This clinical concept paper overviews a program to facilitate access to postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. The project, which was a collaborative initiative involving the local School of Nursing, public health unit, AIDS service organization, hospital-based HIV clinic, and an outpatient pharmacy, was implemented to circumvent common barriers to care identified in the literature. In this project, persons who present to one of the two participating clinics after having come, or likely having come, into contact with HIV within the previous 72 hr, are offered rapid HIV testing, also known as point-of-care (POC) testing, to rule out existing HIV infection, and provided with a follow-up appointment booked at the HIV clinic. Clients are also offered comprehensive STI testing, and HIV prevention counseling. The implementation of this collaborative community-based access-to-PEP project demonstrates the application of research to a real-world health care setting, and it is hoped that others will adapt this model to their local setting, enabling ease of access to PEP for members of groups that are disproportionately affected by HIV.

No abstract

HIV medications can be used as post-exposure prophylaxis to efficaciously prevent an HIV-negative person who has come into contact with HIV from becoming HIV-positive. Traditionally, these medications have been available in emergency departments, which have constituted a barrier for the members of many minority groups who are greatly affected by HIV transmission (i.e. gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, and persons who use injection drugs). From 5 September 2013 through 4 September 2015, we sought to increase the use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis by having registered nurses provide these medications, when indicated, in community clinics in Ottawa, Canada. We undertook a chart review of patients who accessed services for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis in this period. Over the two years of data collection, 112 persons requested HIV post-exposure prophylaxis and 64% (n = 72) initiated these medications. Most (93%, or n = 67, of the 72 initiations) were among men, with 88% (n = 59) of these men reporting same sex sexual partners. Among these 58 men, 31% (n = 18) had sexual contact with other men known to be HIV-positive. Among women (n = 8), five initiated post-exposure prophylaxis: three after needle-sharing contact or sexual contact with a male partner who reportedly shared needles, and two after unprotected vaginal sex with a male partner known to be HIV-positive. Overall, no one was diagnosed with HIV at the four-month HIV testing follow-up, although six persons were diagnosed with HIV from the baseline HIV testing, and an additional four were diagnosed with HIV during routine HIV testing one year after completing post-exposure prophylaxis. In total, nine persons in our sample were thus diagnosed with HIV during the study period, which accounted for 9.4% (n = 10 of 106) of all reported HIV diagnoses in Ottawa during this time. We conclude that nurse-initiated HIV post-exposure prophylaxis can be an effective way to provide HIV prevention services to persons who are at high-risk for HIV.

Routine HIV surveillance cannot distinguish between recent and older infections: HIV-positive individuals reported soon or long after infection are both considered new diagnoses from a surveillance perspective, notwithstanding the time since infection. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to understand the jurisdiction-specific trends in HIV epidemiology needed for prevention planning. Previous efforts have been made to discern such timing of infection, but these methodologies are not easily applied in a public health setting. We wished to develop a simple protocol, using routinely collected information, to classify newly diagnosed infections as recent or older, and to enumerate and characterize recent versus older infections. Applying our methodology to a review of HIV cases reported between January 2011 and December 2014, we classified 62% of cases; one-third of these were recent infections. Although men who have sex with men (MSM) and persons from HIV-endemic countries (HEC) disproportionally accounted for new HIV diagnoses, the dynamics of HIV transmission within these groups differed dramatically: MSM accounted for the majority of recent infections, whereas persons from HEC accounted for the majority of older infections. Among older infections, one-quarter were previously unaware of their infection. Categorizing cases in this manner yielded greater, jurisdiction-specific understanding of HIV, and guides subpopulation-specific interventions.

Recently, focus groups and qualitative interviews with nurses who provide frontline care for persons living with HIV highlighted the contentiousness surrounding the seemingly innocuous activity of counselling clients about HIV-status disclosure, hereafter disclosure counselling. These empirical studies highlighted that while some nurses felt they should instruct clients to disclose their HIV-positive status if HIV transmission were possible, other nurses were equally adamant that such counselling was outside the nursing scope of practice. A review of these opposing perceptions about disclosure counselling, including an examination of the empirical evidence which supports each point, revealed that the dichotomous arguments needed to be nuanced. The empirical evidence about serostatus disclosure neither supported nor refuted either of these assertions; rather, it substantiated parts of each. To create this understanding, both empirical and theoretical works are used. First, the results of empirical studies about serostatus disclosure, or lack thereof and HIV transmission is presented; as part of this, Marks and Crepaz's HIV disclosure and exposure framework is examined. Second, the work of Michel Foucault on disciplinary and pastoral power is drawn from. The outcome is a nuanced understanding about the interrelationships between disclosure counselling and nursing practice and a final interpretation about what this understanding means for public health practice.