Search

Summary HIV shared care is uncommon in the UK although shared care could be a beneficial model of care. We review the literature on HIV shared care to determine current practice and clinical, economic and patient satisfaction outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, NICE Evidence, Cochrane collaboration, Google and websites of the British HIV Association, Aidsmap, Public Health England, World Health Organization and Terrence Higgins Trust using relevant search terms in August 2014. Studies published after 2000, from healthcare settings comparable to the UK that described links between primary care and specialised HIV services were included and compared using principles of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance frameworks. Three of the nine included models reported clinical or patient satisfaction outcomes but data collection and analyses were inadequate. None reported economic outcomes although some provided financial costings. Facilitators of shared care included robust clinical protocols, training and timely communication. Few published examples of HIV shared care exist and quality of evidence is poor. There is no consistent association with improved clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness or acceptability. Models are context specific, driven by local need, although some generalisable features could inform novel service delivery. Further evaluative research is needed to determine optimal components of shared HIV care.

AimOur paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) has been using the Phillips ICCA electronic prescribing system since 2016. This system has an ‘order set’ function that allows a pre- populated list of medications to be created for use in certain situations. Potential benefits include reduced time to prescribe medications, reduced medication error rate and improved prescribing efficiency. The PICU quality improvement group and Pharmacy Informatics team created an order set for patients under 1 year of age admitted from theatre following cardiac surgery, which was implemented in June 2017. Our theatres do not use the ICCA system so as the patients are transferred with infusions running, there is a time gap where the patient has infusions running on PICU without a live prescription on ICCA. The aim of this project was to establish a reduction in the time taken for all 13 medications to be prescribed. In turn this would reduce the risk of running infusions without a live prescription.MethodsData was collected retrospectively from the ICCA system on 15 patients pre and 15 patients post the introduction of the order set. Time of admission was set when the patient was allocated a bed on ICCA. The times at which each medication was prescribed were taken directly from ICCA. A user satisfaction survey was also sent out to during the order set implementation phase.ResultsThe time taken to prescribe all 13 medications was reduced on average by 9.4 hours per patient. The average time saved per medication was 43 minutes. Pre implementation, the average time to prescribe the medications was 11.4 hours (95% CI [5.5, 17.3]). Post implementation, the time taken to prescribe the same medications was 2 hours (95% CI [0.5, 3.5]). Pre implementation, prescriptions were started at least 30 minutes (average) after the patient arrived on PICU. Post implementation, prescriptions were started 30 minutes before patient admission and completed within 30 minutes of arrival. 20 staff members completed the user satisfaction survey. The survey had a 13% return rate. 70% of users agreed or strongly agreed that using the order set function improved prescribing efficiency and 55% of users agreed or strongly agreed that the order set helped ensure appropriate doses.ConclusionImplementation of an order set for this patient group removed the risk of running infusions without a live prescription. This project is an example of how prescribing support functions within electronic prescribing packages can reduce time taken to write up medications within our unit, allowing prescribers to spend more time on other duties. Following the success of this intervention, further order sets will be created for use on our unit. A high level of clinical knowledge from the pharmacy support team and strong engagement with the clinical team was essential in creating a product that was fit for purpose. Limitations of this project are that we did not have the capability to assess a reduction in medication error. We now have increased support within the Pharmacy Informatics team to enable this for future projects.

The sexual health care of 175 HIV-positive patients attending the two HIV clinics at Barts and the London NHS Trust was audited for the first time. The audit standard was that 100% of patients should be in receipt of a sexual health screen within six months of their first HIV out-patient appointment. Overall, 44.5% of patients had a sexual health screen, of which 46 (60.5%) were diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection. Those screened were younger than those who were not. Five factors were identified which were significantly associated with not having a genitourinary screen performed; site of HIV care, setting of HIV diagnosis, stage of HIV disease, specialty of HIV physician and whether a screen was recommended by the HIV physician. A number of recommendations have been implemented to improve the uptake of sexual health screening amongst HIV-positive patients.

HIV care in the UK is led by hospital-based specialists with limited general practitioner (GP) involvement. As GPs have expertise in some non-microbial HIV-associated co-morbidities (e.g. cardiovascular disease), and more people are disclosing their HIV status to their GPs, there could be benefits in sharing HIV care. We describe contemporary models of shared HIV care in relevant developed world settings to inform future shared HIV care in the UK. An interview survey of key informants was used to explore experiences and models of shared care, and identify promoting and inhibiting factors. We interviewed ten key informants from six shared care models. There were three broad categories of shared care, with varying degrees of GP involvement. Strong clinical leadership in primary care, good professional relationships and communication, and tailored GP training were facilitators. Barriers included stigma, confidentiality concerns, and low prevalence of HIV outside major conurbations. Contemporary shared HIV care models have emerged organically and seem to work when grounded in good collaboration between a small number of dedicated GPs and specialist units. We propose two models for further study which may only be feasible in high HIV caseload practices. User acceptability, clinical and cost effectiveness must be considered.

STIF Advanced Competency was launched in October 2014 and is the second work-based training and assessment module in the STIF portfolio. It builds on the knowledge and skills acquired through completion of STIF Intermediate Competency by further developing the knowledge, skills, experience and competence of healthcare professionals to diagnose and manage sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It is designed for those who wish to lead and deliver a Level 21 standard sexual health service and hence is suitable for senior doctors from non-GUM settings such as sexual and reproductive health or primary care as well as specialist sexual health nurses in Level 3 GUM services training to become advanced nurse practitioners. Registrants for STIF Advanced must first complete STIF Intermediate as well as have a specified amount of prior clinical experience in sexual health. Each trainee must have a named clinical trainer who fulfils specifications for …

Summary We describe four patients with galactorrhoea as an isolated endocrine abnormality after use of protease inhibitors (Pis) as part of both highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). This reaction may be a direct effect of Pis or may be indirectly mediated by the effect of Pis on the cytochrome P450 system, thus potentiating the dopamine antagonist effects of other drugs.