HIV screening in emergency departments/process/modelRoutine, Rapid HIV Testing of Medicine Service Admissions in the Emergency Department
Introduction
Although few reports document the extent to which the 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines have been followed for patients admitted to the hospital, research does demonstrate the efficacy of screening inpatients for HIV.1 Mehta et al2 described screening patients for HIV in different clinical venues, including inpatient wards, where HIV prevalence was found to be 1.2%. Few of these inpatients with newly diagnosed disease had documented behavioral risks that would have prompted risk-based HIV testing. That study also found seropositivity for inpatients to be twice that of patients tested in the emergency department (ED).2 Walensky et al3 also reported screening for HIV among medicine inpatients at an urban Boston-area hospital, comparing testing rates for the program period versus a preceding historical control period. That initiative increased inpatient testing rates 3.4-fold, from a baseline of 2% to 6.4% of medicine admissions tested, and yielded a 3.8% prevalence of undiagnosed HIV in low-risk patients who otherwise would not have been tested. Extrapolation to all 72 similar urban public hospitals in the United States, were routine HIV testing instituted for all inpatients, was estimated to potentially identify 30,000 additional HIV patients annually.
Routine inpatient HIV screening has also been shown to be cost-effective. Researchers estimate inpatient screening to cost $38,600 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, comparing favorably with other commonly used preventive health screening interventions (eg, annual mammograms cost approximately $58,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained).4, 5
ED rapid HIV testing programs have also been shown to facilitate care of newly identified HIV inpatients.6 Our group previously reported that inpatients receiving a new diagnosis of HIV in the ED by rapid testing had shorter lengths of stay and were less likely to be discharged unaware of their HIV serostatus compared with inpatients tested conventionally on the medicine floor.7
The 2009 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference convened a group of emergency medicine experts who identified major research goals for ED-based HIV prevention efforts.8 Seventy-seven percent believed that investigating targeted screening techniques to improve testing efficiency was a high priority. We describe our effort to perform ED-based, targeted HIV screening of patients awaiting admission.
Although admitted patients may represent a population with a high proportion of previously undiagnosed HIV, to our knowledge no previous reports describe implementation of an ED-based program of rapid HIV testing and early linkage to care targeting patients slated for hospital admission.6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Section snippets
Setting
We initiated a targeted, rapid HIV screening program in the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County adult ED beginning March 2008. The John H. Stroger ED has an annual census of 130,000 and provides safety-net care to adult Chicago-area patients. Screening patients waiting for admission represents a “targeted screening” approach, as defined by the 2007 Conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.14
Selection of Participants
Targeted screening was implemented in a 2-step process according
Results
Between March 1, 2008, and February 28, 2009, John H. Stroger ED red team health educators performed rapid HIV tests for 4,755 patients, including patients admitted to the hospital and those discharged directly from the ED, newly diagnosing disease for 30 (0.6%) patients with confirmed HIV infection. Three patients tested falsely positive, resulting in a test specificity of 99.9% (95% confidence interval 99.8% to 99.9%) and positive predictive value of 90.9% (95% confidence interval 74.5% to
Limitations
Our project had several important limitations. Although we tested a relatively high proportion of eligible admitted patients, during the 12-month testing period 64% of eligible medicine admissions did not receive ED testing. These missed testing opportunities related to the limited testing capacity of our health educator–based program compared with integrated testing strategies using existing ED staff.13 Although we attempted to perform targeted HIV testing of patients awaiting admission,
Discussion
Previous studies suggest that inpatients may have a higher proportion of undiagnosed HIV compared with the general public and even perhaps compared with the general ED population.2 This report supports targeted testing of high-acuity ED patients as an effective tool for identifying patients with previously undiagnosed HIV who are awaiting medicine admission. In our ED, patients who received a new diagnosis were more likely to be younger than HIV-negative patients and were more likely to be
References (15)
- et al.
Routine human immunodeficiency virus testing: an economic evaluation of current guidelines
Am J Med
(2005) - et al.
Results of a rapid HIV screening and diagnostic testing program in an urban emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(2009) - et al.
Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
(2006) - et al.
Patient risks, outcomes, and costs of voluntary HIV testing at five testing sites within a medical center
Public Health Rep
(2008) - et al.
Identifying undiagnosed human immunodeficiency virus: the yield of routine, voluntary inpatient testing
Arch Intern Med
(2002) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of HIV testing and treatment in the United States
Clin Infect Dis
(2007) - et al.
Detecting unsuspected HIV infection with a rapid whole-blood HIV test in an urban emergency department
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
(2007)
Cited by (12)
Evaluation of hidden HIV infections in an urban ED with a rapid HIV screening program
2016, American Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Opt-out approaches for HIV test (at the point of triage and by the clinical staff) could help overcome at least some of those gaps. Alternatively, addition of scaled-up routine inpatient screening programs for all ED admitted patients could minimize potential missed ED opportunity for identifying those with undiagnosed infections [19]. In our own ED, that could have resulted in an additional 31 undiagnosed infections (or 51% of the total undiagnosed who were not offered) being detected.
HIV care continuum for HIV-infected emergency department patients in an inner-city academic emergency department
2015, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :For the HIV Care Continuum, we propose consideration of 3 new stages that are particularly relevant for ED populations in this study, namely, provider awareness of HIV diagnosis, patient receiving antiretroviral treatment—patient self-aware, and viral load suppression—patient self-aware. Provider awareness of HIV diagnosis is well recognized to be important for ED clinical management decisions and has been previously reported to affect clinical decisionmaking.48,49 Patient self-awareness of receiving antiretroviral therapy may be relevant for ED management decisions (including referral for treatment, potential medication-related complications, or contraindications for medications prescribed in the ED).
Processes and models for HIV screening in the emergency department: Can and should we do this?
2011, Annals of Emergency MedicineSuboptimal HIV testing among patients admitted with pneumonia: A missed opportunity
2017, AIDS Education and Prevention
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). This project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA. Gilead had no input or influence on the implementation of the program or over the content of this article. Dr. Lubelchek serves on a speaker's bureau for Gilead Sciences Inc., Foster City CA. For all other authors no disclosures.
Publication of this article was supported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.