Comparison of HIV Screening Strategies in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The 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. Objective: To compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: Consecutive 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 Measures: New HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs). Results: A 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 Relevance: Targeted 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Supporting the integration of HIV testing into primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the efforts of the US network of AIDS Education and Training Centers (AETCs) to increase HIV testing capacity across a variety of clinical settings. METHODS: We used quantitative process data from 8 regional AETCs for July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009, and qualitative program descriptions to demonstrate how AETC education helped providers integrate HIV testing into routine clinical care with the goals of early diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: Compared with other AETC training, HIV testing training was longer and used a broader variety of strategies to educate more providers per training. During education, providers were able to understand their primary care responsibility to address public health concerns through HIV testing. CONCLUSIONS: AETC efforts illustrate how integration of the principles of primary care and public health can be promoted through professional training.

Recommendations and reality: perceived patient, provider, and policy barriers to implementing routine HIV screening and proposed solutions.

In 2006, the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) released recommendations calling for routine HIV testing to be offered to those ages 13 to 64 as a standard of general health care. This recommendation included a plan to conduct HIV testing as part of a general consent. The reasoning and evidence for this recommendation is supported by experts, patients, and sponsored screenings by the CDC. The rationale behind this approach includes that knowledge of one's HIV status helps (1) infected individuals adopt risk-reduction behaviors and access to life-prolonging treatment and (2) uninfected individuals maintain behaviors that reduce their risk of becoming infected. This article discusses the perceived patient, provider, and policy barriers to implementing routine HIV screening and proposed solutions that can be part of a nurse-led contribution to develop and adopt innovative, patient-centered care models that can address the need for screening.

Improving anal cancer screening in an ambulatory HIV clinic: experience from a quality improvement initiative.

Evidence suggests that persons living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk for anal cancer. Early detection of anal cancer is an important prevention measure, but screening rates have been low. This report describes the experience of a quality improvement initiative to increase anal cancer screening at an HIV-specialty clinic. Chart reviews were conducted for three time periods: baseline year, prior to program discussion; transition year, during planning; and implementation year, during program availability. Odds ratios using Fisher's exact test showed that the odds of receiving anal cancer screening increased significantly in the transition year, odds ratio (OR) = 2.859, 95% confidence interval (CI): [1.798; 4.546], Fisher's z = 4.40, p < 0.0001, and in the implementation year, OR = 7.446, 95% CI: [4.783; 11.588], Fisher's z > 8.2, p < 0.0001. Patients and clinicians reported high levels of satisfaction with the program. Referring clinicians were also more likely to discuss anal cancer screening.

Every nurse is an HIV nurse.

OVERVIEW: The evolution of HIV infection into a chronic disease has implications across all clinical care settings. Every nurse should be knowledgeable about the prevention, testing, treatment, and chronicity of the disease in order to provide high-quality care to people with or at risk for HIV. It's important, therefore, to have an understanding of the changing epidemiology of the disease, the most recent testing recommendations, developments in screening technology, the implications of aging with HIV infection, and the nursing implications of the ongoing epidemic.