improving outcomes for persons living with HIV (PWH). The Emergency Department (ED) is a critical site for PWH to access care. Previous studies in South Carolina (SC) have shown that two-thirds of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV have visited a health care facility a mean 7 times prior to their HIV diagnosis. Over 80% of these visits were to the ED, thus representing missed opportunities. Failure to test results from a multitude of barriers, including avoidance of testing due to a perceived lack of follow up. To address this gap in care we established a rapid HIV engagement team (RHET) that assumes responsibility for post-HIV testing linkage and reporting. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study compared HIV testing rates and patterns in Prisma Health EDs from May 2018 through October 2018 (pre-RHET) to 5/2019 through 10/2019 (post-RHET). Included persons were ≥18 years of age and had ICD-10 codes for a sexually transmitted infection (STI), trichomonas, herpes simplex, and gonorrhea (GC) or Chlamydia (CT) NAAT, and/or presented with an initial complaint of a STI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to examine impact of RHET implementation on HIV testing in ED.ResultsA total of 4104 individuals were identified, 2154 pre-RHET and 1950 post-RHET. Table 1 displays baseline characteristics for the two groups. Overall, 87% had GC testing; 9% had positive results; 95% had CT testing, 12.6% had positive results. Only 6% were tested for HIV pre-RHET implementation. HIV testing improved to 12% post-PHET implementation (p< 0.001). In the multivariate regression analysis predictors for HIV testing were presenting post-RHET (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.81 to 2.85), male gender (OR 2.98; 95% CI 2.39 to 3.73), white race (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.81 to 2.85), and presenting to ED for STI (OR 3.58; 95% CI 2.03 6.33).ConclusionHIV testing rates increased post-RHET yet, despite indications for HIV testing, only a small proportion received HIV testing. Further interventions are needed to improve HIV testing in EDs, particularly in women and blacks. The overall HIV testing rate remained low, representing ongoing missed opportunities for early HIV diagnosis.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Implementation of Targeted Point of Care HIV Testing in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Introduction:HIV infection rates are increasing among adolescents. Despite guidelines recommending annual HIV screening among sexually active adolescents, 3.6% of adolescents tested for other sexually transmitted infections (STI) in a pediatric emergency department (PED) were screened for HIV. The aim was to increase HIV screening to 90%.Methods:Interventions were designed to address 4 key drivers thought to be critical in reliably offering HIV testing. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of adolescents offered HIV testing among those being tested for common STIs. Statistical process control charts were used to measure performance over time and differentiate common versus special cause variation.Results:We instituted point of care (POC) HIV testing in the PED in January 2012. The proportion of STI tested patients offered HIV testing was increased to >87% and sustained this performance. Implementation of a clinical decision support tool had the highest impact. The majority offered testing agreed, and the most common reason for refusal was a recent negative test. We identified eleven HIV positive patients over 5 years. Eight were newly diagnosed, and 3 had prior positive tests but were not connected to care. All 11 were successfully connected to providers with HIV care expertise.Conclusions:POC HIV testing is feasible, acceptable, and sustainable in a PED setting. The implementation of targeted HIV POC testing in the PED increased the number of HIV tests being offered, the number of high-risk patients being screened, and the number diagnosed and connected to care.

Patients’ response to an emergency department-based HIV testing program and perception of their friends’ attitudes on HIV testing among patients seeking care at an urban emergency department in Baltimore, Maryland, USA

BackgroundLittle is known regarding the possible role of social network members and peer attitudes on emergency department (ED) patients’ willingness to be tested for HIV. MethodsWe conducted mixed methods in-depth interview and quantitative survey with ED patients from November 2013 to June 2014 to assess peer and personal perceptions of ED-based HIV testing. Patients enrolled were asked about their own attitudes toward HIV testing as well as those of their friends. Interviews were transcribed and categories that captured free responses in the verbatim were independently coded by two reviewers. ResultsOverall, 86 patients were enrolled including 22 HIV known positive. Among 64 HIV-negative participants, 50 were tested during the past 12 months and 4 had never been tested. The majority (82.5%) of participants thought that their friends were likely to accept HIV testing in EDs. Participants discussed their perceptions of friends’ attitudes toward HIV testing: the majority (60%) believed their friends held positive attitudes about HIV testing. The majority of participants believed that their friends had positive feelings about HIV testing and were likely to accept testing in ED settings. ConclusionsInterventions utilizing peer networks to promote HIV testing and increase testing acceptance could be designed and explored.

Developing an Accident and Emergency HIV Testing Program in Belize City: Recommendations from Key Stakeholders.

With the ultimate goal of developing an accident and emergency (A&E) department HIV testing program in Belize City, Belize, we sought input from key stakeholders on program components and potential facilitators and barriers to HIV testing in emergency care. We conducted semistructured interviews among 4 key stakeholder groups at Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital Authority (KHMHA) in Belize City: (1) 20 A&E patients, (2) 5 A&E physicians, (3) 5 A&E nurses, and (4) 5 KHMHA administrators. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts and isolated important themes. Major themes included: (1) Patient selection: patients preferred to test all A&E patients. All other stakeholder groups preferred testing specific patient groups. (2) Training: Specific training should be completed for staff. (3) Confidentiality: integral for testing. (4) Facilitators and barriers: facilitators included respectful relationships, privacy, resources, coordination, and education. Barriers included stigmatization, patient willingness, inadequate resources, privacy, and testing biases.

1273. Routine Opt-out HIV Screening and Detection of HIV Infection Among Emergency Department Patients

BackgroundThe Southeastern United States bears a disproportionate burden of HIV infection, accounting for nearly half of all new cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released routine opt-out testing recommendations in 2006. Our emergency department collaborated with our infectious diseases clinic (ECU-ID) to implement suggested guidelines among adults since March 2017.MethodsOur primary aim was to implement routine, opt-out HIV testing in the Vidant Medical Center Emergency Department (ED) for patients between 18 and 65 years of age who have blood work completed, and have not had a test documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) in the last year. A secondary aim was to successfully link HIV-positive patients to care at ECU-ID or preferred clinic. Methods defining programmatic success included developing nurse directed opt-out ordering protocol, integrating testing into normal ED workflow, utilizing the existing EMR to prompt testing, and hiring a linkage coordinator to initiate post-test counseling and linkage-to-care.ResultsSince March 2, 2017, a total of 7,109 HIV tests were performed; an average of 592 monthly tests conducted compared with a previous average of 10 stat tests. Testing increased 5,820% compared with 2015. Of the 21 HIV-positive patients found, 16 were newly diagnosed. Among those newly diagnosed, 14 (87.5%) were linked to care; and among the five known positives, two (40%) were linked to care. Reasons why patients could not be linked included incarceration, refusal to link to care, and re-location.ConclusionJoined with the implementation of a routinized ED HIV testing program, a seamless process was developed to link persons found to be positive in the ED to HIV care services; therefore, establishing a systems-level prevention model. Future plans include expanding testing to adolescents and utilizing similar methods to integrate Hepatitis C testing.Disclosures All Authors. Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Grant Investigator, Grant recipient and Salary.

Analysis of HIV testing refusal among patients aged less than 21 years in the Pediatric Emergency Department

HIV testing in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) is a novel concept as adolescents, and young adults, use the PED as point of care or first point of contact with the health care system. Our objective was to study the HIV nontesting data and factors that influenced testing decision among patients receiving care in our PED. We designed a survey that inquired about testing acceptance, reasons for rejection, satisfaction with testing conditions, and understanding of the consequence of HIV test results. We approached 500 patients across all shifts in the PED; for analysis, categorical variables were created using demographic data (race, age, ethnicity, marital status, level of education). Forward conditional binary logistic regression was used to explore the effect of various independent predictors on HIV testing rejection with the strength of association measured with adjusted odds ratio (OR), and their 95% CIs. We conducted model fitting by plotting residuals, Hosmer and Lemeshow test statistic, and area under the curve completed using predicted probabilities. We used SPSS Version 25™, Microsoft Excel 2016™ for data preparation and analysis. Of the 500 patients approached, 423 (84.6%) completed the survey, median (interquartile) age of survey participants was 19 (17–20) years, 158 (37.4%) rejected HIV testing, 284 (67.1%) were older than 18 years of age, 200 (47.3%) were males, 154 (36.4%) were white, and 127 (30%) were of Hispanic origin. The most common reason for rejecting HIV was low risk perception declared by 79 (50%) respondents. In multivariate analysis, age <18 years (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.3–5.5, P<0.00) and being Hispanic (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.6–3.8, P<0.00) were significant predictors for respondent nontesting. Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not significant, P=0.42, and area under the curve was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61–0.76). Respondents, <18 years were more likely to reject HIV testing because of low perception of risk. Program addressing risk perception which emphasizes safe health practices should be developed to reduce HIV transmission.

Implementing routine blood-borne virus testing for HCV, HBV and HIV at a London Emergency Department - uncovering the iceberg?

UK guidelines recommend routine HIV testing in high prevalence emergency departments (ED) and targeted testing for HBV and HCV. The 'Going Viral' campaign implemented opt-out blood-borne virus (BBV) testing in adults in a high prevalence ED, to assess seroprevalence, uptake, linkage to care (LTC) rates and staff time taken to achieve LTC. Diagnosis status (new/known/unknown), current engagement in care, and severity of disease was established. LTC was defined as patient informed plus ⩾1 clinic visit. A total of 6211/24 981 ED attendees were tested (uptake 25%); 257 (4.1%) were BBV positive (15 co-infected), 84 (33%) required LTC. 100/147 (68%) HCV positives were viraemic; 44 (30%) required LTC (13 new, 16 disengaged). 26/54 (48%) HBV required LTC (seven new, 11 disengaged). 16/71 (23%) HIV required LTC (10 new, five disengaged). 26/84 (31%) patients requiring LTC had advanced disease (CD4 1, Fibroscan F3/F4 or liver cancer), including five with AIDS-defining conditions and three hepatocellular carcinomas. There were five BBV-related deaths. BBV prevalence was high (4.1%); most were HCV (2.4%). HIV patients were more successfully and quickly LTC than HBV or HCV patients. ED testing was valuable as one-third of those requiring LTC (new, disengaged or unknown status patients) had advanced disease.

HIV testing in a South African Emergency Department: A missed opportunity.

BackgroundSouth Africa has the largest HIV epidemic in the world, with 19% of the global number of people living with HIV, 15% of new infections and 11% of AIDS-related deaths. Even though HIV testing is mandated in all hospital-based facilities in South Africa (SA), it is rarely implemented in the Emergency Department (ED). The ED provides episodic care to large volumes of undifferentiated who present with unplanned injury or illness. Thus, the ED may provide an opportunity to capture patients with undiagnosed HIV infection missed by clinic-based screening programs.Methods and findingsIn this prospective exploratory study, we implemented the National South African HIV testing guidelines (counselor initiated non-targeted universal screening with rapid point of care testing) for 24-hours a day at Frere Hospital in the Eastern Cape from September 1st to November 30th, 2016. The purpose of our study was to quantify the burden of undiagnosed HIV infection in a South African ED setting. Furthermore, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the nationally recommended HIV testing strategy in the ED. All patients who presented for care in the ED during the study period, and who were clinically stable and fully conscious, were eligible to be approached by HIV counseling and testing (HCT) staff to receive a rapid point-of-care HIV test. A total of 2355 of the 9583 (24.6%) patients who presented to the ED for care during the study period were approached by the HCT staff, of whom 1714 (72.8%) accepted HIV testing. There was a high uptake of HIV testing (78.6%) among a predominantly male (58%) patient group who mostly presented with traumatic injuries (70.8%). Four hundred (21.6%) patients were HIV positive, including 115 (6.2%) with newly diagnosed HIV infection. The overall prevalence of HIV infection was twice as high in females (29.8%) compared to males (15.4%). Both sexes had a similar prevalence of newly diagnosed HIV infection (6.0% for all females and 6.4% for all males) in the ED.ConclusionsOverall there was high HIV testing acceptance by ED patients. A non-targeted testing approached revealed a high HIV prevalence with a significant burden of undiagnosed HIV infection in the ED. Unfortunately, a counselor-driven HIV testing approach fell short of meeting the testing needs in this setting, with over 75% of ED patients not approached by HCT staff.

Hospital-based routine HIV testing in high-income countries: a systematic literature review.

To produce a summary of the published evidence of the barriers and facilitators for hospital-based routine HIV testing in high-income countries. Electronic databases were searched for studies, which described the offer of HIV testing to adults attending emergency departments (EDs) and acute medical units (AMUs) in the UK and US, published between 2006 and 2015. Other high-income countries were not included, as their guidelines do not recommend routine testing for HIV. The main outcomes of interest were HIV testing uptake, HIV testing coverage, factors facilitating HIV screening and barriers to HIV testing. Fourteen studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and critically appraised using mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). HIV testing coverage ranged from 9.7% to 38.3% and 18.7% to 26% while uptake levels were high (70.1-84% and 53-75.4%) in the UK and US, respectively. Operational barriers such as lack of time, the need for training and concerns about giving results and follow-up of HIV positive results, were reported. Patient-specific factors including female sex, old age and low risk perception correlated with refusal of HIV testing. Factors that facilitated the offer of HIV testing were venous sampling (vs. point-of-care tests), commitment of medical staff to HIV testing policy and support from local HIV specialist providers. There are several barriers to routine HIV testing in EDs and AMUs. Many of these stem from staff fears about offering HIV testing due to the perceived lack of knowledge about HIV. Our systematic review highlights areas which can be targeted to increase coverage of routine HIV testing.

1 Patient acceptability and feasibility of HIV testing in emergency departments in the UK – a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundNICE 2016 HIV testing guidelines now include the recommendation to offer HIV testing in Emergency Departments, in areas of high prevalence,1 to everyone who is undergoing blood tests. 23% of...

Linkage-to-care Methods and Rates in U.S. Emergency Department-based HIV Testing Programs: A Systematic Literature Review Brief Report.

An increasing number of U.S. emergency departments (EDs) have implemented ED-based HIV testing programs since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued revised HIV testing recommendations for clinical settings in 2006. In 2010, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) set an linkage-to-care (LTC) rate goal of 85% within 90 days of HIV diagnosis. LTC rates for newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients vary markedly by site, and many are suboptimal. The optimal approach for LTC in the ED setting remains unknown. The objective was to perform a brief descriptive analysis of the LTC methods practiced in EDs across the United States to determine the overall linkage rate of ED-based HIV testing programs. We conducted a systematic review of literature related to U.S. ED HIV testing in the adult population using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane. There were 333 articles were identified; 31 articles were selected after a multiphasic screening process. We analyzed data from the 31 articles to assess LTC methods and rates. LTC methods that involved physical escort of the newly diagnosed patient to an HIV/infectious disease (ID) clinic or interaction with a specialist health care provider at the ED were operationally defined as "intensive" LTC protocol. "Mixed" LTC protocol was defined as a program that employed intensive linkage only part of the coverage hours. All other forms of linkage was defined as "nonintensive" LTC protocol. An LTC rate of ≥85% was used to identify characteristics of ED-based HIV testing program associated with a higher LTC rate. There were 37 ED-based HIV testing programs in the 31 articles. The overall LTC rate was 74.4%. Regarding type of protocol, nine (24.3%) employed intensive LTC protocols, 25 (67.6%) nonintensive, two (5.4%) mixed, and one (2.7%) with unclear protocols. LTC rates for programs with intensive and nonintensive LTC protocols were 80.0 and 72.7%, respectively. Four (44.4%) with intensive protocols and nine (36.0%) with the nonintensive protocols had LTC rates>85%. The linkage staff employed was different between ED programs. Among them, 25 (67.6%) programs used exogenous staff, 10 (27.0%) used the ED staff, and two had no information. All the programs in the nonintensive group utilized drop-in HIV/ID clinic or medical appointments while seven of nine of the programs in the intensive group physically escorted the patients to the initial medical intake appointment. There were no significant differences in characteristics of ED-based HIV testing programs between those with ≥85% LTC rate versus those with <85% within the intensive or nonintensive group. Intensive LTC protocols had a higher LTC rate and a higher proportion of programs that surpassed the >85% NHAS goal compared to nonintensive methods, suggesting that, when possible, ED-based HIV testing programs should adopt intensive LTC strategies to improve LTC outcomes. However, intensive LTC protocols most often required involvement of multidisciplinary non-ED professionals and external research funding. Our findings provide a foundation for developing best practices for ED-based HIV LTC programs.