Dataset Information

Counselor- versus provider-based HIV screening in the emergency department: results from the universal screening for HIV infection in the emergency room (USHER) randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Walensky RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3268065 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Counselor- versus provider-based HIV screening in the emergency department: results from the universal screening for HIV infection in the emergency room (USHER) randomized controlled trial.

Walensky Rochelle P RP Reichmann William M WM Arbelaez Christian C Wright Elizabeth E Katz Jeffrey N JN Seage George R GR Safren Steven A SA Hare Anna Q AQ Novais Anna A Losina Elena E

Annals of emergency medicine 20110701 1 Suppl 1

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 U ...[more]

PMID: 21684391

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence of undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV cases in a population sample tested in the emergency room (ER) and to evaluate linkage-to-care.SettingCanadian university hospital.ParticipantsAdults born after 1945 who consulted at ER for any condition and on any shift were included. Patients unable to opt-out were excluded.InterventionsER nurse confirmed patients' eligibility and provided them with the option to opt-out. A physician met patients with a new diagnosis. Linkage-to-care was assessed 3 months postdiagnosis. Patients newly diagnosed with HCV were considered linked if they had an HCV RNA test, genotype, liver fibrosis evaluation, and if indicated, treatment prescription. Patients newly diagnosed with HIV were considered linked to care if they had an HIV serology confirmation test, viral load, CD4 cell count and started antiretroviral therapy.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary objective: to determine the prevalence (overall and undiagnosed cases) of HIV and HCV among the patients who consult the ER. Secondary objectives: to determine the proportion of patients who opt-out, assess the adherence of emergency staff to the offer of testing, determine the proportion of patients linked to care at 3 months.ResultsAmong 6350 eligible patients informed of the screening programme, 62.1% of patients were tested for at least one virus (HIV: 3905; HCV: 3910). 25% patients opted-out, 12% were not tested for organisational reasons, 0.3% (18) patients were HCV-HIV coinfected. Overall prevalence of HCV and HIV cases were 1.9% and 1.2%, respectively. Prevalence of new cases was 0.23% (95% CI 0.12% 0.45%) for HCV and 0.05% (95% CI 0.01% to 0.20%) for HIV. Among the new cases, only two HCV-infected and one HIV-infected patients were linked-to-care 3 months postdiagnosis.ConclusionsIdentification of new cases of HCV and HIV through universal screening at the ER and linkage-to-care were both low.Trial registration numberNCT03595527; Results.

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: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

Counselor- versus provider-based HIV screening in the emergency department: results from the universal screening for HIV infection in the emergency room (USHER) randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Counselor- versus provider-based HIV screening in the emergency department: results from the universal screening for HIV infection in the emergency room (USHER) randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets