Nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the ED, vs diagnostic testing, was associated with identification of a modestly increased number of patients with new HIV diagnoses, most of whom were identified late in the course of disease.

Targeted screening remains an important approach to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing. The authors aimed to derive and validate an instrument to accurately identify patients at risk for HIV infection, using patient data from a metropolitan sexually transmitted disease clinic in Denver, Colorado (1996-2008). With multivariable logistic regression, they developed a risk score from 48 candidate variables using newly identified HIV infection as the outcome. Validation was performed using an independent population from an urban emergency department in Cincinnati, Ohio. The derivation sample included 92,635 patients; 504 (0.54%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The validation sample included 22,983 patients; 168 (0.73%) were diagnosed with HIV infection. The final score included age, gender, race/ethnicity, sex with a male, vaginal intercourse, receptive anal intercourse, injection drug use, and past HIV testing, and values ranged from -14 to +81. For persons with scores of <20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and ≥50, HIV prevalences were 0.31% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.45) (n = 27/8,782), 0.41% (95% CI: 0.29, 0.57) (n = 36/8,677), 0.99% (95% CI: 0.63, 1.47) (n = 24/2,431), 1.59% (95% CI: 1.02, 2.36) (n = 24/1,505), and 3.59% (95% CI: 2.73, 4.63) (n = 57/1,588), respectively. The risk score accurately categorizes patients into groups with increasing probabilities of HIV infection.

Study objective A clinical prediction tool, the Denver HIV Risk Score, was recently developed to help identify patients with increased probability of undiagnosed HIV infection. Our goal was to compare targeted rapid HIV screening using the Denver HIV Risk Score to nontargeted rapid HIV screening in an urban emergency department (ED) and urgent care. Methods We used a prospective, before-after design at an urban medical center with an approximate annual census of 110,000 visits. Patients aged 13 years or older were eligible for screening. Targeted HIV screening of patients identified as high-risk by nurses using the Denver HIV Risk Score during medical screening was compared to nontargeted HIV screening offered by medical screening nurses during 2 separate 4-month time periods. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV-infected patients. Results 28,506 patients presented during the targeted phase, 1,718 were identified as high-risk, and 551 completed HIV testing. Of these, 7 (1.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5% to 2.6%) were newly diagnosed with HIV infection. 29,510 patients presented during the nontargeted phase and 3,591 completed HIV testing. Of these, 7 (0.2%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%) were newly diagnosed with HIV infection. Targeted HIV screening was significantly associated with identification of newly diagnosed HIV infection when compared to nontargeted screening, adjusting for patient demographics and payer status (relative risk [RR] 10.4, 95% CI 3.4 to 32.0). Conclusion Targeted HIV screening using the Denver HIV Risk Score was strongly associated with new HIV diagnoses when compared to nontargeted screening. Although both HIV screening methods identified the same absolute number of newly diagnosed patients, significantly fewer tests were required during the targeted phase to achieve the same effect.

Study objective The Institute of Medicine has called on the US health care system to identify and reduce medical errors. Unfortunately, medication dosing errors remain commonplace and may result in potentially life-threatening outcomes, particularly for pediatric patients when dosing requires weight-based calculations. Novel medication delivery systems that may reduce dosing errors resonate with national health care priorities. Our goal was to evaluate novel, prefilled medication syringes labeled with color-coded volumes corresponding to the weight-based dosing of the Broselow Tape, compared with conventional medication administration, in simulated pediatric emergency department (ED) resuscitation scenarios. Methods We performed a prospective, block-randomized, crossover study in which 10 emergency physician and nurse teams managed 2 simulated pediatric arrest scenarios in situ, using either prefilled, color-coded syringes (intervention) or conventional drug administration methods (control). The ED resuscitation room and the intravenous medication port were video recorded during the simulations. Data were extracted from video review by blinded, independent reviewers. Results Median time to delivery of all doses for the conventional and color-coded delivery groups was 47 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI] 40 to 53 seconds) and 19 seconds (95% CI 18 to 20 seconds), respectively (difference=27 seconds; 95% CI 21 to 33 seconds). With the conventional method, 118 doses were administered, with 20 critical dosing errors (17%); with the color-coded method, 123 doses were administered, with 0 critical dosing errors (difference=17%; 95% CI 4% to 30%). Conclusion A novel color-coded, prefilled syringe decreased time to medication administration and significantly reduced critical dosing errors by emergency physician and nurse teams during simulated pediatric ED resuscitations.

No abstract

Computerized kiosks can be successfully used to perform nontargeted rapid HIV screening in EDs. However, when using this approach, patient understanding of opt-in consent is significantly better than opt-out consent.

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends nontargeted opt-out HIV screening in healthcare settings. Cost effectiveness is critical when considering potential screening methods. Our goal was to compare programmatic costs of nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening with physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing in an urban emergency department (ED) as part of the Denver ED HIV Opt-Out Trial.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study nested in a larger quasi-experiment. Over 16 months, nontargeted rapid HIV screening (intervention) and diagnostic rapid HIV testing (control) were alternated in 4-month time blocks. During the intervention phase, patients were offered HIV testing using an opt-out approach during registration; during the control phase, physicians used a diagnostic approach to offer HIV testing to patients. Each method was fully integrated into ED operations. Direct program costs were determined using the perspective of the ED. Time-motion methodology was used to estimate personnel activity costs. Costs per patient newly-diagnosed with HIV infection by intervention phase, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated.ResultsDuring the intervention phase, 28,043 eligible patients were included, 6,933 (25%) completed testing, and 15 (0.2%, 95% CI: 0.1%–0.4%) were newly-diagnosed with HIV infection. During the control phase, 29,925 eligible patients were included, 243 (0.8%) completed testing, and 4 (1.7%, 95% CI: 0.4%–4.2%) were newly-diagnosed with HIV infection. Total annualized costs for nontargeted screening were $148,997, whereas total annualized costs for diagnostic HIV testing were $31,355. The average costs per HIV diagnosis were $9,932 and $7,839, respectively. Nontargeted HIV screening identified 11 more HIV infections at an incremental cost of $10,693 per additional infection.ConclusionsCompared to diagnostic testing, nontargeted HIV screening was more costly but identified more HIV infections. More effective and less costly testing strategies may be required to improve the identification of patients with undiagnosed HIV infection in the ED.

Objectives Casual review of existing literature reveals a multitude of individualized approaches to emergency department (ED) HIV testing. Cataloging the operational options of each approach could assist translation by disseminating existing knowledge, endorsing variability as a means to address testing barriers, and laying a foundation for future work in the area of operational models and outcomes investigation. The objective of this study is to provide a detailed account of the various models and operational constructs that have been described for performing HIV testing in EDs. Methods Systematic review of PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Web of Science through February 6, 2009 was performed. Three investigators independently reviewed all potential abstracts and identified all studies that met the following criteria for inclusion: original research, performance of HIV testing in an ED in the United States, description of operational methods, and reporting of specific testing outcomes. Each study was independently assessed and data from each were abstracted with standardized instruments. Summary and pooled descriptive statistics were reported by using recently published nomenclature and definitions for ED HIV testing. Results The primary search yielded 947 potential studies, of which 25 (3%) were included in the final analysis. Of the 25 included studies, 13 (52%) reported results using nontargeted screening as the only patient selection method. Most programs reported using voluntary, opt-in consent and separate, signed consent forms. A variety of assays and communication methods were used, but relatively limited outcomes data were reported. Conclusion Currently, limited evidence exists to inform HIV testing practices in EDs. There appears to be recent progression toward the use of rapid assays and nontargeted patient selection methods, with the rate at which reports are published in the peer-reviewed literature increasing. Additional research will be required, including controlled clinical trials, more structured program evaluation, and a focus on an expanded profile of outcome measures, to further improve our understanding of which HIV testing methods are most effective in the ED.