Opt-out HIV Screening Research Articles

Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in a Nurse-Driven, Opt-Out HIV Screening Program in the Emergency Department

Emergency department (ED) HIV screening is a key component of the strategy to end the HIV epidemic, reaching populations with limited access to care for screening and early diagnosis. Many screening programs rely primarily on participation from ED nurses; however, little is known about the factors affecting nurse participation in screening. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with ED nurses to explore perceptions of HIV screening, barriers and facilitators to participation, and implementation insights. Nurses were categorized as either high adopters or low adopters based on the number of HIV tests ordered 3 months prior to interviews. The Stanford Lightning Report Method, a rapid qualitative analysis approach, was used to analyze field notes. All participants generally agreed that the ED was an appropriate location for screening and that frequent, multimodal education about screening was needed. Integration of screening into standard workflows, education about the public health impact of screening, and the use of peer champions and mentors were identified as important strategies to increase participation. By incorporating these findings into implementation strategies, EDs may be able to increase nurse participation in screening, addressing important health equity issues in HIV diagnosis.

Sexually Transmitted Infection Co-testing in a Large Urban Emergency Department.

The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) increased in the United States between 2017-2021. There is limited data describing STI co-testing practices and the prevalence of STI co-infections in emergency departments (ED). In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of co-testing and co-infection of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, in a large, academic ED. This was a single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study of ED patients tested for HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia between November 27, 2018-May 26, 2019. In 2018, the study institution implemented an ED-based infectious diseases screening program in which any patient being tested for gonorrhea/chlamydia was eligible for opt-out syphilis screening, and any patient 18-64years who was having blood drawn for any clinical purpose was eligible for opt-out HIV and HCV screening. We analyzed data from all ED patients ≥13years who had undergone STI testing. The outcomes of interest included prevalence of STI testing/co-testing and the prevalence of STI infection/co-infection. We describe data with simple descriptive statistics. During the study period there were 30,767 ED encounters for patients ≥13years (mean age: 43 ± 14years, 52% female), and 7,866 (26%) were tested for at least one of HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia. We observed the following testing frequencies (and prevalence of infection): HCV, 7,539 (5.0%); HIV, 7,359 (0.9%); gonorrhea, 574 (6.1%); chlamydia, 574 (9.8%); and syphilis, 420 (10.5%). Infectious etiologies with universal testing protocols (HIV and HCV) made up the majority of STI testing. In patients with syphilis, co-infection with chlamydia (21%, 9/44) and HIV (9%, 4/44) was high. In patients with gonorrhea, co-infection with chlamydia (23%, 8/35) and syphilis (9%, 3/35) was high, and in patients with chlamydia, co-infection with syphilis (16%, 9/56) and gonorrhea (14%, 8/56) was high. Patients with HCV had low co-infection proportions (<2%). Prevalence of STI co-testing was low among patients with clinical suspicion for STIs; however, co-infection prevalence was high in several co-infection pairings. Future efforts are needed to improve STI co-testing rates among high-risk individuals.

Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Screening in Emergency Departments: Results From the Pragmatic Randomized HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments Trial

Identification of HIV remains a critical health priority for which emergency departments (EDs) are a central focus. The comparative cost-effectiveness of various HIV screening strategies in EDs remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare programmatic costs and cost-effectiveness of nontargeted and 2 forms of targeted opt-out HIV screening in EDs using results from a multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial. This economic evaluation was nested in the HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments (TESTED) trial, a multicenter pragmatic clinical trial of different ED-based HIV screening strategies conducted from April 2014 through January 2016. Patients aged 16 years or older, with normal mental status and not critically ill, or not known to be living with HIV were randomized to 1 of 3 HIV opt-out screening approaches, including nontargeted, enhanced targeted, or traditional targeted, across 4 urban EDs in the United States. Each screening method was fully integrated into routine emergency care. Direct programmatic costs were determined using actual trial results, and time-motion assessment was used to estimate personnel activity costs. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV. Total annualized ED programmatic costs by screening approach were calculated using dollars adjusted to 2023 as were costs per patient newly diagnosed with HIV. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed. The trial randomized 76,561 patient visits, resulting in 14,405 completed HIV tests, and 24 (0.2%) new diagnoses. Total annualized new diagnoses were 12.9, and total annualized costs for nontargeted, enhanced targeted, and traditional targeted screening were $111,861, $88,629, and $70,599, respectively. Within screening methods, costs per new HIV diagnoses were $20,809, $23,554, and $18,762, respectively. Enhanced targeted screening incurred higher costs but with similar annualized new cases detected compared with traditional targeted screening. Nontargeted screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 when compared with traditional targeted screening. Results were most sensitive to HIV prevalence and costs of HIV tests. Nontargeted HIV screening was more costly than targeted screening largely due to an increased number of HIV tests performed. Each HIV screening strategy had similar within-strategy costs per new HIV diagnosis with traditional targeted screening yielding the lowest cost per new diagnosis. For settings with budget constraints or very low HIV prevalences, the traditional targeted approach may be preferred; however, given only a slightly higher cost per new HIV diagnosis, ED settings looking to detect the most new cases may prefer nontargeted screening.

Evaluation of an emergency department opt-out provider-driven HIV and syphilis screening and linkage-to-care program

ObjectiveWhile the effectiveness of emergency departments (ED) in screening for HIV and syphilis is understood, less is known about dual screening programs. We aim to evaluate the impact of an opt-out provider-initiated HIV and syphilis program on screening, diagnosis, and linkage to care outcomes. MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients screened pre (2014–2017) and post (2017–2021) program implementation. Primary outcomes include HIV and syphilis screening, incidence of positive tests, and proportion of patients linked to care. Secondary outcomes included pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) referral and successful linkage rates for HIV-negative syphilis-positive patients. ResultsPre-implementation, 882 HIV tests were performed, of which 22 (2.49%) were new cases and 18 (81.82%) were linked to care; 754 syphilis tests were performed, of which 33 (4.38%) were active infections and 30 (90.91%) were treated. No eligible patients received PrEP referral. Post-implementation, 12,999 HIV tests were performed, of which 73 (0.56%) were new cases and 55 (75.34%) were linked to care; 10,885 syphilis tests were performed, of which 216 (1.98%) were active infections and 188 (87.04%) were treated. 25 (9.09%) eligible patients were referred for PrEP, and four (16.0%) attended their appointment. ConclusionsPost-implementation, there was a 1373.81% and 1343.63% increase in screening, and a 231.82% and 554.55% increase in positive cases of HIV and syphilis, respectively. Dual screening programs can be successfully implemented within the existing ED framework to increase screening and early detection for HIV and syphilis.

Concurrent Testing for COVID-19 and HIV Infection at 6 High-Volume Emergency Departments in a Priority Jurisdiction for Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in access to routine HIV screening. We assess HIV and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing across 6 emergency departments (EDs) in Cook County, Illinois. We retrospectively analyzed the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests, HIV screens, and the proportion of concurrent tests (encounters with both SARS-CoV-2 and HIV testing), correlating with diagnoses of new and acute HIV infection. Five sites reported data from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and 1 site from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021. A total of 1,13,645 SARS-CoV-2 and 36,094 HIV tests were performed; 17,469 of these were concurrent tests. There were 102 new HIV diagnoses, including 25 acute infections. Concurrent testing proportions ranged from 6.7% to 37% across sites (P < 0.001). HIV testing volume correlated with the number of new diagnoses (r = 0.66, P < 0.01). HIV testing with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing was strongly correlated with diagnosis of acute infections (r = 0.87, P < 0.001); this was not statistically significant when controlling for HIV testing volumes (r = 0.59, P = 0.056). Acute patients were more likely to undergo concurrent testing (21/25) versus other new diagnoses (29/77; odds ratio = 8.69, 95% CI: 2.7 to 27.8, P < 0.001). Incorporating HIV screening into SARS-CoV-2 testing in the ED can help maintain HIV screening volumes. Although all patients presenting to the ED should be offered opt-out HIV screening, testing individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 or other viral illness affords the opportunity to diagnose symptomatic acute and early HIV infection, rapidly link to care, and initiate treatment.

212 Emergency Department Opt-out HIV Screening Programs Influence Overall System-wide HIV Screening Increases Within a Southern Community Health System

212 Emergency Department Opt-out HIV Screening Programs Influence Overall System-wide HIV Screening Increases Within a Southern Community Health System

Development of a predictive model for identifying women vulnerable to HIV in Chicago

IntroductionResearchers in the United States have created several models to predict persons most at risk for HIV. Many of these predictive models use data from all persons newly diagnosed with HIV, the majority of whom are men, and specifically men who have sex with men (MSM). Consequently, risk factors identified by these models are biased toward features that apply only to men or capture sexual behaviours of MSM. We sought to create a predictive model for women using cohort data from two major hospitals in Chicago with large opt-out HIV screening programs.MethodsWe matched 48 newly diagnosed women to 192 HIV-negative women based on number of previous encounters at University of Chicago or Rush University hospitals. We examined data for each woman for the two years prior to either their HIV diagnosis or their last encounter. We assessed risk factors including demographic characteristics and clinical diagnoses taken from patient electronic medical records (EMR) using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We created a multivariable logistic regression model and measured predictive power with the area under the curve (AUC). In the multivariable model, age group, race, and ethnicity were included a priori due to increased risk for HIV among specific demographic groups.ResultsThe following clinical diagnoses were significant at the bivariate level and were included in the model: pregnancy (OR 1.96 (1.00, 3.84)), hepatitis C (OR 5.73 (1.24, 26.51)), substance use (OR 3.12 (1.12, 8.65)) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) chlamydia, gonorrhoea, or syphilis. We also a priori included demographic factors that are associated with HIV. Our final model had an AUC of 0.74 and included healthcare site, age group, race, ethnicity, pregnancy, hepatitis C, substance use, and STI diagnosis.ConclusionsOur predictive model showed acceptable discrimination between those who were and were not newly diagnosed with HIV. We identified risk factors such as recent pregnancy, recent hepatitis C diagnosis, and substance use in addition to the traditionally used recent STI diagnosis that can be incorporated by health systems to detect women who are vulnerable to HIV and would benefit from preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Implementing Opt-Out HIV screening in the ambulatory assessment unit: A quality improvement project

Patients infected with HIV benefit from early diagnosis, allowing initiation of highly effective treatment to reduce the risk of complications and onward infection. Current NICE guidelines recommend routine screening in all individuals accessing healthcare where the population prevalence exceeds 2/1000 1,2 . The prevalence of diagnosed HIV is 1.23/1000 in Oxfordshire. Despite this, over 30% of patients are diagnosed late with a low CD4 count. In this quality improvement project (QIP), we set out to normalise HIV testing in the ambulatory assessment unit by adopting an opt-out testing approach. Our aim was to screen 90% of patients per month by December 2020. The QIP was first established in November 2018. The second was embarked in 2019, but impeded by the recent pandemic. Our third cycle was from September 2020 toDecember 2020. The percentage of AAU patients undergoing HIV screening was recorded each month by trust data analysts. Key interventions implemented include: * Distribution of poster prompts. * Creation of a medical referral ‘autotext’ template. * Education of nursing/healthcare assistant staff. * Introduction of a multidisciplinary group of “HIV champions”

47. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on an Emergency Department Opt-out HIV Screening Program: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed tremendous challenges to health care systems, including emergency department (ED) priorities and visits. We describe the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ED-based “Opt-out” HIV testing at a public healthcare system in South Florida.MethodsThe programmatic data of ED-based HIV testing from July 2018 to March 2021 at the Memorial Regional Hospital, Hollywood, Florida was retrospectively analyzed. Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis models were developed to evaluate the immediate and gradual effects of the pandemic on the monthly number of HIV tests over time, with an interruption point at March 2020.Results45,185 HIV tests were recorded between July 2018 and March 2021. A mean of 1,745 (SD, 266) HIV tests per month before the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2018 to Feb 2020) and a mean of 791 (SD, 187) HIV tests per month during the pandemic period (March 2020 to March 2021) was seen (p< 0.0001). As shown in Table 1, there was a slight decline trend in the number of monthly HIV test before the pandemic (estimate -10.29, p=0.541). We estimated a significant decrease in monthly HIV tests (estimate -678.48, p = 0.008), whereas the slope change after the pandemic was non-significant (estimate 4.84, p = 0.891). The number of monthly HIV tests declined significantly during the early phase of the pandemic, particularly between March 2020 and September 2020 (all p< 0.05), with an estimated 48.0% decrease in the March 2020 (estimate -678.48, p = 0.007), 43% in the April 2020 (estimate -673.65, p=0.007), and 50.7% in the May 2020 (estimate -668.83, p=0.009), compared with the same month of the pre-pandemic period (Figure 1). This decline in number of monthly HIV tests is consistent with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Florida. Number of decreased monthly HIV tests from October 2020 through March 2021 was less pronounced (all p >0.05) and returned to pre-pandemic levels. ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant and immediate decline in monthly number of ED-based HIV tests. Disruption of basic health services by the COVID-19 pandemic is a public health concern. Strategies to develop an infrastructure to meet the demands of HIV testing should be implemented to ensure the current HIV prevention during the COVID-19 period. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

4th Generation HIV screening in the emergency department: net profit or loss for hospitals?

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to determine hospital costs and revenue of universal opt-out HIV ED screening. An electronic medical record (EMR)-directed, automated ED screening program was instituted at an academic medical center in San Diego, California. A base model calculated net income in US dollars for the hospital by comparing annual testing costs with reimbursements using payor mixes and cost variables. To account for differences in payor mixes, testing costs, and reimbursement rates across hospitals in the US, we performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The base model included a total of 12,513 annual 4th generation HIV tests with the following payor mix: 18% Medicare, 9% MediCal, 28% commercial and 8% self-payers, with the remainder being capitated contracts. The base model resulted in a net profit for the hospital. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, universal 4th generation HIV screening resulted in a net profit for the hospital in 81.9% of simulations. Universal 4th generation opt-out HIV screening in EDs resulted in a net profit to an academic hospital. Sensitivity analysis indicated that ED HIV screening results in a net-profit for the majority of simulations, with higher proportions of self-payers being the major predictor of a net loss.

Missed Opportunities for HIV Prevention in Perinatal Care Settings in the United States.

Universal opt-out HIV screening in pregnancy is an essential intervention toward eliminating perinatal HIV transmission in the US. However, it fails to identify pregnant people who are HIV negative at the time of testing but are at ongoing risk for HIV acquisition. Those of us involved in caring for women living with HIV are acutely aware of the many diagnoses of HIV that might have been prevented if only a partner had been tested for HIV or preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) had been offered to a patient. This perspective article will review current recommendations and evidence-based interventions to evaluate missed opportunities for HIV prevention in US perinatal care settings. We identified three barriers to implementation of HIV prevention strategies during pregnancy and breastfeeding: (1) HIV risk for women is underestimated and poorly defined in clinical practice; (2) Partner testing is challenging and implementation studies in the US are lacking; and (3) PrEP remains underutilized. In March 2020, the National Perinatal HIV Hotline convened a group of clinicians and researchers specializing in perinatal HIV care to a case-based discussion of missed opportunities in perinatal HIV prevention. From our review of the literature via PubMed search as well as expert opinions gathered in this discussion, we make recommendations for addressing these barriers.

A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Two Opt-Out HIV Testing Strategies in the Out-Patient Setting.

Background: HIV infections are generally asymptomatic, leading to undetected infections and late-stage diagnoses. There are a lack of acceptable testing strategies for routine opt-out HIV screening. Our aim was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yield of routine opt-out HIV testing strategies in two out-patient settings in a low HIV prevalence country: The public primary care and specialist out-patient care settingMethods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a primary care clinic over a four-week period in 2016 to 2017 and in a specialist out-patient clinic over a concurrent 11-month period. Patients were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, acceptance of opt-out HIV testing as a policy in all out-patient clinics in Hong Kong and reasons if refusing the HIV test. All respondents were offered an HIV test.Results: This study included 648 and 1,603 patients in the primary care and specialist out-patient clinic, respectively. Test acceptability was 86 and 87% in the primary care and specialist out-patient setting, respectively. Test uptake was 35 and 68% in the primary care and specialist out-patient setting, respectively. No HIV infections were detected.Conclusion: Opt-out HIV testing during routine blood taking in the specialist out-patient setting achieved a high test uptake and acceptability. In contrast, opt-out HIV testing using rapid finger-prick tests in the primary care setting was not effective.

968. The Impact of Opt-Out HIV Screening and Patient Navigator-Assisted Linkage to Care of Newly Diagnosed Persons with HIV in a High-Prevalence Emergency Department

BackgroundNewark is the epicenter of the HIV epidemic in New Jersey. University Hospital, the state’s only public safety net hospital, plays a critical role in identifying and linking newly diagnosed persons with HIV (PWH) to care. We previously showed that the emergency department (ED) is the most common setting for missed testing opportunities. Therefore, in 2015 we implemented a routine opt-out HIV screening and patient navigator (PN)-assisted linkage to care (LTC) protocol in the ED, and this project examined the LTC rates for newly diagnosed PWH.MethodsWe conducted an IRB-approved retrospective chart review of patients who tested positive for HIV in the ED between 2015 and 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and clinical data. Univariate and multivariate regression were used to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with LTC for newly diagnosed PWH. Age, sex, and factors with p ≤ 0.10 in the univariate analysis were included in the final model.ResultsOf the 464 patients who screened positive, 123 (26.5%) were new diagnoses. The mean age was 41.0 years (SD = 13.8); 82 (67%) male; 74 (60%) black, 26 (21%) Hispanic, 7 (6%) white. The median CD4 count was 242 (IQR = 120 - 478) cells/µL, and 10 patients (8.1%) had acute HIV infection. Six patients (4.9%) died before LTC. Among the remaining 117 patients, PN outreach resulted in scheduled appointments at the Infectious Disease Practice for 102 (87.2%). In total, 79 (67.5%) were linked to care and 38 (32.5%) were referred to the state for linkage. Of the patients linked to care, 49 (62.0%) attended their first appointment and 30 (38.0%) required additional PN outreach. Men who have sex with men (MSM) (OR = 17.2, p = 0.002) and heterosexual contact (OR = 6.3, p < 0.001) were predictive of LTC.ConclusionOur protocol resulted in LTC for the majority of newly diagnosed PWH. Among those linked to care, over a third required additional PN outreach after missing their first appointment, highlighting the importance of PN follow-up. MSM and heterosexual contact, the two highest risk factors for HIV in New Jersey, were predictive of LTC. Their successful LTC may be explained, in part, by the fact that PNs were demographically similar and lessened perceived stigma associated with entry into care.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

180 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on an Emergency Department-Based Universal Opt-Out HIV Screening Program in Atlanta, GA, 2020

Emergency department (ED) HIV screening programs are important sites for diagnosing HIV-infected individuals. Our EMR-assisted, triage-based, routine, opt-out program is based at an urban, safety-net ED where patient volume is approximately 148,000 annually and all patients presenting to the ED are offered HIV screening if eligible (18 years or older, not known to be HIV positive, not tested in prior 6 months). Georgia’s COVID-19 peak occurred April 20, 2020, right behind our hospital peak COVID-19 diagnoses on April 19, 2020.

Effect of CDC 2006 Revised HIV Testing Recommendations for Adults, Adolescents, Pregnant Women, and Newborns on State Laws, 2018.

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for HIV testing of 4 population groups in health care settings: adults, adolescents, pregnant women, and newborns. Important components of the revised recommendations included opt-out routine HIV screening; eliminating prevention counseling for opt-out routine HIV screening; repeat HIV testing in the third trimester for all women at high risk for acquiring HIV and for women receiving health care in facilities and/or jurisdictions with high HIV burden; testing during labor and delivery for women with undocumented HIV status; and testing the newborn when the mother's HIV status is unknown. To assess the integration of these testing recommendations into state laws and to inform future recommendations, we researched and assessed statutes and regulations that addressed HIV testing in the 4 population groups in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2018. We then classified the laws, based on their consistency with the recommendations for each of the 4 population groups. Of 31 states and the District of Columbia that had relevant laws, all addressed at least 1 component of the recommendations. Although no state had laws that incorporated all the recommendations for all the population groups, 5 states (Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and New Hampshire) had incorporated all the recommendations for adults and adolescents, and 4 states (Connecticut, Nevada, North Carolina, and West Virginia) had incorporated all the recommendations for pregnant women and newborns.

Testing for HIV infection in the emergency departments of 2 hospitals in the Southeastern United States.

BackgroundIn 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended non‐targeted, opt‐out HIV screening in all healthcare settings, including emergency departments (EDs). Multiple HIV testing programs have been implemented in EDs across the United States with varying designs and testing platforms. We report findings from a free, non‐targeted, rapid HIV testing program in 2 EDs in the Southeastern United States.MethodsFrom 2008 to 2012, adults ≥18 years of age were offered free rapid HIV testing using an oral swab test (OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV‐1/2 antibody test) in the EDs of a large academic medical center and an affiliated community hospital in Durham, North Carolina.ResultsIn total, 5443 ED patients were offered HIV testing. The overall acceptance rate was 66.9% (3639/5443). Younger persons were significantly more likely to accept testing (78.2% for 18–29 years old vs 67.1% for ≥30 years old; P < 0.001) as were Black participants (72.6% Black vs 66.5% White; P < 0.001). Acceptance rates improved significantly after opt‐out oral consent replaced written consent (71.3% vs 63.1%; P < 0.001). Seven new HIV diagnoses were confirmed during the testing program, resulting in a seropositivity rate of 0.19% (7/3639). There were 8 false–positive rapid oral HIV tests (positive predictive value = 46.7%).ConclusionsAlthough the number of new HIV diagnoses was low, implementation of this rapid, non‐targeted ED screening program was feasible with high acceptance rates, particularly after introducing the opt‐out oral consent approach.

1298. Analysis of Factors Influencing Consent for Opt-out HIV Screening Among High-Risk Groups Vulnerable to HIV in an Urban Emergency Department

BackgroundThe University of Illinois Hospital Emergency Department (ED) implemented routine, electronic medical record (EMR)-driven opt-out HIV screening in November 2014. Programmatic data indicated an average consent rate of 79%, similar to other ED HIV screening programs in the country. However, there is limited evidence on the role risk factors play on consent rate. The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between patients’ risk factors for HIV and the likelihood of declining screening.MethodsThe ED screening algorithm has a nontargeted and targeted component qualifying individuals based on age and presence of risk factors, respectively. We retrospectively evaluated risk factors and consent responses of high-risk individuals identified by the targeted component of the EMR algorithm between January 2017 and March 2019. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis in R to explore the association between risk factors and the likelihood of declining screening.ResultsOf 47,197 screening eligible individuals, 27,044 were high-risk among whom 12% never consented. The majority of those who never consented had no history of intravenous (IV) drug use, homelessness, unsafe sexual practices, recent sexually transmitted infection (STI) and did not identify as homosexual, bisexual or transgender. Individuals who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender (OR = 0.53), from high-risk zip code (OR = 0.77), with history of IV drug use (OR = 0.43), and with recent STI (OR = 0.60) were found to be significantly less likely to never consent compared with their counterparts. Also, patients who were male (OR = 1.14), White (OR = 1.38), Asian (OR = 1.57), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native (OR = 1.44) were significantly more likely to never consent compared with their counterparts.ConclusionOur results show that patients at high risk for HIV consent at higher rates for HIV screening in an opt-out setting. These findings suggest that while educational efforts on the importance of testing may have been successful in patients at the highest risk, additional efforts are needed to improve awareness among those who may not self-identify or be identified by medical providers as being at risk for HIV and reinforce the importance of universal screening. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

1296. Should HIV Disclosure at ED Based on Preliminary Results?

BackgroundIt is recommended that all adults presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) be offered opt out testing for HIV. There is evidence that detection of HIV infection, disclosure of infected status to the patient, and enrollment into HIV care are best accomplished during the ED visit. Any delay results in loss of patients. Among critical variables are capacities to conduct screening and confirmatory testing during the time the patient is a resident in the ED. We report on a facility where HIV screening is performed during ED patient dwell times but confirmatory results follow in ≥24h. The conundrum is whether patients found HIV positive by a screening test should be informed of the positive screening finding before confirmatory results are in hand.MethodsData obtained from a routine opt-out HIV screening program for the interval June 2017 to March 2019 conducted at the ED in Houston, Texas were evaluated. Patients between 18–65 years with Glasgow Score >9 were eligible for testing. HIV fourth-generation ADVIA Centaur™ Ag/Ab COMBO (Siemens) was used for screening. Positives screening tests were followed by Gennius™ HIV1/HIV2 confirmatory test.Results12,040 HIV fourth-generation tests were performed; 232 (1.9%) were positive; the specificity of the screening testing was 98.2%. Twenty-two (9.5%) of screening test positive individuals were found HIV false positive (Ag/Ab positive and Gennius negative). The population had a mean age of 43.8 years (21–64), was predominately female (63.6%) and white (40.9%). Further testing was completed for 14 of the 22 patients with false-positive screening tests. 13 had negative tests for HIV RNA and 1 had a second HIV Ag/Ab test with negative findings. 8 (36.3%) screening test false-positive patients could not be located after their departure from the ED.ConclusionIf patients were disclosed of their HIV-positive status because of the screening test result, approximately 10% of these individuals would have been incorrectly categorized generating significant personal and social disruption while waiting for the confirmatory result.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Universal HIV and Birth Cohort HCV Screening in San Diego Emergency Departments

Universal HIV and HCV screening in emergency departments (ED) can reach populations who are less likely to get tested otherwise. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate universal opt-out HIV and HCV screening in two EDs in San Diego. HIV screening for persons aged 13–64 years (excluding persons known to be HIV+ or reporting HIV testing within last 12 months) was implemented using a 4th generation HIV antigen/antibody assay; HCV screening was offered to persons born between 1945 and 1965. Over a period of 16 months, 12,575 individuals were tested for HIV, resulting in 33 (0.26%) new HIV diagnoses, of whom 30 (90%) were successfully linked to care. Universal screening also identified 74 out-of-care for >12-months HIV+ individuals of whom 50 (68%) were successfully relinked to care. Over a one-month period, HCV antibody tests were conducted in 905 individuals with a seropositivity rate of 9.9% (90/905); 61 seropositives who were newly identified or never treated for HCV had HCV RNA testing, of which 31 (51%) resulted positive (3.4% of all participants, including 18 newly identified RNA positives representing 2% of all participants), and 13/31 individuals (42%) were linked to care. The rate of newly diagnosed HCV infections exceeded the rate of newly diagnosed HIV infections by >7-fold, underlining the importance of HCV screening in EDs.

Acceptance of Opt-Out HIV Screening in Outpatient Settings in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In the United States, about 15% of persons living with HIV infection do not know they are infected. Opt-out HIV screening aims to normalize HIV testing by performing an HIV test during routine medical care unless the patient declines. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the acceptance of opt-out HIV screening in outpatient settings in the United States. We searched in PubMed and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for studies published from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2018, of opt-out HIV screening in outpatient settings. We collected data from selected studies and calculated for each study (1) the percentage of persons who were offered HIV testing, (2) the percentage of persons who accepted the test, and (3) the percentage of new HIV diagnoses among persons tested. We also collected information on the reasons given by patients for opting out. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model to estimate the average percentages of HIV testing offered, HIV testing accepted, and new HIV diagnoses. We initially identified 6986 studies; the final analysis comprised 14 studies. Among the 8 studies that reported the size of the study population eligible for HIV screening, 71.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9%-89.0%) of the population was offered an HIV test on an opt-out basis. The test was accepted by 58.7% (95% CI, 47.2%-70.2%) of persons offered the test. Among 9 studies that reported data on new HIV diagnoses, 0.18% (95% CI, 0.08%-0.26%) of the persons tested had a new HIV diagnosis. Patients' most frequently cited reasons for refusal of HIV screening were that they perceived a low risk of having HIV or had previously been tested. The rates of offering and accepting an HIV test on an opt-out basis could be improved by addressing health system and patient-related factors. Setting a working target for these rates would be useful for measuring the success of opt-out HIV screening programs.