Prevalence of undiagnosed acute and chronic HIV in a lower-prevalence urban emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated the seroprevalence of both acute and chronic HIV infection by using a random sample of emergency department (ED) patients from a region of the United States with low-to-moderate HIV prevalence. METHODS: This cross-sectional seroprevalence study consecutively enrolled patients aged 18 to 64 years within randomly selected sampling blocks in a Midwestern urban ED in a region of lower HIV prevalence in 2008 to 2009. Participants were compensated for providing a blood sample and health information. After de-identification, we assayed samples for HIV antibody and nucleic acid. RESULTS: There were 926 participants who consented and enrolled. Overall, prevalence of undiagnosed HIV was 0.76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30%, 1.56%). Three participants (0.32%; 95% CI = 0.09%, 0.86%) were nucleic acid-positive but antibody-negative and 4 (0.43%; 95% CI = 0.15%, 1.02%) were antibody-positive. CONCLUSIONS: Even when the absolute prevalence is low, a considerable proportion of undetected HIV cases in an ED population are acute. Identification of acute HIV in ED settings should receive increased priority.

Preliminary program evaluation of emergency department HIV prevention counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Controversy surrounds the linkage of prevention counseling with emergency department (ED)-based HIV testing. Further, the effectiveness and feasibility of prevention counseling in the ED setting is unknown. We investigate these issues by conducting a preliminarily exploration of several related aspects of our ED's HIV prevention counseling and testing program. METHODS: Our urban, academic ED provides formal client-centered prevention counseling in conjunction with HIV testing. Five descriptive, exploratory observations were conducted, involving surveys and analysis of electronic medical records and programmatic data focused on (1) patient perception and feasibility of prevention counseling in the ED, (2) patient perceptions of the need to link prevention counseling with testing, and (3) potential effectiveness of providing prevention counseling in conjunction with ED-based HIV testing. RESULTS: Of 110 ED patients surveyed after prevention counseling and testing, 98% believed privacy was adequate, and 97% reported that their questions were answered. Patients stated that counseling would lead to improved health (80%), behavioral changes (72%), follow-up testing (77%), and discussion with partners (74%). However, 89% would accept testing without counseling, 32% were willing to seek counseling elsewhere, and 26% preferred not to receive the counseling. Correct responses to a 16-question knowledge quiz increased by 1.6 after counseling (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 12.0). The program completed counseling for 97% of patients tested; however, 6% of patients had difficulty recalling the encounter and 13% denied received testing. Among patients undergoing repeated testing, there was no consistent change in self-reported risk behaviors. CONCLUSION: Participants in the ED prevention counseling and testing program considered counseling acceptable and useful, though not required. Given adequate resources, prevention counseling can be provided in the ED, but it is unlikely that all patients benefit.

Comparison of missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis in 3 geographically proximate emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: Differences in the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV between different types of emergency departments (EDs) are not well understood. We seek to define missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis within 3 geographically proximate EDs serving different patient populations in a single metropolitan area. METHODS: For an urban academic, an urban community, and a suburban community ED located within 10 miles of one another, we reviewed visit records for a cohort of patients who received a new diagnosis of HIV between July 1999 and June 2003. Missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis were defined as ED visits in the year before diagnosis, during which there was no documented ED HIV testing offer or test. Outcomes were the number of missed opportunity visits and the number of patients with a missed opportunity for each ED. We secondarily reviewed medical records for missed opportunity encounters, using an extensive list of indications that might conceivably trigger testing. RESULTS: Among 276 patients with a new HIV diagnosis, 123 (44.5%) visited an ED in the year before diagnosis or received a diagnosis in the ED. The urban academic ED HIV testing program diagnosed 23 (8.3%) cases and offered testing to 24 (8.7%) patients who declined. Missed opportunities occurred during 187 visits made by 76 (27.5%) patients. These included 70 patients with 157 visits at the urban academic ED, 9 patients with 24 visits at the urban community ED, and 4 patients with 6 visits at the suburban community ED. Medical records were available for 172 of the 187 missed opportunity visits. Visits were characterized by the following potential testing indicators: HIV risk factors (58; 34%), related diagnosis indicating risk (7; 4%), AIDS-defining illness (8; 5%), physician suspicion of HIV (29; 17%), and nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness potentially consistent with HIV (126; 73%). CONCLUSION: Geographically proximate EDs differ in their opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis, but all 3 sites had missed opportunities. Many ED patients with undiagnosed HIV have potential indications for testing documented even in the absence of a dedicated risk assessment, although most of these are nonspecific signs or symptoms of illness that may not be clinically useful selection criteria.

Patient perception of whether an HIV test was provided during the emergency department encounter.

This cross-sectional study approached emergency department (ED) patients after the treating physician's disposition decision to measure patient understanding of whether or not they had received an HIV test during their ED encounter. Of the 300 respondents, 24 were excluded due to missing data or because they had received an ED HIV test. Mean age was 41 years, 51% were men, 61% were black, and 29% had no high school degree. There were 5.8% (95% confidence interval: 3.5%-9.4%) who erroneously reported HIV test delivery during their ED course. Our results suggest a small but significant minority of patients falsely assume that they have been tested for HIV during their ED visit. This misperception could have broad implications, leading to less frequent subsequent testing, false reassurance of HIV-negative status, and inaccuracies in surveillance estimates or surveys that depend on self-report.

Randomized comparison of universal and targeted HIV screening in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Universal HIV screening is recommended but challenging to implement. Selectively targeting those at risk is thought to miss cases, but previous studies are limited by narrow risk criteria, incomplete implementation, and absence of direct comparisons. We hypothesized that targeted HIV screening, when fully implemented and using maximally broad risk criteria, could detect nearly as many cases as universal screening with many fewer tests. METHODS: This single-center cluster-randomized trial compared universal and targeted patient selection for HIV screening in a lower prevalence urban emergency department. Patients were excluded for age (<18 and >64 years), known HIV infection, or previous approach for HIV testing that day. Targeted screening was offered for any risk indicator identified from charts, staff referral, or self-disclosure. Universal screening was offered regardless of risk. Baseline seroprevalence was estimated from consecutive deidentified blood samples. RESULTS: There were 9572 eligible visits during which the patient was approached. For universal screening, 40.8% (1915/4692) consented with 6 being newly diagnosed [0.31%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13% to 0.65%]. For targeted screening, 37% (1813/4880) had no testing indication. Of the 3067 remaining, 47.4% (1454) consented with 3 being newly diagnosed (0.22%, 95% CI: 0.06% to 0.55%). Estimated seroprevalence was 0.36% (95% CI: 0.16% to 0.70%). Targeted screening had a higher proportion consenting (47.4% vs. 40.8%, P < 0.002), but a lower proportion of ED encounters with testing (29.7% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted screening, even when fully implemented with maximally permissive selection, offered no important increase in positivity rate or decrease in tests performed. Universal screening diagnosed more cases, because more were tested, despite a modestly lower consent rate.