Intensified screening for SARS-CoV-2 in 18 emergency departments in the Paris metropolitan area, France (DEPIST-COVID): A cluster-randomized, two-period, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic infections account for a substantial portion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions. The value of intensified screening strategies, especially in emergency departments (EDs), in reaching asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic patients and helping to improve detection and reduce transmission has not been documented. The objective of this study was to evaluate in EDs whether an intensified SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy combining nurse-driven screening for asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients with routine practice (intervention) could contribute to higher detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to routine practice alone, including screening for symptomatic or hospitalized patients (control). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, two-period, crossover trial from February 2021 to May 2021 in 18 EDs in the Paris metropolitan area, France. All adults visiting the EDs were eligible. At the start of the first period, 18 EDs were randomized to the intervention or control strategy by balanced block randomization with stratification, with the alternative condition being applied in the second period. During the control period, routine screening for SARS-CoV-2 included screening for symptomatic or hospitalized patients. During the intervention period, in addition to routine screening practice, a questionnaire about risk exposure and symptoms and a SARS-CoV-2 screening test were offered by nurses to all remaining asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients among all adults visiting the 18 EDs. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (Poisson distribution) with the center and center by period as random effects and the strategy (intervention versus control) and period (modeled as a weekly categorical variable) as fixed effects with additional adjustment for community incidence. During the intervention and control periods, 69,248 patients and 69,104 patients, respectively, were included for a total of 138,352 patients. Patients had a median age of 45.0 years [31.0, 63.0], and women represented 45.7% of the patients. During the intervention period, 6,332 asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic patients completed the questionnaire; 4,283 were screened for SARS-CoV-2 by nurses, leading to 224 new SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses. A total of 1,859 patients versus 2,084 patients were newly diagnosed during the intervention and control periods, respectively (adjusted analysis: 26.7/1,000 versus 26.2/1,000, adjusted relative risk: 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) [0.94, 1.11]; p = 0.634)). The main limitation of this study is that it was conducted in a rapidly evolving epidemiological context. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that intensified screening for SARS-CoV-2 in EDs was unlikely to identify a higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04756609.

We Are Still Here: Omission and Perceived Discrimination Galvanized Civic Engagement Among Native Americans.

Leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Native American organizations and tribes launched get-out-the-vote campaigns that motivated Native peoples to vote in record numbers and helped flip battleground states. We conducted four studies (total N = 11,661 Native American adults) to examine the social and cultural factors explaining this historic Native civic engagement (e.g., campaigning). Results revealed that the more participants identified as being Native, the more they reported (a) engaging in civic activities, including get-out-the-vote behaviors during the 2020 election (Study 1); (b) civic engagement more broadly across a 5-year period (pilot study, Study 2); and (c) intentions to engage in civic activities in the future (Study 3). Moreover, participants who more strongly identified as Native were more likely to recognize the omission of their group from society and perceive greater group discrimination, which both independently and serially predicted greater civic engagement. These results suggest that leveraging the link between Native identification and group injustices can motivate action.

Opt-out universal HCV and HIV screening in a Canadian emergency room: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To 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. SETTING: Canadian university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adults born after 1945 who consulted at ER for any condition and on any shift were included. Patients unable to opt-out were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: ER 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 MEASURES: Primary 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. RESULTS: Among 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. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of new cases of HCV and HIV through universal screening at the ER and linkage-to-care were both low. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03595527; Results.

Delayed inflammation decrease is associated with mortality in Tocilizumab-treated critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients: A retrospective matched-cohort analysis.

Little is known about the immuno-inflammatory response to Tocilizumab and its association with outcome in critically-ill SARS-CoV2 pneumonia. In this multicenter retrospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to three intensive care units between March and April 2020, we matched on gender and SAPS II 21 Tocilizumab-treated patients to 42 non-treated patients. Need for mechanical ventilation was 76% versus 79%. IL-6, C-reactive protein, and fibrinogen had been collected within the first days of admission (T1), 3 d (T2) and 7 d (T3) later. Tocilizumab-treated patients had persistently higher IL-6 plasma levels and persistently lower C-Reactive protein and fibrinogen levels. Among Tocilizumab-treated patients, baseline levels of inflammatory biomarkers were not different according to outcome. Conversely, C-reactive protein and fibrinogen decrease was delayed in non-survivors. C-Reactive protein decreased at T1 in survivors (45 [30-98] vs 170 [69-204] mg/l, P < 0.001) but only at T2 in non-survivors (37 [13-74] vs 277 [235-288], P = 0.03). Fibrinogen decreased at T2 in survivors (4.11 [3.58-4.69] vs 614 [5.61-7.85] g/l, P = 0.005) but not in non-survivors (4.79 [4.12-7.58] vs 7.24 [6.22-9.24] g/l, P = 0.125). Tocilizumab treatment was thus associated with a persistent both increase in plasma IL-6, and decrease in C-reactive protein and fibrinogen. Among Tocilizumab-treated patients, the decrease in inflammatory biomarkers was delayed in non-survivors.

Clinical Characteristics, Care Trajectories and Mortality Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infected Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 may be more frequent and more severe in cancer patients than in other individuals. Our aims were to assess the rate of COVID-19 in hospitalized cancer patients, to describe their demographic characteristics, clinical features and care trajectories, and to assess the mortality rate. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study was based on the Electronic Health Records of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Cancer patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between 3 March and 19 May 2020 were included. Main outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 29,141 cancer patients were identified and 7791 (27%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 1359 (17%) were COVID-19-positive and 1148 (84%) were hospitalized; 217 (19%) were admitted to an intensive care unit. The mortality rate was 33% (383 deaths). In multivariate analysis, mortality-related factors were male sex (aHR = 1.39 [95% CI: 1.07-1.81]), advanced age (78-86 y: aHR = 2.83 [95% CI: 1.78-4.51] vs. <66 y; 86-103 y: aHR = 2.61 [95% CI: 1.56-4.35] vs. <66 y), more than two comorbidities (aHR = 2.32 [95% CI: 1.41-3.83]) and C-reactive protein >20 ng/mL (aHR = 2.20 [95% CI: 1.70-2.86]). Primary brains tumors (aHR = 2.19 [95% CI: 1.08-4.44]) and lung cancer (aHR = 1.66 [95% CI: 1.02-2.70]) were associated with higher mortality. Risk of dying was lower among patients with metabolic comorbidities (aHR = 0.65 [95% CI: 0.50-0.84]). CONCLUSIONS: In a hospital-based setting, cancer patients with COVID-19 had a high mortality rate. This mortality was mainly driven by age, sex, number of comorbidities and presence of inflammation. This is the first cohort of cancer patients in which metabolic comorbidities were associated with a better outcome.

External validation of prognostic scores for COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study of patients hospitalized in Greater Paris University Hospitals.

PURPOSE: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19. METHODS: We used "COVID-19 Evidence Alerts" (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer. RESULTS: We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients.

Acceptability of Nurse-Driven HIV Screening for Key Populations in Emergency Departments: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing care continuum entry interventions is key to ending the HIV epidemic. Offering HIV screening to key populations in emergency departments (EDs) is a strategy that has been demonstrated to be effective. Analyzing patient and provider perceptions of such screening can help identify implementation facilitators and barriers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of offering nurse-driven HIV screening to key populations based on data collected from patients, nurses, and other service providers. METHODS: This convergent mixed-methods study was a substudy of a cluster-randomized two-period crossover trial conducted in eight EDs to evaluate the effectiveness of the screening strategy. During the DICI-VIH (Dépistage Infirmier CIblé du VIH) trial, questionnaires were distributed to patients aged 18-64 years. Based on their responses, nurses offered screening to members of key populations.Over 5 days during the intervention period in four EDs, 218 patients were secondarily questioned about the acceptability of screening. Nurses completed 271 questionnaires pre- and posttrial regarding acceptability in all eight EDs. Descriptive analyses were conducted on these quantitative data. Convenience and purposeful sampling was used to recruit 53 providers to be interviewed posttrial. Two coders conducted a directed qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts independently. RESULTS: The vast majority of patients (95%) were comfortable with questions asked to determine membership in key populations and agreed (89%) that screening should be offered to key populations in EDs. Nurses mostly agreed that offering screening to key populations was well accepted by patients (62.2% pretrial and 71.4% posttrial), was easy to implement, and fell within the nursing sphere of competence. Pretrial, 73% of the nurses felt that such screening could be implemented in EDs. Posttrial, the proportion was 41%. Three themes emerged from the interviews: preference for targeted screening and a written questionnaire to identify key populations, facilitators of long-term implementation, and implementation barriers. Nurses were favorable to such screening provided specific conditions were met regarding training, support, collective involvement, and flexibility of application to overcome organizational and individual barriers. DISCUSSION: Screening for key populations was perceived as acceptable and beneficial by patients and providers. Addressing the identified facilitators and barriers would help increase screening implementation in EDs.

Efficacy of a combination of hypnosis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic non-cancer pain: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, which persists for at least three months, seriously affects quality of life. Chronic non-cancer pain patients are usually managed by a multidisciplinary team using pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Nurses perform transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and hypnosis, which are widely used in France for the treatment of chronic pain in pain departments. OBJECTIVE: To assess pain relief at three months, comparing a simultaneous combination of hypnosis and TENS (intervention) with TENS alone (control). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years, suffering from chronic peripheral neuropathic and/or nociceptive non-cancer pain were included (September 2013 to May 2017) and followed for six months. The primary outcome was the pain intensity difference (by visual analog scale score) between month 3 and baseline. The secondary outcomes, assessed at months 3 and 6, were SF36 score, analgesics consumption and number of TENS sessions performed at home (last seven days). RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included, suffering from a combination of chronic non-cancer nociceptive and neuropathic pain, with a mean pain intensity of about sixty out of a hundred. The results show an important pain reduction (forty percent) in both groups at 3 months. No significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups. Similarly, SF36 score, change in analgesic intake and patient compliance did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled study showing a decrease of pain intensity and a high level of compliance with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or associated to hypnosis. The combination does not seem to be more efficient than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone. Chronic non-cancer pain remains a major issue and a substantial proportion of patients do not appear to benefit from interventions. IMPACT: This study increases our understanding of the combination of two non-pharmacological methods in chronic non-cancer pain patients. The combination of the two non-pharmacological strategies did not appear to be more efficient than one alone. Further research on non-pharmacological treatments targeting to patient's characteristics are needed to find appropriate strategies in patients with complex multidimensional pain conditions. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01944150 (Sept. 17, 2013).

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Intervention to Support Medication Adherence Among People Living With HIV: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Taking antiretroviral therapy (ART) is part of the daily life of people living with HIV. Different electronic health (eHealth) initiatives adjunctive to usual care have been proposed to support optimal medication adherence. A web-based intervention called HIV Treatment, Virtual Nursing Assistance, and Education or VIH-TAVIE (from its French version Virus de l'immunodéficience humaine-Traitement assistance virtuelle infirmière et enseignement) was developed to empower people living with HIV to manage their ART and symptoms optimally. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VIH-TAVIE in a web-based randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: This RCT was entirely web-based, including recruitment, consent granting, questionnaire completion, and intervention exposure (consultation with VIH-TAVIE [experimental group] or websites [control group]). To be eligible for the study, people living with HIV had to be 18 years or older, be on ART for at least 6 months, have internet access, and have internet literacy. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n=45) or control group (n=43). The primary outcome was ART adherence. The secondary outcomes included self-efficacy regarding medication intake, symptom-related discomfort, skills and strategies, and social support. All outcomes were measured with a self-administered web-based questionnaire at the following three time points: baseline and 3 and 6 months later. A generalized linear mixed model was built to assess the evolution of ART adherence over time in both groups. RESULTS: The sample included 88 participants, and of these, 73 (83%) were men. The median age of the participants was 42 years. Participants had been diagnosed with HIV a median of 7 years earlier (IQR 3-17) and had been on ART for a median of 5 years (IQR 2-12). The proportion of treatment-adherent participants at baseline was high in both groups (34/41, 83% in the experimental group and 30/39, 77% in the control group). Participants also reported high treatment adherence, high self-efficacy, and high skills; perceived good social support; and experienced low discomfort from symptoms. Analyses revealed no intergroup difference regarding ART adherence (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the challenges and lessons learned from conducting an entirely web-based RCT among people living with HIV. The challenges were related to the engagement of people living with HIV on the following three levels: starting the web-based study (recruitment), completing the web-based intervention (engagement), and continuing the study (retention). The results contribute to the existing body of knowledge regarding how to conduct web-based evaluation studies of eHealth interventions aimed at developing and strengthening personal skills and abilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510340; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01510340.

[Nurses' participation in clinical research projects: a cross-sectional study in five hospitals]. / Participation des infirmiers aux projets de recherche clinique : une étude transversale dans cinq hôpitaux.

The number of hospital-based clinical trials is resulting in the growing involvement of nurses. A cross-sectional study in five hospitals involving 60 nurses assessed the clinical research activities, the time allocated and the training level. The results suggest that identifying specific nursing time devoted to clinical research may influence the activities carried out. Improving the definition of these activities could facilitate their integration into nursing practice.

Implementation of Nurse-Driven HIV Screening Targeting Key Populations in Emergency Departments: A Multilevel Analysis From the DICI-VIH Trial.

BACKGROUND: In countries with concentrated HIV epidemics, optimizing screening to reach individuals with undiagnosed infection is essential. The DICI-VIH study, a cluster-randomized crossover trial conducted in eight French emergency departments (EDs), found that a strategy combining nurse-driven targeted HIV screening with routine diagnostic testing was effective. AIM: The aim was to investigate factors associated with the implementation of HIV screening targeting key populations in EDs. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed at registration to patients aged 18-64 years and able to give consent during the DICI-VIH intervention. Based on their responses, those belonging to key populations were offered a rapid test by triage nurses. Two key stages of the process were evaluated: questionnaire distribution by providers and test acceptance by patients. Patient information, daily workload, and ED characteristics were collected. The associations between these variables and (a) the proportion of questionnaires distributed and (b) the proportion of tests accepted were evaluated using multilevel modeling in order to examine differences in screening implementation between EDs. RESULTS: Questionnaire distribution proportions varied from 23% to 48% across EDs. They were higher on weekdays than weekends (odds ratio, OR: 3.77; 95% CI: 3.57-3.99) and when research staff participated (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.26-1.37). They decreased over time (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.71-0.82; 4th [Q3] vs. 1st quartile [Q0] of intervention days) and with increased patient flow (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.56-0.67; Q3 vs. Q0 of eligible patients). Test acceptance varied from 64% to 77% across EDs, increased with research staff participation (OR 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03-1.40), and decreased over time (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60-0.92; Q3 vs. Q0). Patients who accepted were more likely to be younger (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; 50-64-year-old vs. 30-39-year-old patients). LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Patient flow, intervention duration, weekdays, and research staff participation were important determinants of targeted screening implementation. These findings could help guide future implementation in similar settings.

Efficacy of facilitated tucking combined with non-nutritive sucking on very preterm infants' pain during the heel-stick procedure: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing acute pain in premature infants during neonatal care improves their neurophysiological development. The use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesia, such as sucrose, is limited per day, particularly for very preterm infants. Thus, the usual practice of non-nutritive sucking is often used alone. Facilitated tucking could be an additional strategy to non-nutritive sucking for reducing pain. To the best of our knowledge, no randomized trial has compared the combination of facilitated tucking and non-nutritive sucking to non-nutritive sucking alone. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of facilitated tucking in combination with non-nutritive sucking (intervention group) to non-nutritive sucking alone (control group) in reducing pain during the heel-stick procedure in very preterm infants. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: Level III and II neonatal care units, including the neurosensory care management program. METHODS: Very preterm infants (gestational age between 28 and 32 weeks) were randomly assigned by a computer programme to the intervention or control group during a heel-stick procedure within the first 48 h of life. In both groups, infants were placed in an asymmetric position on a cushion; noise and light were limited following routine care. A heel-stick was performed first in the care sequence. In the intervention group, facilitated tucking was performed by a nurse or nursing assistant. The procedure was video recorded from 15 s (T-15 s) before the procedure until three minutes (T + 3 min) after the end of the procedure. Pain was blindly assessed by two independent specialist nurses. The primary outcome was the pain score evaluated 15 s before the procedure and 30 s immediately after by the premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scale. The secondary outcome was the pain score evaluated between T-15 s and T + 3 min by the DAN scale (a French acronym for the acute pain of a newborn). RESULTS: Sixty infants were included (30 in each group). The PIPP pain scores did not differ between the intervention group (median: 8.0; interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-12.0) and the control group (median: 9.5; IQR: 7.0-13.0, p = 0.32). Pain assessed by the DAN scale at T + 3 min was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (median: 0.3; IQR: 0.0-1.0 and 2.0; IQR: 0.5-3.0, respectively, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of facilitated tucking and non-nutritive sucking did not significantly alleviate pain during the heel-stick procedure. However, the addition of facilitated tucking facilitated faster pain recovery following the heel-stick procedure.

Effect of Systematic Physician Cross-checking on Reducing Adverse Events in the Emergency Department: The CHARMED Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Emergency departments (ED) are environments that are at high risk for medical errors. Previous studies suggested that the proportion of medical errors may decrease when more than 1 physician is involved. Objective: To reduce the proportion of medical errors by implementing systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized crossover trial includes a random sample of 14 adult patients (age ≥18 years) per day during two 10-day period in 6 EDs (n = 1680 patients) in France. Interventions: Systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians, 3 times a day, which included a brief presentation of one physician's case to another, followed by the second physician's feedback to the first. Main Outcomes and Measures: Medical error in the ED, defined as an adverse event (either a near miss or a serious adverse event). The primary end point was identified using a 2-level error detection surveillance system, blinded to the strategy allocation. Results: Among the 1680 included patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [21.7] years), 144 (8.6%) had an adverse event. There were 54 adverse events among 840 patients (6.4%) in the cross-check group compared with 90 adverse events among 840 patients (10.7%) in the standard care group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 40% [95% CI, 12% to 59%]; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 4.3%; number needed to treat [NNT], 24). There was also a significant reduction rate of near misses (RRR, 47% [95% CI, 15% to 67%]; ARR, 2.7%; NNT, 37) but not of the rate of preventable serious adverse events (RRR, 29% [95% CI, -18% to 57%]; ARR, 1.2%; NNT, 83). Conclusions and Relevance: The implementation of systematic cross-checking between emergency physicians was associated with a significant reduction in adverse events, mainly driven by a reduction in near misses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02356926.

Targeted HIV Screening in Eight Emergency Departments: The DICI-VIH Cluster-Randomized Two-Period Crossover Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-driven targeted HIV screening alongside physician-directed diagnostic testing (intervention strategy) with diagnostic testing alone (control strategy) in 8 emergency departments. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized, 2-period, crossover trial, 18- to 64-year-old patients presenting for reasons other than potential exposure to HIV were included. The strategy applied first was randomly assigned. During both periods, diagnostic testing was prescribed by physicians following usual care. During the intervention periods, patients were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. According to their answers, the triage nurse suggested performing a rapid test to patients belonging to a high-risk group. The primary outcome was the proportion of new diagnoses among included patients, which further refers to effectiveness. A secondary outcome was the intervention's incremental cost (health care system perspective) per additional diagnosis. RESULTS: During the intervention periods, 74,161 patients were included, 16,468 completed the questionnaire, 4,341 belonged to high-risk groups, and 2,818 were tested by nurses, yielding 13 new diagnoses. Combined with 9 diagnoses confirmed through 97 diagnostic tests, 22 new diagnoses were established. During the control periods, 74,166 patients were included, 92 were tested, and 6 received a new diagnosis. The proportion of new diagnoses among included patients was higher during the intervention than in the control periods (3.0 per 10,000 versus 0.8 per 10,000; difference 2.2 per 10,000, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.6; relative risk 3.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.8). The incremental cost was €1,324 per additional new diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The combined strategy of targeted screening and diagnostic testing was effective.

The impact of nurse-driven targeted HIV screening in 8 emergency departments: study protocol for the DICI-VIH cluster-randomized two-period crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, to reduce late HIV diagnosis, the French national health agency endorsed non-targeted HIV screening in health care settings. Despite these recommendations, non-targeted screening has not been implemented and only physician-directed diagnostic testing is currently performed. A survey conducted in 2010 in 29 French Emergency Departments (EDs) showed that non-targeted nurse-driven screening was feasible though only a few new HIV diagnoses were identified, predominantly among high-risk groups. A strategy targeting high-risk groups combined with current practice could be shown to be feasible, more efficient and cost-effective than current practice alone. METHODS/DESIGN: DICI-VIH (acronym for nurse-driven targeted HIV screening) is a multicentre, cluster-randomized, two-period crossover trial. The primary objective is to compare the effectiveness of 2 strategies for diagnosing HIV among adult patients visiting EDs: nurse-driven targeted HIV screening combined with current practice (physician-directed diagnostic testing) versus current practice alone. Main secondary objectives are to compare access to specialist consultation and how early HIV diagnosis occurs in the course of the disease between the 2 groups, and to evaluate the implementation, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of nurse-driven targeted screening. The 2 strategies take place during 2 randomly assigned periods in 8 EDs of metropolitan Paris, where 42 % of France's new HIV patients are diagnosed every year. All patients aged 18 to 64, not presenting secondary to HIV exposure are included. During the intervention period, patients are invited to fill a 7-item questionnaire (country of birth, sexual partners and injection drug use) in order to select individuals who are offered a rapid test. If the rapid test is reactive, a follow-up visit with an infectious disease specialist is scheduled within 72 h. Assuming an 80 % statistical power and a 5 % type 1 error, with 1.04 and 3.38 new diagnoses per 10,000 patients in the control and targeted groups respectively, a sample size of 140,000 patients was estimated corresponding to 8,750 patients per ED and per period. Inclusions started in June 2014. Results are expected by mid-2016. DISCUSSION: The DICI-VIH study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess nurse-driven targeted HIV screening. This study can provide valuable information on HIV screening in health care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02127424 (29 April 2014).

The role of nurses in HIV screening in health care facilities: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine nurse-driven HIV screening in various health care settings in terms of its impact on test offering, acceptance and delivery rates, nursing responsibilities, staff perceptions and long-term implementation. DESIGN: Systematic review. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review conducted in September 2014 adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two independent reviewers extracted and summarised the eligible studies using a standardised form. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies published from 2004 to 2014 that explored nurse-driven HIV screening practice in health care facilities in countries with comparable concentrated HIV epidemics were included. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL. RESULTS: Overall, 30 quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The studies showed a trend in higher test offering, better acceptance and higher delivery rates with the implementation of nurse-driven HIV screening. However, among the 23 studies (77%) that evaluated these aims, only 13 studies (56%) had a control group, and 4 studies (17%) were randomised controlled trials (RCT) in few centres (i.e., 1 or 2). In 2 studies that compared nurse-driven HIV test offering to physician intervention, the participation of nurses was higher than that of physicians (85% vs. 54%, p<0.001; 47% vs. 28%, p<0.05). In a third study, the intervention of a dedicated nurse increased the test offering from 96.5% to 99.5% (OR=7.27, 95% CI=1.02-316.9). Acceptance rates increased with the nurse intervention in 2 RCTs (75% vs. 71%, p=0.025; 45% vs. 19%, p<0.05) and in a cohort study (74.8% vs. 84.3%, OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.14-2.88), whereas it decreased in 2 other studies. The testing rates increased in 7 out of 10 studies, with a maximum absolute increase of 65.9%. Nurse-driven HIV screening was evaluated at the time of routine HIV screening implementation in 27 studies (90%) and provided nurses with new responsibilities in 9 studies (30%). The few studies (23%) that explored how health care professionals, including nurses, perceived the strategy showed that this approach was well received. However, several operational barriers, such as lack of time, prevented its long-term implementation. CONCLUSION: The review supports the implementation of nurse-driven HIV screening. However, the evaluation of the impact of the nurse approach by RCTs was scarce, calling for additional research to better evaluate the impact of the nursing profession's contribution to HIV screening. Moreover, the perceptions of nurses and health care staff were seldom evaluated and require further exploration to improve nurse-driven HIV screening implementation.

Promoting the place of the allied health professions in clinical research.

Clinical research is of major importance to today's society, as scientific evidence is increasingly demanded as a basis for progress, whether this involves developing new healthcare products, improving clinical practice and care protocols or progress in prevention. Clinical research therefore requires professionals who are both experienced and increasingly well trained. Against this background, allied health professionals are becoming involved more and more, both as team members supporting clinical research projects and as managers or coordinators of projects in their own field. Clinical research activities provide an ideal opportunity for continuing professional development. All of this means that the professional skills of the allied health professions and clinical research support professions must be enhanced, their role promoted in the context of lecturer status and in the longer term, their status recognised by the supervisory authorities.

Risk factors for self-injury, aggression, and stereotyped behavior among young children at risk for intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Before the 1990s, research on the early identification and prevention of severe behavior disorders (SBDs), such as aggression, self-injury, and stereotyped behavior, among young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), was mostly done with children 3 years or older. More recent work suggests that signs of SBDs may occur as early as 6 months in some infants. The present study combined a cross-sectional and longitudinal approach to examine SBDs in 180 young children aged 4-48 months recruited through mass screening, then receiving an interdisciplinary evaluation and six-month follow-ups for one year. Twelve potential risk factors related to SBDs were examined. Eight of these risk factors, including age, gender, diagnosis, intellectual and communication levels, visual impairment, parent education, family income, were differentially related to scores for Aggression, SIB, and Stereotyped Behavior subscales on the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI-01) at initial interdisciplinary evaluation. BPI-01 scores decreased over the year for 57% of the children and increased for 43%. The amount of decrease on each BPI-01 subscale varied with age, gender, and diagnosis.

The Parental Concerns Questionnaire: A Brief Screening Instrument for Potentially Severe Behavior Problems in Infants and Toddlers At-Risk for Developmental Delays.

The Parental Concerns Questionnaire (PCQ) was designed as a parent-interview screening instrument for young children with developmental concerns at risk for potentially severe behavior problems (SBDs). Parents of 262 young children (4 to 48 months) answered to the 15 dichotomous PCQ items interviewed by trained staff. Cluster analysis for items revealed three item clusters, which we labeled Developmental/Social (8 items), Biomedical (3 items), and Behavior Problems (3 items). This paper discussed primarily the Behavior Problems cluster, with items referring to self-injurious, aggressive, and destructive behaviors. Parents' concerns about behavior problems were high, with item-endorsements of the Behavior Problems cluster ranging from 41.8 % to 68.8 %. The Behavior Problems cluster was significantly correlated with all three subscales of the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI-01), with select subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), and with the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) providing some evidence for concurrent validity. Sensitivity and specificity data were computed for the three PCQ items as well as for the cluster score in comparison with the BPI-01, ABC, and RBS-R showing strong sensitivity. The PCQ Behavior Problems cluster is a useful screening checklist with high sensitivity for potential SBDs in young children at-risk for developmental delays.