TY - JOUR
T1 - 2009 US emergency department HIV testing practices
AU - Rothman, Richard E.
AU - Hsieh, Yu Hsiang
AU - Harvey, Leah
AU - Connell, Samantha
AU - Lindsell, Christopher J.
AU - Haukoos, Jason
AU - White, Douglas A.E.
AU - Kecojevic, Aleksandar
AU - Lyons, Michael S.
N1 - Funding Information:
Publication of this article was supported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Funding Information:
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org ). The Inaugural National Emergency Department HIV Consortium meeting was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc . Dr. Rothman was funded in part by a grant from Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Maryland AIDS Administration , through a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
PY - 2011/7
Y1 - 2011/7
N2 - Objectives: We characterize HIV testing practices and programs in US emergency departments (EDs) in 2009. Methods: A national Web-based survey of members of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium, participants in the 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)sponsored ED HIV Testing Workshops, all US academic EDs, and a weighted random sample of US community EDs with snowball sampling to recruit additional testing sites was conducted. Data collected included geographic location, estimated seroprevalence, indications for testing, method of consent, weekly number of tests, funding, and costs. Results: Of 619 sites surveyed, 338 (54.6%) responded. A total of 277 (82.0%) reported conducting any HIV testing, and 75 (22.2%) reported systematic HIV testing programs, operationally defined as having testing or screening organized at the departmental or institutional level. systematic HIV testing programs were concentrated in the Northeast, at high-volume urban EDs, and in regions with higher HIV/AIDS prevalence. Most systematic HIV testing programs had existed for less than or equal to 3 years, and nearly one third reported using an opt-out approach for consent. Among systematic HIV testing programs, the number of patients tested ranged from less than 1 to 2,100 tests per week. Overall, universal screening was the most commonly reported screening method reported overall, and rates of HIV positivity were consistently above the CDC threshold of 0.1%. Conclusion: The number of EDs conducting HIV testing has grown substantially since release of the 2006 CDC HIV testing recommendations. Although many EDs have systematic HIV testing programs, the majority do not. Ongoing surveillance will be required to quantify the evolution of ED-based HIV testing and the factors that facilitate or impede expanded translation.
AB - Objectives: We characterize HIV testing practices and programs in US emergency departments (EDs) in 2009. Methods: A national Web-based survey of members of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium, participants in the 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)sponsored ED HIV Testing Workshops, all US academic EDs, and a weighted random sample of US community EDs with snowball sampling to recruit additional testing sites was conducted. Data collected included geographic location, estimated seroprevalence, indications for testing, method of consent, weekly number of tests, funding, and costs. Results: Of 619 sites surveyed, 338 (54.6%) responded. A total of 277 (82.0%) reported conducting any HIV testing, and 75 (22.2%) reported systematic HIV testing programs, operationally defined as having testing or screening organized at the departmental or institutional level. systematic HIV testing programs were concentrated in the Northeast, at high-volume urban EDs, and in regions with higher HIV/AIDS prevalence. Most systematic HIV testing programs had existed for less than or equal to 3 years, and nearly one third reported using an opt-out approach for consent. Among systematic HIV testing programs, the number of patients tested ranged from less than 1 to 2,100 tests per week. Overall, universal screening was the most commonly reported screening method reported overall, and rates of HIV positivity were consistently above the CDC threshold of 0.1%. Conclusion: The number of EDs conducting HIV testing has grown substantially since release of the 2006 CDC HIV testing recommendations. Although many EDs have systematic HIV testing programs, the majority do not. Ongoing surveillance will be required to quantify the evolution of ED-based HIV testing and the factors that facilitate or impede expanded translation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959384241&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959384241&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.03.016
DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.03.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 21684405
AN - SCOPUS:79959384241
SN - 0196-0644
VL - 58
SP - S3-S9
JO - Annals of emergency medicine
JF - Annals of emergency medicine
IS - 1 SUPPL.
ER -