HIV screening programs in US emergency departments: a cross-site comparison of structure, process, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We present findings from a multisite evaluation that systematically compares HIV screening programs in 6 emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: From 2007 to 2008, we collected previous-year data on structural factors, process attributes, testing outcomes, and cost-effectiveness from 6 ED HIV testing programs operating for 6 months or longer. We administered questionnaires to program directors, conducted site visits, and interviewed key informants. RESULTS: HIV care providers (n=3 sites), emergency physicians (n=2), or health departments (n=1) initiated the testing programs. ED leadership and providers helped design and implement the programs (n=5), and emergency physicians or administrators provided daily oversight (n=5). Testing strategies included targeted (patients selected from at-risk populations; n=2), nontargeted (patients selected without regard to risk or intention of testing all; n=3), and universal (all patients selected; n=1) screening. Testing was conducted by supplemental staff (n=4) and existing hospital staff (n=2). ED testing programs were funded by grants (n=3), city HIV prevention/care budgets (n=2), or the hospital (n=1). The median percentage of census tested was 4.7% (range 2.1% to 8.4%). The median rate of preliminary positive test results was 1.2% (range 1.0% to 7.3%). The median confirmed new HIV diagnosis rate was 0.9% (range 0.8% to 6.4%). The median linkage to care rate was 92.0% (range 50% to 100%). The median cost per patient receiving a new diagnosis and linked to care was $10,200 (range $3,400 to $12,300). CONCLUSION: Although structure and process of screening programs varied across EDs, outcomes were similar, which suggests that with current ED environments, testing methods, and resources available, the capacity and structure to increase testing in EDs has limits. These ED HIV screening programs were cost-effective according to standard thresholds.

Many physicians are willing to use patients' electronic personal health records, but doctors differ by location, gender, and practice.

Electronic personal health records could become important tools for patients to use in managing and monitoring their health information and communicating with clinicians. With the emergence of new products and federal incentives that might indirectly encourage greater use of personal health records, policy makers should understand the views of physicians on using these records. In a national survey of physicians in 2008-09, we found that although 64 percent have never used a patient's electronic personal health record, 42 percent would be willing to try. Strikingly, rural physicians expressed much more willingness to use such records compared to urban or suburban physicians. Female physicians were significantly less willing to use these tools than their male peers (34 percent versus 46 percent). Physicians broadly have concerns about the impact on patients' privacy, the accuracy of underlying data, their potential liability for tracking all of the information that might be entered into a personal health record, and the lack of payment to clinicians for using or reviewing these patient records.

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.

The value of collaboration in eliminating barriers to preventive care and screening among underserved populations.

Collaboration among a community's institutions and its residents can help increase the use of appropriate screening, preventive, and primary care services. To improve the health of the community, institutions must reach out to their colleagues and other stakeholders. They must not only deal with the structure of the healthcare delivery system but also be responsive to the characteristics of the local population groups they are trying to serve. Over the last several years, a group of 25 community-based partnerships across the country have used a multifaceted model to guide their work in making their communities healthier. Through a wide variety of initiatives tailored to local needs, they have not only improved people's health but also provided a series of benefits to the partnering organizations and the community as a whole.