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.

HIV disease in primary care.

During the past decade, a large number of new drugs for treating HIV and its complications have been developed. The increasingly sophisticated use of these drugs in combination has led to a marked reduction in HIV-related morbidity and mortality in countries where they are available. HIV/AIDS patients receiving treatment are now expected to live into old age. The beneficial effect of HIV treatment has resulted in an expanding population of persons living with HIV/AIDS who will need the care of an HIV specialist because of the complexity of the treatment regimens and the rapidly changing HIV/AIDS knowledge base. However, this growing and aging population will also benefit from the care of a primary care physician. The primary care generalist is in the best position to recognize and diagnose HIV infection, evaluate HIV risk in his or her patient population, and help prevent HIV infection in persons at risk. In patients known to be infected, the primary care generalist will be best able to manage hyperlipidemia, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other disorders of an aging population with an increased risk of these and other conditions. Patients with HIV infection frequently accumulate a large number of specialist physicians, and the unique ability of the primary care physician to monitor their care and act as a knowledgeable patient advocate is a great benefit to the patient.