Dataset Information

Comparison of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test fundamentals by information delivery format in an emergency department setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Two trials were conducted to compare emergency department patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test information using different methods to deliver this information.

Methods

Patients were enrolled for these two trials at a US emergency department between February 2005 and January 2006. In Trial One, patients were randomized to a no pre-test information or an in-person discussion arm. In Trial Two, a separate group of patients were randomized to an in-person discussion arm or a Tablet PC-based video arm. The video, "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?", and the in-person discussion contained identical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-suggested pre-test information components as well as information on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick. Participants were compared by information arm on their comprehension of the pre-test information by their score on a 26-item questionnaire using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

In Trial One, 38 patients completed the no-information arm and 31 completed the in-person discussion arm. Of these 69 patients, 63.8% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 66.7% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the in-person discussion arm was higher than for the no information arm (18.7 vs. 13.3, p < or = 0.0001). In Trial Two, 59 patients completed the in-person discussion and 55 completed the video arms. Of these 114 patients, 50.9% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 68.4% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the video arm was similar to the in-person discussion arm (20.0 vs. 19.2; p < or = 0.33).

Conclusion

The video "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?" appears to be an acceptable substitute for an in-person pre-test discussion on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick. In terms of adequately informing ED patients about rapid HIV testing, either form of pre-test information is preferable than for patients to receive no pre-test information.

SUBMITTER: Merchant RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2080636 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test fundamentals by information delivery format in an emergency department setting.

Merchant Roland C RC Gee Erin M EM Clark Melissa A MA Mayer Kenneth H KH Seage George R GR Degruttola Victor G VG

BMC public health 20070912

<h4>Background</h4>Two trials were conducted to compare emergency department patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test information using different methods to deliver this information.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were enrolled for these two trials at a US emergency department between February 2005 and January 2006. In Trial One, patients were randomized to a no pre-test information or an in-person discussion arm. In Trial Two, a separate group of patients were randomized to an in-person discussion ...[more]

PMID: 17850670

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTraditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED trigger tool using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance.MethodsIn design and participants, we studied the ED trigger tool for a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 years and older with Emergency Severity Index acuity levels of 1 to 3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of predefined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival or in the ED, an act of commission or omission, and are assigned one of four event categories. A second-level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false-negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic and clinical factors and triggers. We present sociodemographic data and details about AEs and results of logistic regression for associations of AEs with of triggers, sociodemographics, and clinical variables.ResultsWe captured 2594 visits that are representative, within site, of their patient population. Overall, the sample is 64% white, 54% female, and with a mean age of 51. Variability is observed between sites for age, race, and insurance, but not sex. A total of 240 events were identified in 228 visits (8.8%) of which 53.3% were present on arrival, 19.7% were acts of omission, and 44.6% were medication-related, with some variability across sites. A MERP F score (contributing to need for admission, higher level of care, or prolonged hospitalization) was the most common severity level (35.4% of events). Overall, 185 (77.1%) of 240 events involved patient harm (MERP level ≥ E), affecting 175 visits (6.7%). Triggers were present in 951 visits (36.6%). Presence of any trigger was strongly associated with an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 3.2-6.6). Ten triggers were individually associated with AEs (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1-7.7). Variability was observed across sites in individual trigger associations, event rates, and categories, but not in severity ratings of events. The overall false-negative rate was 6.1%.ConclusionsThe trigger tool approach was successful in identifying meaningful events. The ED trigger tool seems to be a promising approach for identifying all-cause harm in the ED.

Dataset Information

Comparison of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test fundamentals by information delivery format in an emergency department setting.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test fundamentals by information delivery format in an emergency department setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets