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.

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.

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.