Dataset Information

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lyons MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4241750 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

Lyons Michael S MS Lindsell Christopher J CJ Ruffner Andrew H AH Wayne D Beth DB Hart Kimberly W KW Sperling Matthew I MI Trott Alexander T AT Fichtenbaum Carl J CJ

Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) 20131101 3

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>This single-center cluster- ...[more]

PMID: 23846569

Similar Datasets

Project description:We compare rates of rapid HIV testing, test offer, and acceptance in an urban emergency department (ED) when conducted by dedicated HIV counselors versus current members of the ED staff.The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room [USHER] trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial that implemented an HIV screening program in the ED of an urban tertiary medical center. ED patients were screened and consented for trial enrollment by an USHER research assistant. Eligible subjects were randomized to rapid HIV testing (oral OraQuick) offered by a dedicated counselor (counselor arm) or by an ED provider (provider arm). In the counselor arm, counselors-without other clinical responsibilities-assumed nearly all testing-related activities (consent, counseling, delivery of test results). In the provider arm, trained ED emergency service assistants (nursing assistants) consented and tested the participant in the context of other ED-related responsibilities. In this arm, ED house officers, physician assistants, or attending physicians provided HIV test results to trial participants. Outcome measures were rates of HIV testing and test offer among individuals consenting for study participation. Among individuals offered the test, test acceptance was also measured.From February 2007 through July 2008, 8,187 eligible patients were approached in the ED, and 4,855 (59%) consented and were randomized to trial participation. The mean age was 37 years, 65% were women, and 42% were white. The overall testing rate favored the counselor arm (57% versus 27%; P<.001); 80% (1,959/2,446) of subjects in the counselor arm were offered an HIV test compared with 36% (861/2,409) in the provider arm (P<.001). HIV test acceptance was slightly higher in the provider arm (counselor arm 71% versus provider arm 75%; P = .025).Routine rapid HIV testing in the ED was accomplished more frequently by dedicated HIV counselors than by ED staff in the course of routine clinical work. Without dedicated staff, HIV testing in this setting may not be truly routine.

Project description:ImportanceThe National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021.InterventionsConsecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays.Main outcomes and measuresNew HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs).ResultsA total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47).Conclusions and relevanceTargeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Project description:IntroductionChildren with food insecurity (FI) experience adverse health outcomes due to inadequate quantity or quality of food. Food insecurity may be high among families seeking emergency care. The Hunger Vital Sign (HVS) is a two-question validated tool used to screen families for FI. Our goal in this study was to assess prevalence of FI among emergency department (ED) patients, patient-level risk factors for FI, and the feasibility of screening.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of FI in the ED. Parents or guardians of ED patients and adult patients (18 years or older) were approached for screening using the HVS during screening periods spanning weekdays/weekends and days/evenings. All ED patients were eligible, excluding siblings, repeat visits, critically ill patients, minors without a guardian, and families that healthcare staff asked us not to disturb. Families answered the HVS questions verbally or in writing, based on preference. Families with positive screens received information about food resources. We summarized patient and visit characteristics and defined medical complexity using a published algorithm. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess FI risk factors.ResultsIn July-August 2019, 527 patients presented during screening periods: 439 agreed to screening, 18 declined, 19 met exclusions, and 51 were missed. On average the screening tool required five minutes (range 3-10 minutes) to complete. Most families (328; 75%) preferred to answer in writing rather than verbally. Overall, 77 participants (17.5%) screened positive for FI. In regression analyses, FI was associated with self-reported race/ethnicity (combined variable) of African American or Black (odds ratio [OR] 5.21, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-12.77), Hispanic (OR 3.47, 95% CI, 1.48-8.15), or mixed/other (OR 3.81, 95% CI, 1.54-9.39), compared to non-Hispanic white. FI was also associated with public insurance type (OR 5.74, 95% CI, 2.52-13.07, reference: private insurance), and each year of increasing patient age (OR 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.09). There were no associations between FI and medical complexity or preferred language.ConclusionFood insecurity was common among our ED patients. Race and ethnicity, insurance status, and increasing patient age were associated with increased odds of FI. Efforts to include universal FI screening for ED patients with immediate connection to resources will enhance overall care quality and address important health needs.

Project description:In Switzerland, the national HIV testing recommendations propose targeted testing. Although the emergency department (ED) is mentioned specifically as a site where HIV testing should take place, the testing rate in our ED is 1% of patients seen. The aim of this study was to use electronic tablets to offer testing to ED patients and to examine whether non-targeted screening increased testing rates compared to targeted testing.This randomised, cross-over design study took place at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, between August and November 2015. Eligible patients were randomised to a targeted testing or a non-targeted screening arm. Using electronic tablets, targeted arm patients completed a risk factor assessment; patients with risk factors were offered free rapid HIV testing. Non-targeted arm patients received information about HIV and HIV testing on their tablet and were then offered testing. In a second step, patients who declined testing were crossed over to the other strategy. The primary endpoint was the HIV testing rate per arm.Eighty patients were recruited to each study arm. In the targeted arm, 17 patients (of 80, 21%) had at least one risk factor and were offered testing, of whom eight (of 17, 47%) accepted. HIV testing rate in the targeted arm was 10% (8/80) compared to 48% (38/80) in the non-targeted arm (P<0.001). Secondary cross-screening, where targeted arm patients without risk factors were offered non-targeted screening, increased the testing rate in the targeted arm to 45% (36/80). Among patients offered testing, the acceptance rate did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms, at 48% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.9).In our centre, non-targeted HIV screening resulted in a higher testing rate than targeted testing due to more patients being offered a test. The acceptance rate of testing offered did not differ between targeted and non-targeted arms. Electronic tablets were well-received by patients and easy to use. We conclude that non-targeted HIV screening using electronic tablets would increase the HIV testing rate in our ED.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03038724.

Project description:Importance:According to National Patient Safety Goal 15.01.01, all individuals being treated or evaluated for behavioral health conditions as their primary reason for care in hospitals and behavioral health care organizations accredited by The Joint Commission should be screened for suicide risk using a validated tool. Existing suicide risk screens have minimal or no high-quality evidence of association with future suicide-related outcomes. Objective:To test the association between results of the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) instrument in a pediatric emergency department (ED), implemented through selective and universal screening approaches, and subsequent suicide-related outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this retrospective cohort study at an urban pediatric ED in the United States, the ASQ was administered to youths aged 8 to 18 years with behavioral and psychiatric presenting problems from March 18, 2013, to December 31, 2016 (selective condition), and then to youths aged 10 to 18 years with medical presenting problems (in addition to those aged 8-18 years with behavioral and psychiatric presenting problems) from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018 (universal condition). Exposure:Positive ASQ screen at baseline ED visit. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were subsequent ED visits with suicide-related presenting problems (ie, ideation or attempts) based on electronic health records and death by suicide identified through state medical examiner records. Association with suicide-related outcomes was calculated over the entire study period using survival analyses and at 3-month follow-up for both conditions using relative risk. Results:The complete sample was 15?003 youths (7044 [47.0%] male; 10?209 [68.0%] black; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [3.1] years at baseline). The follow-up for the selective condition was a mean (SD) of 1133.7 (433.3) days; for the universal condition, it was 366.2 (209.2) days. In the selective condition, there were 275 suicide-related ED visits and 3 deaths by suicide. In the universal condition, there were 118 suicide-related ED visits and no deaths during the follow-up period. Adjusting for demographic characteristics and baseline presenting problem, positive ASQ screens were associated with greater risk of suicide-related outcomes among both the universal sample (hazard ratio, 6.8 [95% CI, 4.2-11.1]) and the selective sample (hazard ratio, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.5-6.5]). Conclusions and Relevance:Positive results of both selective and universal screening for suicide risk in pediatric EDs appear to be associated with subsequent suicidal behavior. Screening may be a particularly effective way to detect suicide risk among those who did not present with ideation or attempt. Future studies should examine the impact of screening in combination with other policies and procedures aimed at reducing suicide risk.

Dataset Information

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

Publications

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets