These guidelines are an update for 2015 of the 2008 UK guidelines for the management of syphilis. The writing group have piloted the new BASHH guideline methodology, notably using the GRADE system for assessing evidence and making recommendations. We have made significant changes to the recommendations for screening infants born to mothers with positive syphilis serology and to facilitate accurate and timely communication between the teams caring for mother and baby we have developed a birth plan. Procaine penicillin is now an alternative, not preferred treatment, for all stages of syphilis except neurosyphilis, but the length of treatment for this is shortened. Other changes are summarised at the start of the guideline.
Objectives People living with HIV (PLWH) have multidimensional concerns requiring person‐centred care. Routine use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) improves outcomes. No brief PROM currently reflects the breadth of concerns for PLWH. This study sought to identify priority outcomes for PLWH, model current practice, explore views on introducing PROMs into routine care, and devise a model for person‐centred care incorporating the PROM. Methods A cross‐national multi‐centre study (London, Brighton and Dublin) was carried out. Semi‐structured qualitative interviews with adult PLWH, HIV health care professionals and HIV commissioners (responsible for planning and commissioning services) were performed. Interviews were analysed using thematic and framework analysis. Results PLWH (n = 28), professionals (n = 21) and commissioners (n = 8) described concerns related to living with HIV across six domains: physical (e.g. pain and gastrointestinal symptoms), cognitive (e.g. memory and sleep), psychological (e.g. anxiety and depression), social (e.g. isolation and intimacy), welfare (e.g. finances and fears regarding change of immigration status), and information (e.g. long‐term outcomes) needs. Themes were highly inter‐related, impacting across domains of need (e.g. physical and cognitive problems impacting on psychological and social wellbeing). Perceived benefits of using PROMs in routine HIV care included improved person‐centredness, patient empowerment, fewer missed concerns, increased engagement with services, and informed planning of services. Potential challenges included heterogeneity of PLWH, literacy, and utility for those who struggle to engage with care. Conclusions This study presents a novel model of person‐centred care incorporating an HIV‐specific PROM. The model reflects priorities of key stakeholders. Explicit use of PROMs in routine HIV care could afford benefits for PLWH, clinical teams and commissioners.
ObjectivesRoutine HIV testing in nonspecialist settings has been shown to be acceptable to patients and staff in pilot studies. The question of how to embed routine HIV testing, and make it sustainable, remains to be answered. MethodsWe established a service of routine HIV testing in an emergency department (ED) in London, delivered by ED staff as part of routine clinical care. All patients aged 16 to 65 years were offered an HIV test (latterly the upper age limit was removed). Meetings were held weekly and two outcome measures examined: test offer rate (coverage) and test uptake. Sustainability methodology (process mapping; plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles) was applied to maximize these outcome measures. ResultsOver 30 months, 44 582 eligible patients attended the ED. The mean proportion offered an HIV test was 14%, varying from 6% to 54% per month over the testing period. The mean proportion accepting a test was 63% (range 33-100%). A total of 4327 HIV tests have been performed. Thirteen patients have been diagnosed with HIV infection (0.30%). PDSA cycles having the most positive and sustained effects on the outcome measures include the expansion to offer blood-based HIV tests in addition to the original oral fluid tests, and the engagement of ED nursing staff in the programme. ConclusionsHIV testing can be delivered in the ED, but constant innovation and attention have been required to maintain it over 30 months. Patient uptake remains high, suggesting acceptability, but time will be required before true embedding in routine clinical practice is achieved.Keywords: HIV testing, Emergency Department, non-specialist settings, sustainability methodology, feasibility, acceptability Accepted 12 June 2013 IntroductionThe UK HIV epidemic is characterized by a high proportion of late-stage diagnoses, and of a persistently high proportion of undiagnosed infections [1]. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence follows that from the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV, and the British HIV Association, in calling for more widespread testing, including routine HIV testing in general medical settings in areas where HIV prevalence exceeds 0.2% [2][3][4][5].The HIV Testing in Non-traditional Settings (HINTS) study was one of several Department of Health-funded studies commissioned to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of implementing these guidelines. Routine HIV testing services were established in four contexts, all in high-prevalence areas in London, UK: an emergency department (ED), an acute assessment unit, an out-patient department, and a primary care centre. Over SHORT COMMUNICATION 6 4 months, 6194 patients were offered HIV tests (51% of all age-eligible patients). The uptake was 67%, with 4105 tests performed. Eight individuals (0.19%) were newly diagnosed with HIV infection and all were transferred to care. Of 1003 questionnaire respondents, the offer of an HIV test was acceptable to 92%. In all settings, additional specialist staff and/or infrastructura...
An opt out BBV testing program in the ED is feasible and effective at finding new cases. However, the testing rate was low at 24%. Although QI interventions led to some improvement in testing rates, further studies are required to identify ways to achieve sustained increases in testing in this setting.
ObjectivesEuropean guidelines recommend HIV testing for individuals presenting with indicator conditions (ICs) including AIDS‐defining conditions (ADCs). The extent to which non‐HIV specialty guidelines recommend HIV testing in ICs and ADCs is unknown. Our aim was to pilot a methodology in the UK to review specialty guidelines and ascertain if HIV was discussed and testing recommended.Methods UK and European HIV testing guidelines were reviewed to produce a list of 25 ADCs and 49 ICs. UK guidelines for these conditions were identified from searches of the websites of specialist societies, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) website, the NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries (CKS) website, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidance Network (SIGN) website and the British Medical Journal Best Practice database and from Google searches.ResultsWe identified guidelines for 12 of 25 ADCs (48%) and 36 of 49 (73%) ICs. In total, 78 guidelines were reviewed (range 0–13 per condition). HIV testing was recommended in six of 17 ADC guidelines (35%) and 24 of 61 IC guidelines (39%). At least one guideline recommended HIV testing for six of 25 ADCs (24%) and 16 of 49 ICs (33%). There was no association between recommendation to test and publication year (P = 0.62).ConclusionsThe majority of guidelines for ICs do not recommend testing. Clinicians managing ICs may be unaware of recommendations produced by HIV societies or the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection among these patients. We are piloting methods to engage with guideline development groups to ensure that patients diagnosed with ICs/ADCs are tested for HIV. We then plan to apply our methodology in other European settings as part of the Optimising Testing and Linkage to Care for HIV across Europe (OptTEST) project.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.