A national audit of the management pathways for new HIV diagnoses.

The British HIV Association recommends that new diagnoses be reviewed by an HIV specialist within two weeks. NHS England outcome measures include the proportion of new diagnoses commencing antiretroviral therapy (ART) within 91 days. We aimed to review the extent to which these recommendations were followed, to explore the topics discussed with new diagnoses, and to identify reasons behind delayed ART initiation. UK specialist HIV services were invited to retrospectively review the notes of their last 40 new diagnoses over a 15-month period. One-hundred and thirty-two services provided data for 2281 eligible individuals. Most new diagnoses were reviewed by a specialist within two weeks (67.7%) and were commenced on ART within 91 days (83%), however, there were some concerning delays in those tested at home and in general practice. Partner notification and treatment benefits were discussed with most individuals, unlike the availability of community support and U = U ("undetectable equals untransmittable"). Lengthy delays in ART initiation were mostly due to individuals initially declining ART or missing appointments. Our findings suggest a need for more streamlined pathways into HIV care, review of new diagnoses who have not commenced ART within 8 weeks, and protocol development to ensure discussion of relevant topics.

Not all suffering is pain: sources of patients' suffering in the emergency department call for improvements in communication from practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Provision of prompt, effective analgesia is rightly considered as a standard of care in the emergency department (ED). However, much suffering is not 'painful' and may be under-recognised. We sought to describe the burden of suffering in the ED and explore how this may be best addressed from a patient centred perspective. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we included undifferentiated patients presenting to the ED. We undertook two face to face questionnaires with the first immediately following triage. We asked patients: (a) if they were 'suffering'; (b) how they were suffering; and (c) what they hoped would be done to ease this. Prior to leaving the ED, we asked patients what had been done to ease their suffering. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 125 patients included, 77 (61.6%) reported suffering on direct questioning and 92 (73.6%) listed at least one way in which they were suffering. 90 (72.0%) patients had a pain score >0/10 but only 37 (29.6%) reported that pain was causing suffering. Patients reported suffering from both physical symptoms (especially pain, nausea, vomiting and dizziness) and emotional distress (notably anxiety). Treatment (to ease physical and emotional symptoms), information (particularly diagnosis, reassurance and explanation), care (notably friendly staff) and closure (being seen, resolving the problem and going home) were the key themes identified as important for relief of suffering. CONCLUSIONS: In seeking to ease suffering in the ED, clinicians must focus not only on providing analgesia but on treating Emotional distress, Physical symptoms, providing Information, Care and Closure (EPICC).