Sexually Transmitted Infection Co-testing in a Large Urban Emergency Department.

Introduction: The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) increased in the United States between 2017-2021. There is limited data describing STI co-testing practices and the prevalence of STI co-infections in emergency departments (ED). In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of co-testing and co-infection of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, in a large, academic ED. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study of ED patients tested for HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia between November 27, 2018-May 26, 2019. In 2018, the study institution implemented an ED-based infectious diseases screening program in which any patient being tested for gonorrhea/chlamydia was eligible for opt-out syphilis screening, and any patient 18-64 years who was having blood drawn for any clinical purpose was eligible for opt-out HIV and HCV screening. We analyzed data from all ED patients ≥13 years who had undergone STI testing. The outcomes of interest included prevalence of STI testing/co-testing and the prevalence of STI infection/co-infection. We describe data with simple descriptive statistics. Results: During the study period there were 30,767 ED encounters for patients ≥13 years (mean age: 43 ± 14 years, 52% female), and 7,866 (26%) were tested for at least one of HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia. We observed the following testing frequencies (and prevalence of infection): HCV, 7,539 (5.0%); HIV, 7,359 (0.9%); gonorrhea, 574 (6.1%); chlamydia, 574 (9.8%); and syphilis, 420 (10.5%). Infectious etiologies with universal testing protocols (HIV and HCV) made up the majority of STI testing. In patients with syphilis, co-infection with chlamydia (21%, 9/44) and HIV (9%, 4/44) was high. In patients with gonorrhea, co-infection with chlamydia (23%, 8/35) and syphilis (9%, 3/35) was high, and in patients with chlamydia, co-infection with syphilis (16%, 9/56) and gonorrhea (14%, 8/56) was high. Patients with HCV had low co-infection proportions (<2%). Conclusion: Prevalence of STI co-testing was low among patients with clinical suspicion for STIs; however, co-infection prevalence was high in several co-infection pairings. Future efforts are needed to improve STI co-testing rates among high-risk individuals.

Risk factors for HIV infection at a large urban emergency department: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, the US Preventative Services Task Force released updated guidelines recommending HIV screening in all individuals aged 15-64 years and all pregnant females. In the current study, we aimed to identify risk factors for HIV infection in an emergency department (ED) population. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study that employed a post hoc risk factor analysis of ED patients ≥18 years who were screened for HIV between 27 November 2018 and 26 November 2019, at a single urban, quaternary referral academic hospital. Patients were screened using HIV antigen/antibody testing and diagnoses were confirmed using HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody testing. The outcome of interest was the number of positive HIV tests. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with HIV positivity. RESULTS: 14 335 adult patients were screened for HIV (mean age: 43±14 years; 52% female). HIV seroprevalence was 0.7%. Independent risk factors for HIV positivity included male sex (adjusted OR (aOR) 3.1 (95% CI 1.7 to 5.6)), unhoused status (aOR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7 to 4.9)), history of illicit drug use (aOR 1.8 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.13)) and Medicare insurance status (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4)). CONCLUSIONS: The study ED services a high-risk population with regard to HIV infection. These data support universal screening of ED patients for HIV. Risk factor profiles could improve targeted screening at institutions without universal HIV testing protocols.

Risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection at a large urban emergency department.

In 2020, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released guidelines recommending HCV screening in all adults 18 years and older. In the current study, we aimed to identify risk factors for HCV infection in an ED population. We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients ≥ 18 years who were screened for HCV between 28 November 2018, and 27 November 2019, at a single urban, quaternary referral academic hospital. An HCV-antibody immunoassay (HCV-Ab) was used for screening; positive results were confirmed by measuring HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA). The outcome of interest was the number of new HCV diagnoses (presence of viremia by HCV RNA testing). Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors associated with a new HCV diagnosis. 16,722 adult patients were screened for HCV (mean age: 46 ± 15 years; 51% female). HCV seroprevalence was 5%. Independent risk factors for HCV included increasing age [10-year aOR 1.26 (95% CI 1.23, 1.30)], male sex [aOR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03, 1.51)], undomiciled housing status [aOR 2.8 (95% CI 2.3, 3.5)], history of tobacco use [aOR 3.0 (95% CI 2.3, 3.9)], history of illicit drug use [aOR 3.6 (95% CI 2.9, 4.5)], Medicaid insurance status [aOR 4.0 (95% CI 2.9, 5.5)] and Medicare insurance status [aOR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1, 2.2)].The ED services a high-risk population with regards to HCV infection. These data support universal screening of ED patients for HCV. Risk factor profiles could improve targeted screening at institutions without universal testing protocols.

Comparing Hepatitis C Virus Screening in Clinics Versus the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: New evidence suggests that emergency department (ED)-based infectious diseases screening programs have utility. We aimed to compare clinic-based and ED-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening programs within a single health system, to identify key differences in HCV antibody (Ab) positivity and chronic HCV, as well as population demographics. METHODS: In the clinic-based program, adults in the birth cohort (born 1945-1965) were screened for HCV. In the ED-based program, non-targeted HCV screening of all adults was conducted. We included patients screened between June 2019-June 2020. Patients were screened for anti-HCV Ab, and positive results were followed by HCV viral load (VL) testing. Our primary outcomes were seroprevalence of HCV Ab and HCV VL. RESULTS: There were 1,296 and 12,778 patients screened for HCV in the clinics and the ED, respectively. In the clinic setting, 13 patients (1%) screened positive for HCV Ab and nine (69%) completed VL testing, which was positive in one patient (11%). In the ED, 1,053 patients (8%) screened positive for HCV Ab and 847 (80%) underwent reflex VL testing, which was positive in 381 patients (45%). In an ED birth cohort sub-analysis, Hepatitis C virus Ab seroprevalence was 15% (675/4521). CONCLUSION: In this study of patients in a single healthcare system, ED-based HCV screening was higher yield than clinic-based screening.

Universal HIV screening in the emergency department: an interrupted time series analysis.

We performed a calendar-matched, 12-month, before (November 27, 2017 to November 26, 2018) and after (November 27, 2018 to November 26, 2019) study, to assess the utility of an emergency department-based HIV screening program. There were 710 and 14 335 patients screened for HIV during the pre and post-best practice alert (BPA) periods, respectively, representing more than a 20-fold increase in HIV screening following BPA implementation. Total HIV positive tests increased 5-fold following BPA implementation.

Risk Factors for Syphilis at a Large Urban Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of syphilis is increasing in the United States. The emergency department (ED) is an important setting to screen and treat underserved populations. To tailor testing protocols to the local population, we aimed to identify risk factors for syphilis positivity in ED patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients who were screened for syphilis between November 2018 and August 2020. Patients were screened for Treponema pallidum antibody using a multiplex flow immunoassay, and positive results were confirmed by rapid plasma reagin or T. pallidum particle agglutination. Risk factors for new syphilis diagnoses were identified using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: We screened 1974 patients for syphilis (mean age, 37 ± 16 years; 56% female). We identified 201 patients with new infections without previous treatment. Independent risk factors for a new diagnosis of syphilis included housing status (undomiciled, 23% [60 of 256]; domiciled, 9% [133 of 1559]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.2-3.0]), history of HIV (positive, 44% [28 of 63]; negative, 9% [173 of 1893]; aOR, 5.8 [95% CI, 3.0-11.2]), tobacco use (positive, 15% [117 of 797]; negative, 4% [29 of 665]; aOR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.5-3.9]), and illicit drug use (positive, 14% [112 of 812]; negative, 8% [52 of 678]; aOR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.0-2.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Undomiciled housing status, history of HIV, history of tobacco use, and history of illicit drug use were independently associated with a new diagnosis of syphilis in the ED. Broadening targeted syphilis screening algorithms beyond sexually transmitted disease-related complaints could help identify new syphilis cases for treatment.

Assessment of the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation (NQuIRE) database using a data quality index.

A comprehensive data quality assessment is necessary to expand a nursing database that is designed for evaluating the impact of implementing Best Practice Guidelines (BPG) developed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO). This case report presents a method to standardize data quality assessments of the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation (NQuIRE) database by developing a data quality framework (DQF) and assessing key dimensions of the framework using a data quality index (DQI). The data quality index is a single key performance metric for assessing the quality of the database. The aims of sharing this case report are 2-fold: (1) to promote best practices for assessing data quality by developing and implementing a data quality framework and (2) to demonstrate an unprecedented method of assessing the data quality of a nursing database.