Search

Objective: Universal HIV screening is recommended but challenging to implement. Selectively targeting those at risk is thought to miss cases, but previous studies are limited by narrow risk criteria, incomplete implementation, and absence of direct comparisons. We hypothesized that targeted HIV screening, when fully implemented and using maximally broad risk criteria, could detect nearly as many cases as universal screening with many fewer tests., Methods: This single-center cluster-randomized trial compared universal and targeted patient selection for HIV screening in a lower prevalence urban emergency department. Patients were excluded for age (<18 and >64 years), known HIV infection, or previous approach for HIV testing that day. Targeted screening was offered for any risk indicator identified from charts, staff referral, or self-disclosure. Universal screening was offered regardless of risk. Baseline seroprevalence was estimated from consecutive deidentified blood samples., Results: There were 9572 eligible visits during which the patient was approached. For universal screening, 40.8% (1915/4692) consented with 6 being newly diagnosed [0.31%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13% to 0.65%]. For targeted screening, 37% (1813/4880) had no testing indication. Of the 3067 remaining, 47.4% (1454) consented with 3 being newly diagnosed (0.22%, 95% CI: 0.06% to 0.55%). Estimated seroprevalence was 0.36% (95% CI: 0.16% to 0.70%). Targeted screening had a higher proportion consenting (47.4% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.002), but a lower proportion of ED encounters with testing (29.7% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.002)., Conclusions: Targeted screening, even when fully implemented with maximally permissive selection, offered no important increase in positivity rate or decrease in tests performed. Universal screening diagnosed more cases, because more were tested, despite a modestly lower consent rate.

Objective: Differences in the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV between different types of emergency departments (EDs) are not well understood. We seek to define missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis within 3 geographically proximate EDs serving different patient populations in a single metropolitan area., Methods: For an urban academic, an urban community, and a suburban community ED located within 10 miles of one another, we reviewed visit records for a cohort of patients who received a new diagnosis of HIV between July 1999 and June 2003. Missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis were defined as ED visits in the year before diagnosis, during which there was no documented ED HIV testing offer or test. Outcomes were the number of missed opportunity visits and the number of patients with a missed opportunity for each ED. We secondarily reviewed medical records for missed opportunity encounters, using an extensive list of indications that might conceivably trigger testing., Results: Among 276 patients with a new HIV diagnosis, 123 (44.5%) visited an ED in the year before diagnosis or received a diagnosis in the ED. The urban academic ED HIV testing program diagnosed 23 (8.3%) cases and offered testing to 24 (8.7%) patients who declined. Missed opportunities occurred during 187 visits made by 76 (27.5%) patients. These included 70 patients with 157 visits at the urban academic ED, 9 patients with 24 visits at the urban community ED, and 4 patients with 6 visits at the suburban community ED. Medical records were available for 172 of the 187 missed opportunity visits. Visits were characterized by the following potential testing indicators: HIV risk factors (58; 34%), related diagnosis indicating risk (7; 4%), AIDS-defining illness (8; 5%), physician suspicion of HIV (29; 17%), and nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness potentially consistent with HIV (126; 73%)., Conclusion: Geographically proximate EDs differ in their opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis, but all 3 sites had missed opportunities. Many ED patients with undiagnosed HIV have potential indications for testing documented even in the absence of a dedicated risk assessment, although most of these are nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness that may not be clinically useful selection criteria., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc.)