Testing for HIV: current practices in the academic ED

Factors Associated with Lack of HIV Testing among Latino Immigrant and Black Patients at 4 Geographically and Demographically Diverse Emergency Departments

The need for HIV testing in US emergency departments (EDs) has not been assessed, particularly among Latino immigrants and Blacks. We surveyed Latino immigrant and Black 18 to 64-year-old patients at 4 EDs about demographic characteristics, HIV testing history, and health literacy. A subset of patients was further surveyed on HIV risk-taking behaviors. Of the 2,265 participants, 24% had never been tested for HIV. Latino immigrants were more likely than Blacks never to have been tested for HIV (28% vs. 16%). In multivariable logistic regression, for Latino immigrants, male gender and lower health literacy were associated with no previous HIV testing. Among the 1,141-participant subset providing HIV risk-taking behavior data, 23% reported at least one risk factor and of those with at least one risk factor, 23% had never been tested for HIV. There remains a need for HIV testing among adult Latino immigrant and Black patients in US EDs.

Missed opportunities for concurrent HIV-STD testing in an academic emergency department

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated emergency department (ED) provider adherence to guidelines for concurrent HIV-sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing within an expanded HIV testing program and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with concurrent HIV-STD testing.

METHODS

We examined concurrent HIV-STD testing in a suburban academic ED with a targeted, expanded HIV testing program. Patients aged 18-64 years who were tested for syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in 2009 were evaluated for concurrent HIV testing. We analyzed demographic and clinical factors associated with concurrent HIV-STD testing using multivariate logistic regression with a robust variance estimator or, where applicable, exact logistic regression.

RESULTS

Only 28.3% of patients tested for syphilis, 3.8% tested for gonorrhea, and 3.8% tested for chlamydia were concurrently tested for HIV during an ED visit. Concurrent HIV-syphilis testing was more likely among younger patients aged 25-34 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78, 2.10) and patients with STD-related chief complaints at triage (AOR=11.47, 95% CI 5.49, 25.06). Concurrent HIV-gonorrhea/chlamydia testing was more likely among men (gonorrhea: AOR=3.98, 95% CI 2.25, 7.02; chlamydia: AOR=3.25, 95% CI 1.80, 5.86) and less likely among patients with STD-related chief complaints at triage (gonorrhea: AOR=0.31, 95% CI 0.13, 0.82; chlamydia: AOR=0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent HIV-STD testing in an academic ED remains low. Systematic interventions that remove the decision-making burden of ordering an HIV test from providers may increase HIV testing in this high-risk population of suspected STD patients.

Addressing unmet need for HIV testing in emergency care settings: a role for computer-facilitated rapid HIV testing?

HIV testing in emergency departments (EDs) remains underutilized. The authors evaluated a computer tool to facilitate rapid HIV testing in an urban ED. Randomly assigned nonacute adult ED patients were randomly assigned to a computer tool (CARE) and rapid HIV testing before a standard visit (n = 258) or to a standard visit (n = 259) with chart access. The authors assessed intervention acceptability and compared noted HIV risks. Participants were 56% nonWhite and 58% male; median age was 37 years. In the CARE arm, nearly all (251/258) of the patients completed the session and received HIV results; four declined to consent to the test. HIV risks were reported by 54% of users; one participant was confirmed HIV-positive, and two were confirmed false-positive (seroprevalence 0.4%, 95% CI [0.01, 2.2]). Half (55%) of the patients preferred computerized rather than face-to-face counseling for future HIV testing. In the standard arm, one HIV test and two referrals for testing occurred. Computer-facilitated HIV testing appears acceptable to ED patients. Future research should assess cost-effectiveness compared with staff-delivered approaches.

Missed opportunities: refusal to confirm reactive rapid HIV tests in the emergency department

Background

HIV infection remains a major US public health concern. While HIV-infected individuals now benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved treatment options, progress is tempered by large numbers of newly diagnosed patients who are lost to follow-up prior to disease confirmation and linkage to care.

Methodology

In the randomized, controlled USHER trial, we offered rapid HIV tests to patients presenting to a Boston, MA emergency department. Separate written informed consent was required for confirmatory testing. In a secondary analysis, we compared participants with reactive results who did and did not complete confirmatory testing to identify factors associated with refusal to complete the confirmation protocol.

Principal Findings

Thirteen of 62 (21.0%, 95% CI (11.7%, 33.2%)) participants with reactive rapid HIV tests refused confirmation; women, younger participants, African Americans, and those with fewer HIV risks, with lower income, and without primary care doctors were more likely to refuse. We projected that up to four true HIV cases were lost at the confirmation stage.

Conclusions

These findings underscore the need to better understand the factors associated with refusal to confirm reactive HIV testing and to identify interventions that will facilitate confirmatory testing and linkage to care among these populations.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00502944; NCT01258582.

2009 US emergency department HIV testing practices

OBJECTIVES

We characterize HIV testing practices and programs in US emergency departments (EDs) in 2009.

METHODS

A national Web-based survey of members of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium, participants in the 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-sponsored ED HIV Testing Workshops, all US academic EDs, and a weighted random sample of US community EDs with snowball sampling to recruit additional testing sites was conducted. Data collected included geographic location, estimated seroprevalence, indications for testing, method of consent, weekly number of tests, funding, and costs.

RESULTS

Of 619 sites surveyed, 338 (54.6%) responded. A total of 277 (82.0%) reported conducting any HIV testing, and 75 (22.2%) reported systematic HIV testing programs, operationally defined as having testing or screening organized at the departmental or institutional level. systematic HIV testing programs were concentrated in the Northeast, at high-volume urban EDs, and in regions with higher HIV/AIDS prevalence. Most systematic HIV testing programs had existed for less than or equal to 3 years, and nearly one third reported using an opt-out approach for consent. Among systematic HIV testing programs, the number of patients tested ranged from less than 1 to 2,100 tests per week. Overall, universal screening was the most commonly reported screening method reported overall, and rates of HIV positivity were consistently above the CDC threshold of 0.1%.

CONCLUSION

The number of EDs conducting HIV testing has grown substantially since release of the 2006 CDC HIV testing recommendations. Although many EDs have systematic HIV testing programs, the majority do not. Ongoing surveillance will be required to quantify the evolution of ED-based HIV testing and the factors that facilitate or impede expanded translation.

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

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Computer-facilitated rapid HIV testing in emergency care settings: provider and patient usability and acceptability

Providers in emergency care settings (ECSs) often face barriers to expanded HIV testing. We undertook formative research to understand the potential utility of a computer tool, "CARE," to facilitate rapid HIV testing in ECSs. Computer tool usability and acceptability were assessed among 35 adult patients, and provider focus groups were held, in two ECSs in Washington State and Maryland. The computer tool was usable by patients of varying computer literacy. Patients appreciated the tool's privacy and lack of judgment and their ability to reflect on HIV risks and create risk reduction plans. Staff voiced concerns regarding ECS-based HIV testing generally, including resources for follow-up of newly diagnosed people. Computer-delivered HIV testing support was acceptable and usable among low-literacy populations in two ECSs. Such tools may help circumvent some practical barriers associated with routine HIV testing in busy settings though linkages to care will still be needed.

Pediatric emergency department-based rapid HIV testing: adolescent attitudes and preferences

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe adolescent attitudes/preferences toward rapid HIV testing in a pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

An anonymous survey was completed by adolescents who presented to an urban PED. The survey was completed while they participated in a rapid HIV prevention/testing program. Survey questions included demographics, HIV risk factors/knowledge, prior testing experience, and attitudes/preferences toward rapid HIV testing.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen adolescents between the ages of 14 and 21 years were surveyed. Most respondents (69%) reported that the emergency department was a very high preference location for testing. Eighty percent of adolescents agreed that they were more likely to get tested for HIV if a rapid test was available. Most participants strongly agreed that it was important to receive pretest and posttest counseling for HIV. In addition, 38% strongly agreed that they preferred a same-sex counselor, whereas 9% strongly agreed that they preferred a same-ethnicity counselor. Eighty-one percent reported that they planned to get retested for HIV in the next 6 to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers valuable new insights into adolescent attitudes and preferences for rapid HIV testing in a PED. Adolescents gave high ratings to the location, testing, and counseling process. Our data support the importance of structured counseling, which is contrary to current published perspectives of counseling efficacy. In addition, we found that the PED was a highly preferred location for rapid HIV testing, which supports the need for increased development of prevention and testing programs in this setting.

HIV testing in US EDs, 1993-2004

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were to (1) estimate the incidence rates (IRs) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing among 13-year-old to 64-year-old patients in US emergency departments (EDs); (2) determine ED compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for HIV testing for patients with nonsexual blood or body fluid exposures, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and sexual assaults; and (3) ascertain if HIV testing in EDs varies by patient demographic characteristics.

METHODS

The ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey databases (1993-2004) were analyzed. Visits for nonsexual blood or body fluid exposures, STDs, and sexual assaults were identified using diagnosis and cause codes. Incidence rates for HIV testing were estimated by year. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated from multivariable logistic regression models using HIV testing as the outcome and demographic characteristics as covariates.

RESULTS

The average IR of HIV testing for 13-year-old to 64-year-old patients from 1993 to 2004 was 0.31%. Of all patients, 35.1% with nonsexual blood or body fluid exposures, 20.4% with sexual assaults, and 2.6% with STDs were tested for HIV. The HIV testing was more frequent among Hispanics (OR, 1.39 [1.06-1.81]), blacks (OR, 1.52 [1.19-1.94]), patients with Medicaid (OR, 2.35 [1.81-3.03]), Medicare (OR, 1.95 [1.20-3.16]), and self-pay/no charge/other type of insurance (OR, 1.74 [1.35-2.23]), and those visiting EDs in the northeastern United States (OR, 1.57 [1.04-2.38]).

CONCLUSIONS

The HIV testing rates are low in US EDs and have changed little for a 12-year period. Compliance with CDC recommendations for HIV testing is poor and not in accordance with risk for infection. Hispanics, blacks, and those without private health care insurance are being tested more frequently than other ED patients.

HIV testing and referral to care in U.S. hospitals prior to 2006: results from a national survey

OBJECTIVES

We sought to provide a benchmark for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing availability and practices in U.S. hospitals prior to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 2006 revised recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of nonfederal general hospitals in the U.S. in 2004. Chi-square tests detected significant associations with hospital characteristics. Questionnaires were completed electronically via a secure Internet site or on paper. Nonresponse analysis was conducted and data were weighted to adjust for nonresponse.

RESULTS

HIV testing (on the basis of clinical symptoms or behavioral risk factors) was available in more than half of hospital inpatient units (62%), employee health departments (58%), and emergency departments (57%). Twenty-three percent offered routine screening (testing for people in a defined population regardless of clinical symptoms or behavioral risk), most commonly in labor and delivery. Teaching status, region, size, and type of metropolitan area were associated with the availability of HIV testing and routine screening (p<0.01). Hospitals used a variety of methods to link patients to care: referral to a hospital-based clinic (36%); on-site, same-day evaluation (35%); and referral to an unaffiliated HIV or community clinic (42%).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals offered HIV testing on the basis of clinical suspicion or risk, but were far from meeting CDC's current recommendation to routinely test all patients aged 13 to 64. Hospital size, teaching status, and geographic location were associated with HIV testing availability and testing practices. Our understanding of current practice identifies opportunities for public health action at the practitioner, organization, and systems levels.

National estimation of rates of HIV serology testing in US emergency departments 1993-2005: baseline prior to the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations place increased emphasis on emergency departments (EDs) as one of the most important medical care settings for implementing routine HIV testing. No longitudinal estimates exist regarding national rates of HIV testing in EDs. We analyzed a nationally representative ED database to assess HIV testing rates and characterize patients who received HIV testing, prior to the release of the 2006 guidelines.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of US ED visits (1993-2005) using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was performed.

METHODS

Patients aged 13-64 years were included for analysis. Diagnoses were grouped with Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Clinical Classifications Software. Analyses were performed using procedures for multiple-stage survey data.

RESULTS

HIV testing was performed in an estimated 2.8 million ED visits (95% confidence interval, 2.4-3.2) or a rate of 3.2 per 1000 ED visits (95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.7). Patients aged 20-39 years, African-American, and Hispanic had the highest testing rates. Among those tested, leading reasons for visit were abdominal pain (9%), puncture wound/needlestick (8%), rape victim (6%), and fever (5%). The leading medication class prescribed was antimicrobials (32%). The leading ED diagnosis was injury/poisoning (30%) followed by infectious diseases (18%). Of note, 6% of those tested were diagnosed with HIV infection during their ED visits.

CONCLUSION

Prior to the release of the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for routine HIV testing in all healthcare settings, baseline national HIV testing rates in EDs were extremely low and appeared to be driven by clinical presentation.

HIV screening among U.S. physicians, 1999-2000

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) put forth recommendations for routine HIV screening for all individuals aged 13-64. The frequency and correlates of HIV screening among U.S. physicians in 2000 were examined to provide baseline data for evaluating the implementation of the 2006 CDC HIV testing guidelines through a survey mailed to a random sample of U.S. physicians in the American Medical Association's Masterfile. The primary outcome was self-reported HIV screening of asymptomatic male and nonpregnant female patients. A total of 4133 (adjusted completion rate of 70.2%) returned a completed survey. Overall, 1133 (28.4%) of physicians reported HIV screening. U.S. physicians, who were female, black, Hispanic, practiced in a city of more than 250,000 people, diagnosed HIV in the past 2 years, or followed up with patients to see if they notified their sexual partners, were more likely to screen their patients for HIV. Emergency medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists were less likely to screen than family/general practitioners. In 2000, only a quarter of U.S. physicians reported screening their patients for HIV and these rates varied by physician characteristics and practice settings.

Availability of rapid human immunodeficiency virus testing in academic emergency departments

OBJECTIVES

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening of emergency department (ED) patients aged 13 to 64 years. The study objectives were to determine the accessibility of rapid HIV testing in academic EDs, to identify factors that influence an ED's adoption of testing, and to describe current HIV testing practices.

METHODS

Online surveys were sent to EDs affiliated with emergency medicine (EM) residency programs (n = 128), excluding federal hospitals and facilities in U.S. territories. Eighty percent (n = 102) responded. Most e-mail recipients (n = 121) were Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet) investigators; remaining contacts were obtained from residency-related Web sites.

RESULTS

Most academic EDs (n = 58; 57%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 47% to 66%) offer rapid HIV testing. Among this group, 26 (45%) allow providers to order tests without restrictions. Of the other 32 EDs, 100% have policies allowing for rapid HIV testing following occupational exposures, but less than 10% have guidelines for testing in other clinical situations. Forty-seven percent expect to routinely offer HIV testing in the next 2 to 3 years. Only 59% of the EDs that offered rapid tests in any situation could link an HIV-positive patient to subspecialty care. The facility characteristic most important to availability of rapid HIV testing was the presence of on-site HIV counselors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic EDs now offer rapid HIV testing (57%), but few use it in situations other than occupational exposure. Less than half of academic EDs expect to implement CDC guidelines regarding routine screening within the next few years. The authors identified facility characteristics (e.g., counseling, ability to refer) that may influence adoption of rapid HIV testing.

Development and implementation of a model to improve identification of patients infected with HIV using diagnostic rapid testing in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) continues to expand in nontraditional risk groups, and the prevalence of undiagnosed infection remains relatively high in the patient populations of urban emergency departments (EDs). Unfortunately, HIV testing in this setting remains uncommon. The objectives of this study were 1) to develop a physician-based diagnostic rapid HIV testing model, 2) to implement this model in a high-volume urban ED, and 3) to prospectively characterize the patients who were targeted by physicians for testing and determine the proportions who completed rapid HIV counseling, testing, and referral; tested positive for HIV infection; and were successfully linked into medical and preventative care.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary group of investigators developed a model for performing physician-based diagnostic rapid HIV testing in the ED. This model was then evaluated using a prospective cohort study design. Emergency physicians identified patients at risk for undiagnosed HIV infection using clinical judgment and consensus guidelines. Testing was performed by the hospital's central laboratory, and clinical social workers performed pretest and posttest counseling and provided appropriate medical and preventative care referrals, as defined by the model.

RESULTS

Over the 30-month study period, 105,856 patients were evaluated in the ED. Of these, 681 (0.64%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.60% to 0.69%) were identified by physicians and completed rapid HIV counseling, testing, and referral. Of the 681 patients, 15 (2.2%; 95% CI = 1.2% to 3.6%) patients tested positive for HIV infection and 12 (80%; 95% CI = 52% to 96%) were successfully linked into care.

CONCLUSIONS

A physician-based diagnostic HIV testing model was developed, successfully implemented, and sustained in a high-volume, urban ED setting. While the use of this model successfully identified patients with undiagnosed HIV infection in the ED, the overall level of testing remained low. Innovative testing programs, such as nontargeted screening, more specific targeted screening, or alternative hybrid methods, are needed to more effectively identify undiagnosed HIV infection in the ED patient population.

Current HIV epidemiology and revised recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about one quarter of the 1-1.2 million persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States are unaware they are infected. Persons who do not know they are HIV infected are unable to access effective treatment and, compared with those who know they are infected with HIV, are more likely to transmit HIV to others. Pregnant women need to know if they are HIV infected so they can take steps to avoid transmitting HIV to their infants and access medical care for themselves. Despite past CDC recommendations for routine, voluntary HIV testing of all persons in acute-care hospitals with high HIV prevalence and those with risks for HIV, many HIV-infected persons who encounter the health-care system are not tested. Promoting HIV testing as a routine part of medical care is a key strategy of the CDC's Advancing HIV Prevention initiative launched in 2003. The CDC has recently revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings to help increase the number of HIV-infected Americans who are aware they are infected so they can receive prevention, care, and treatment. The new recommendations advocate voluntary "opt-out" HIV screening in health-care settings, with appropriate follow-up care and treatment; eliminating requirements for separate, written consent for HIV testing; annual retesting for persons with known risk factors; and expanded rescreening in the third trimester for women who test negative for HIV early in pregnancy. The CDC issued the revised recommendations on September 22, 2006, and is now engaged with numerous professional organizations on practical strategies for implementation.

Implementing an HIV and Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Program in an Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost of routinely recommended HIV/sexually transmitted disease screening in an urban emergency department (ED).

METHODS

From April 2003 to August 2004, patients aged 15 to 54 years were offered rapid HIV testing, and those aged 15 to 25 years were also offered gonorrhea and chlamydia testing (nucleic acid amplification), Monday through Friday, 11 am to 8 pm. Infected patients were referred for treatment and care. Prevalence, treatment rates, and cost were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 3,030 patients offered HIV testing, 1,447 (47.8%) accepted, 8 (0.6%) tested positive, and 3 (37.5%) were linked to care. Among 791 patients offered sexually transmitted disease testing, 386 (48.8%) accepted, 320 provided urine (82.9%), 48 (15.0%) tested positive, and 42 (87.5%) were treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia. The program cost was $72,928. Costs per HIV-infected patient identified and linked to care were, respectively, $9,116 and $24,309; cost per sexually transmitted disease-infected patient treated was $1,736. The program cost for HIV/sexually transmitted disease screening was only $14,340 more than if we screened only for HIV.

CONCLUSION

Through ED-based HIV/sexually transmitted disease screening, we identified and treated many sexually transmitted disease-infected patients but identified few HIV-infected patients and linked even fewer to care. However, sexually transmitted disease screening can be added to HIV screening at a reasonable cost.

Testing for HIV infection in the United States

The process by which HIV-infected individuals are tested and identified has changed with the evolving HIV epidemic and public health response. In this review, we discuss the rationale for increased HIV testing as well as the current standards in HIV diagnostics and their inherent limitations. Current policy guidelines for routine HIV testing from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are divergent. However, national momentum toward the implementation of routine HIV testing programs continues based on the efficacy and feasibility of these programs in terms of HIV case identification and on recent reports of their cost-effectiveness. As routine, voluntary HIV screening programs are established, issues surrounding consent, reporting, and stigma still persist, as does the challenge of effectively linking detected HIV cases to care.

Emergency department sexually transmitted disease and human immunodeficiency virus screening: findings from a national survey

OBJECTIVES

To use a previously conducted national physician survey to determine the extent of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted disease (STD) screening by emergency physicians compared with physicians practicing in other settings (primary care offices, hospital ambulatory care clinics, or other).

METHODS

From the survey responses, the authors determined the percentage of emergency physicians and physicians not practicing in EDs screening various patient groups for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and HIV. Additional data from the survey (for practice location, physician gender, and patient demographics of race and gender) were used in multivariate logistic regressions to determine adjusted odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Of 3,838 survey respondents providing answers to all questions analyzed for this study, 401 (10.5%) practiced in an emergency department. Of the remaining 3,437 physicians, 89% practiced in primary care offices or hospital ambulatory care clinics. Based on unadjusted ORs, emergency physicians were less likely than physicians not practicing in EDs to screen for all STDs and HIV in all patient groups (men, nonpregnant women, and pregnant women), although the differences in screening rates in male patients for chlamydia or gonorrhea were not significant. The adjusted ORs varied from 0.136 (for HIV screening of pregnant women) to 1.177 (for gonorrhea screening of pregnant women). All adjusted ORs that were significant at p < 0.05 were < 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Although prior research has shown that STD and HIV rates are relatively high in emergency department patients compared with the population as a whole, screening rates are lower than in other settings. Addressing barriers may increase screening rates.

Risk-Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing Fails to Detect the Majority of HIV-Infected Persons in Medical Care Settings

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate opportunities for earlier human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis within a comprehensive public health care system.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients between September 2001 and December 2003.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty of 348 (34%) newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients had medical care within our system in the 3 years before diagnosis. One hundred five of 120 (88%) patients had at least 1 prior encounter in the emergency department or urgent care center, whereas just 12 (10%) HIV diagnoses were made in these 2 sites. Only 33 (28%) patients previously presented with an HIV clinical indicator condition or sexually transmitted infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although one-third of newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients had clinical visits in the 3 years before diagnosis, few presented with clinical conditions typically associated with HIV infection. Targeted testing based on clinical presentations is not likely to result in substantially earlier HIV diagnosis. Routine screening in high prevalence settings could be more effective.

Health department collaboration with emergency departments as a model for public health programs among at-risk populations

OBJECTIVES

Accessing at-risk and underserved populations for intervention remains a major obstacle for public health programs. Emergency departments (EDs) care for patients not otherwise interacting with the health care system, and represent a venue for such programs. A variety of perceived and actual barriers inhibit widespread implementation of ED-based public health programs. Collaboration between local health departments and EDs may overcome such barriers. The goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a health department-funded, ED-based public health program in comparison with other similar community-based programs through analysis of data reported by health department-funded HIV counseling and testing centers in one Ohio county.

METHOD

Data for HIV counseling and testing at publicly funded sites in southwestern Ohio from January 1999 through December 2002 were obtained from the Ohio Department of Health. Demographic and risk-factor profiles were compared between the counseling and testing program located in the ED of a large, urban teaching hospital and the other publicly funded centers in the same county.

RESULTS

A total of 26,382 patients were counseled and tested; 5,232 were ED patients, and 21,150 were from community sites. HIV positivity was 0.86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64%, 1.15%) in the ED and 0.65% (95% CI 0.55%, 0.77%) elsewhere. The ED program accounted for 19.8% of all tests and 24.7% of all positive results. The ED notified 77.3% of individuals testing positive and 84.4% of individuals testing negative. At community program centers, 88.3% of patients testing positive and 63.8% of patients testing negative were notified of results. All ED patients notified of positive status were successfully referred to infectious disease specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health programs can operate effectively in the ED. EDs should have a rapidly expanding role in the national public health system.

Emergency Department HIV Testing and Counseling: An Ongoing Experience in a Low-Prevalence Area

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Despite recommendations, emergency department (ED)-based HIV screening is not widespread, and feasibility studies are generally limited to settings with high HIV prevalence (>1%). This investigation was to evaluate an ongoing, publicly funded, ED-based HIV counseling and testing program in a low-prevalence area.

METHODS

We reviewed a database of patients treated by an ED-based HIV counseling and testing program at a large, urban, teaching hospital for 1998 to 2002. ED patients at risk for HIV were targeted for standard serologic testing and counseling. Data were collected prospectively using standardized forms as part of clinical operations rather than in the context of rigorous research methodology; patient-oriented outcomes were not assessed. Counselors were trained according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, and health department guidelines for counseling and testing centers were followed. The main outcome measure was the number and proportion of patients newly diagnosed with HIV.

RESULTS

Eight thousand five hundred seventy-four patients were approached; 5,504 consented to HIV testing. Mean age was 29 years (SD 9.4 years), 76% were black, and 50% were men. Five thousand three hundred seventy-four (97.6%) patients tested negative and 39 (0.7%) patients tested positive. Seventy-five percent of negative-test patients and 79% of positive-test patients were notified of test results. Information for seropositive patients not notified of results was forwarded to the health department. All notified HIV-positive patients entered treatment. Risk factors included sexually transmitted disease (47%), multiple sexual partners (40%), unprotected sex while using drugs or alcohol (30%), men having sex with men (5%), and intravenous drug use (4%).

CONCLUSION

Identification of HIV-positive patients is possible in low-prevalence ED settings. In this instance, it was possible to perpetuate an ED-based HIV intervention program during an extended time. Although our work expands the profile of ED-based HIV counseling and testing beyond previous reports, the results should not be overgeneralized.

A Survey of Sexually Transmitted Diseases/HIV Coinfection Testing and Reporting Practices Among Health Care Providers in New Jersey

OBJECTIVES

A survey was conducted to ascertain the adherence of health care providers (HCPs) to national guidelines recommending human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing among persons with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and STD testing among HIV-infected persons.

STUDY

A random sample of HCPs reporting STD and HIV cases in New Jersey were surveyed regarding their STD/HIV testing and reporting practices.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 90 of 162 (55.5%) STD and 73 of 135 (54.1%) HIV HCPs. Sixty-six percent of STD HCPs reported offering HIV testing to persons with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis. However, up to 42.1% of HIV HCPs who managed HIV-positive patients never or almost never performed initial STD screening in these patients. Among HIV-infected patients, 36.4% of HIV HCPs reported that they never or almost never conducted annual gonorrhea or chlamydia screening in women; 48.6% never conducted screening in men.

CONCLUSIONS

Further efforts are needed to optimize the implementation of national guidelines for STD/HIV coinfection testing.

Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral: critical role of and a call to action for emergency physicians

Although the rate of new cases of HIV infection has been relatively stable during the past decade, it remains unacceptably high, with 40,000 individuals newly infected each year. In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral directed toward promoting further reduction of HIV acquisition and transmission. The guidelines give explicit emphasis to the role of emergency physicians, according to recognition that the emergency department (ED) represents the only source of medical care for many patients and often serves as the primary site for routine health care to communities at risk for HIV. Despite the time and practical limitations inherent in ED practice, many studies suggest that routine HIV counseling, testing, and referral in the ED may be feasible and effective. This article reviews those studies in the context of the most up-to-date CDC HIV counseling, testing, and referral guidelines.

Assessment of emergency department health care professionals' behaviors regarding HIV testing and referral for patients with STDs

The objective of this study was to evaluate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling, testing, and referral practices of emergency department health care professionals (i.e., medical doctors [MD], physician assistants [PA], nurse practitioners [NP], and registered nurses [RN]) for patients presenting with other sexually transmitted diseases (STD). All health care professionals from 10 emergency departments in a northeastern county were asked to complete an anonymous survey. The surveys were returned by 154 (41%) health care professionals (RN = 99, NP = 5, PA = 7, MD = 39, other = 4). The average years in practice were 11. Only 7% of respondents were certified to provide state mandated HIV pretest counseling (certification not required for MD). Respondents reported caring for an average of 13 patients per week with suspected STD. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that they always or usually warn STD patients of their HIV risk, yet only 10% always or usually encouraged these patients to consent to HIV testing in their emergency department (RN = 7%, NP = 25%, PA = 0%, MD = 16%). Reasons for not offering HIV testing in their emergency department were follow-up concerns (51%), not certified to provide pretest/posttest counseling (45%), and too time consuming (19%). Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated HIV testing was not available in their emergency department despite all hospital laboratories reporting HIV testing capability. Ninety-three percent of respondents were aware that confidential testing sites were available, but only 35% always or usually referred patients not tested in the emergency department elsewhere for testing. Emergency department health care professionals frequently fail to provide HIV counseling, testing, and/or referral for patients with suspected STD.

The extent of undiagnosed HIV infection among emergency department patients: results of a blinded seroprevalence survey and a pilot HIV testing program

This study was performed to determine the rate of previously undiagnosed HIV infection among patients presenting to an urban emergency department (ED) and to assess the feasibility of routinely offering voluntary HIV testing in this setting. HIV serostatus was determined anonymously among consecutive acute medicine and trauma ED patients (aged 18-55) who had blood drawn as part of their medical care. Excess serum was aliquoted and coded with an anonymous study code. Before performing HIV testing, the number of persons with previously reported HIV infection was determined by linkage with the state HIV/AIDS reporting registry. Concurrent with the blinded HIV serosurvey, ED patients were offered voluntary HIV testing in a pilot program. Overall, 76 of 2,155 (3.5%) adult ED patients in the blinded survey were HIV-seropositive, 15 of whom (0. 7% of those tested, 20% of those HIV-seropositive) had no infection previously reported to the state HIV/AIDS registry. In the pilot program, six of the 156 (3.8%) individuals who underwent voluntary HIV testing were HIV-seropositive, including three of 53 (5.6%) individuals without prior HIV testing. Of the six HIV-seropositive subjects, one was previously diagnosed, while five of the remaining 155 (3.2%) represented previously undiagnosed infections. Overall, 3. 5% of ED patients from whom blood was obtained for other reasons tested positive for HIV antibody, 20% of whom were previously undiagnosed. Implementation of the voluntary testing program uncovered newly diagnosed infection among 3.2% of those tested. An ED may be an important setting for routinely offering HIV testing, especially for patients who have not been previously tested for HIV.