Public health and clinical impact of increasing emergency department-based HIV testing: perspectives from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding perceived benefits and disadvantages of HIV testing in emergency departments (EDs) is imperative to overcoming barriers to implementation. We codify those domains of public health and clinical care most affected by implementing HIV testing in EDs, as determined by expert opinion. METHODS: Opinions were systematically collected from attendees of the 2007 National ED HIV Testing Consortium meeting. Structured evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis was conducted to assess the impact of ED-based HIV testing on public health. A modified Delphi method was used to assess the impact of ED-based HIV testing on clinical care from both individual patient and individual provider perspectives. RESULTS: Opinions were provided by 98 experts representing 42 academic and nonacademic institutions. Factors most frequently perceived to affect public health were (strengths) high volume of ED visits and high prevalence of HIV, (weaknesses) undue burden on EDs, (opportunities) reduction of HIV stigma, and (threats) lack of resources in EDs. Diagnostic testing and screening for HIV were considered to have a favorable impact on ED clinical care from both individual patient and individual provider perspectives; however, negative test results were not perceived to have any benefit from the provider's perspective. The need for HIV counseling in the ED was considered to have a negative impact on clinical care from the provider's perspective. CONCLUSION: Experts in ED-based HIV testing perceived expanded ED HIV testing to have beneficial impacts for both the public health and individual clinical care; however, limited resources were frequently cited as a possible impediment. Many issues must be resolved through further study, education, and policy changes if the full potential of HIV testing in EDs is to be realized.

Nomenclature and definitions for emergency department human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing: report from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.

Early diagnosis of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through diagnostic testing and screening is a critical priority for individual and public health. Emergency departments (EDs) have an important role in this effort. As EDs gain experience in HIV testing, it is increasingly apparent that implementing testing is conceptually and operationally complex. A wide variety of HIV testing practice and research models have emerged, each reflecting adaptations to site-specific factors and the needs of local populations. The diversity and complexity inherent in nascent ED HIV testing practice and research are associated with the risk that findings will not be described according to a common lexicon. This article presents a comprehensive set of terms and definitions that can be used to describe ED-based HIV testing programs, developed by consensus opinion from the inaugural meeting of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium. These definitions are designed to facilitate discussion, increase comparability of future reports, and potentially accelerate wider implementation of ED HIV testing.

Characteristics of patient care management problems identified in emergency department morbidity and mortality investigations during 15 years.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe cases referred for physician review because of concern about quality of patient care and identify factors that contributed to patient care management problems. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 636 cases investigated by an emergency department physician review committee at an urban public teaching hospital over a 15-year period. At referral, cases were initially investigated and analyzed, and specific patient care management problems were noted. Two independent physicians subsequently classified problems into 1 or more of 4 major categories according to the phase of work in which each occurred (diagnosis, treatment, disposition, and public health) and identified contributing factors that likely affected outcome (patient factors, triage, clinical tasks, teamwork, and system). Primary outcome measures were death and disability. Secondary outcome measures included specific life-threatening events and adverse events. Patient outcomes were compared with the expected outcome with ideal care and the likely outcome of no care. RESULTS: Physician reviewers identified multiple problems and contributing factors in the majority of cases (92%). The diagnostic process was the leading phase of work in which problems were observed (71%). Three leading contributing factors were identified: clinical tasks (99%), patient factors (61%), and teamwork (61%). Despite imperfections in care, half of all patients received some benefit from their medical care compared with the likely outcome with no care. CONCLUSION: These reviews suggest that physicians would be especially interested in strategies to improve the diagnostic process and clinical tasks, address patient factors, and develop more effective medical teams. Our investigation allowed us to demonstrate the practical application of a framework for case analysis. We discuss the limitations of retrospective cases analyses and recommend future directions in safety research.

Detecting unsuspected HIV infection with a rapid whole-blood HIV test in an urban emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare HIV screening and provider-referred diagnostic testing as strategies for detecting undiagnosed HIV infection in an urban emergency department (ED). METHODS: From January 2003 through April 2004, study staff offered HIV screening with rapid tests to ED patients regardless of risks or symptoms. ED providers could also refer patients for diagnostic testing. Patients aged 18 to 54 years without known HIV infection were eligible. RESULTS: Of 4849 eligible patients approached for screening, 2824 (58%) accepted and were tested; 414 (95%) of 436 provider-referred patients accepted and were tested. Thirty-five (1.2%) screened patients and 48 (11.6%) provider-referred patients were infected with HIV (P < 0.001). Of these, 18 (51%) screened patients and 24 (50%) referred patients reported no traditional risk factors; 27 (77%) screened patients and 38 (79%) referred patients entered HIV care. Of HIV-infected patients with CD4 cell counts available, 14 (45%) of 31 screened patients and 37 (82%) of 45 provider-referred patients had <200 cells/microL (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ED screening detects HIV infection and links to care patients who may not be tested through risk- or symptom-based strategies. The diagnostic yield was higher among provider-referred patients, but screening detected patients earlier in the course of disease.

Comparison of point-of-care rapid HIV testing in three clinical venues.

Rapid HIV testing with same-visit results should increase the number of individuals who know they are HIV infected. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of point-of-care rapid testing in three public venues, a sexually transmitted disease clinic, a county jail, and an emergency department. Over 98% of all participants received their results, and 82% of newly identified HIV-positive participants entered care. Point-of-care rapid testing was feasible, acceptable, and may improve entry into care.