Physician-initiated rapid HIV testing in an urban emergency department: comparison of testing using a point-of-care versus a laboratory model.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare the outcomes of 2 models of physician-initiated rapid HIV testing in an emergency department (ED). METHODS: One-year retrospective cohort comparing 2 6-month models of physician-initiated rapid HIV testing, point-of-care versus laboratory. Patients aged 12 years or older and able to give verbal consent were eligible for physician-initiated rapid HIV testing if their treating physician believed testing was clinically indicated. During the point-of-care phase, nursing staff performed oral fluid testing. During the laboratory phase, the laboratory performed whole-blood testing. The proportion of potentially eligible patients who had physician-initiated rapid HIV testing ordered (order rate), proportion of ordered tests completed (test completion rate), and proportion of potentially eligible patients who completed testing (overall testing rate) during each phase were assessed. ED length of stay and testing times were also compared. RESULTS: For the point-of-care versus laboratory phase, respectively, there were 24,345 potentially eligible patients versus 26,363; order rate was 3.3% versus 2.4% (P<.001); test completion rate was 75.3% versus 86.8% (P<.001); overall testing rate was 2.5% versus 2.1% (P=.009). Eighteen (3.0%) of the point-of-care-tested patients and 15 (2.7%) of the laboratory-tested patients had reactive tests (P=0.02). The total testing time was greater in the laboratory phase (88 versus 66 minutes; P<.001); however, there was no significant difference in the length of stay between phases (6.2 versus 6.9 hours; P=.15). CONCLUSION: Relatively few ED patients undergo physician-initiated rapid HIV testing regardless of whether a point-of-care or laboratory approach is used. Differences exist in most outcome measures when point-of-care and laboratory models are compared, which should be considered when testing is implemented.

HIV screening in an urban emergency department: comparison of screening using an opt-in versus an opt-out approach.

OBJECTIVE: We compare outcomes of opt-in and opt-out HIV screening approaches in an urban emergency department. METHODS: This was a 1-year prospective observational study comparing 2 6-month screening approaches. Eligibility for opt-in and opt-out screening was identical: aged 15 years or older, medically stable, and able to complete general consent. During the opt-in phase, triage nurses referred patients to HIV testers stationed at triage, who obtained separate opt-in written consent and performed rapid oral fluid tests. During the opt-out phase, registration staff conducted integrated opt-out consent and then referred patients to HIV testers. We assessed the proportion of potentially eligible patients who were offered screening (screening offer rate), the proportion offered screening who accepted (screening acceptance rate), the proportion who accepted screening and subsequently completed testing (test completion rate), and the proportion of potentially eligible patients who completed testing (overall screening rate) during each phase. RESULTS: For the opt-in versus the opt-out phases, respectively, there were 23,236 potentially eligible patients versus 26,757, screening offer rate was 27.9% versus 75.8% (P<.001), screening acceptance rate was 62.7% versus 30.9% (P<.001), test completion rate was 99.8% versus 74.6% (P<.001), and overall screening rate was 17.4% versus 17.5% (P = .90). CONCLUSION: A significantly higher proportion of patients were offered HIV screening with an opt-out approach at registration. However, this was offset by much higher screening acceptance and test completion rates with the opt-in approach at triage. Overall screening rates with the 2 approaches were nearly identical.