Perceptions on HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Urgent Care Clinicians in the Southern United States.

BACKGROUND: Underutilization of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the Southern United States (US) is well-documented. Urgent care (UC) centers are positioned as communityfacing access points to PrEP, but the feasibility of integrating PrEP services into this setting is unclear. We conducted a survey of UC clinicians in the Southern US to better understand their perceptions of the feasibility of providing PrEP in their practice setting. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of providing PrEP services in the UC setting through a cross-sectional survey of UC clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a 48-item cross-sectional survey of UC clinicians in the Southern US, between July and September 2020. The survey was distributed through the Urgent Care Association (UCA) and American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine (AAUCM) professional listservs as well as directly to publicly listed e-mail addresses. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinicians responded to the survey. Most clinicians had familiarity with PrEP (97%). All respondents rated PrEP as an effective way to prevent HIV. However, less than half felt UC facilities were an appropriate place to prescribe PrEP. Few respondents (8%) expressed doubts that expansion of PrEP access would decrease the incidence of HIV in their community. CONCLUSION: These findings show UC clinicians are familiar with PrEP, and many believe it would benefit their patients; however, provider opinions on the appropriateness of providing PrEP in the UC setting differ. Further studies on PrEP implementation in UC centers are needed.

Geographic analysis of latent tuberculosis screening: A health system approach.

BACKGROUND: Novel approaches are required to better focus latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) efforts in low-prevalence regions. Geographic information systems, used within large health systems, may provide one such approach. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional design was used to integrate US Census and Duke Health System data between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2017 and examine the relationships between LTBI screening and population tuberculosis risk (assessed using the surrogate measure of proportion of persons born in tuberculosis-endemic regions) by census tract. RESULTS: The median proportion of Duke patients screened per census tract was 0.01 (range 0-0.1, interquartile range 0.01-0.03). The proportion of Duke patients screened within a census tract significantly but weakly correlated with the population risk. Furthermore, patients residing in census tracts with higher population tuberculosis risk were more likely to be screened with TST than with an IGRA (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The weak correlation between patient proportion screened for LTBI and our surrogate marker of population tuberculosis risk suggests that LTBI screening efforts should be better targeted. This type of geography-based analysis may serve as an easily obtainable benchmark for LTBI screening in health systems with low tuberculosis prevalence.