Unique Needs for the Implementation of Emergency Department Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Adolescents

Barriers to Universal HIV Screening of Adolescents in a Pediatric Emergency Department in Miami, Florida

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends universal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening in emergency departments (EDs) for patients (above 13 years). In 2017, Jackson Health System (Miami, FL) established a successful adult ED-based universal opt-out HIV screening program. However, when expanded to its affiliated pediatric ED (PED) as an opt-in protocol, only 1.3% of all adolescents received universal screening (only 1.7% were tested based on their chief complaints). We explore barriers to PED testing by comparing the attitudes of providers, patients, and caregivers. Institutional review board-approved surveys were administered anonymously to each group. Raw aggregate data were analyzed for trends. Providers' responses were stratified by role and responses were compared via a Mann-Whitney test. Twenty-four providers responded; they agreed that testing is warranted (x = 3.58 σ 1.32) and not time-consuming (x = 2.33 σ 1.05). There was no agreement on the perceived role of providers to perform testing. Attendings reported a high chance of breaching patients' confidentiality (x̄ = 3.27 σ 1.35), while nurses did not (x̄ = 2.33 σ 1.51). Of the 62 patient responses, 62.9% were amenable to testing, 69.4% would consent to 4th-generation serum testing if less invasive options (e.g., oral swabs) were unavailable, and 77.4% would inform caregivers of results. Of the 37 caregiver responses, 91.9% felt comfortable with their child consenting to testing. In this population, patients and caregivers appear amenable to universal screening. Low testing rates may be explained by providers' disagreement on their role to perform testing and concerns about confidentiality. Future studies should further explore protocol-based flaws and providers' views.

Innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care in the U.S.: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing, diagnosis, and linkage-to-care in the U.S.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Between November 2020 and January 2022, a broad search strategy was employed in three literature databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

A team of master's and Ph.D.-level researchers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data using COVIDENCE software in pairs with consensus performed by a senior member of the team. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and analyzed according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Frequency of determinants across studies was mapped according to CFIR, valence, study design, delivery setting, unit of analysis, population of interest, region of the U.S., and year.

RESULTS

We identified 1,739 implementation and innovation determinants from 186 articles. Most determinants were for HIV testing rather than linkage-to-care. Most determinants were identified in the inner setting and individuals domains of CFIR, with the fewest identified in the process and innovations domains. Determinants of providers were only slightly more frequently identified than determinants of recipients. However, determinants of organizations and systems were rarely identified.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a synthesis of innovation and implementation determinants of HIV testing and linkage-to-care using the most-cited implementation science (IS) framework, CFIR. This synthesis enables the larger field of HIV science to utilize IS in efforts to end the HIV epidemic and positions IS to consider the application of IS frameworks to fields like HIV.

Testing trends and co-testing patterns for HIV, hepatitis C and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in Emergency departments

Background

Many underserved populations use Emergency Department (EDs) as primary sources of care, representing an important opportunity to provide infectious disease testing and linkage to care. We explored national ED testing trends and co-testing patterns for HIV, hepatitis C, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Methods

We used 2010-2019 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Nationwide Emergency Department Sample data to estimate ED visit testing rates for HIV, hepatitis C, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis infections, identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Trends and co-testing (visit with tests for > 1 infection) patterns were analyzed by sociodemographic, hospital, and visit characteristics. Trends were evaluated as the average annual percentage change (AAPC) using the Joinpoint Regression.

Results

During 2010-2019, testing events per 1000 visits (AAPCs) increased for HIV from 1.3 to 4.2 (16.3 %), hepatitis C from 0.4 to 2.2 (25.1 %), chlamydia from 9.1 to 16.0 (6.6 %), gonorrhea from 8.4 to 15.7 (7.4 %), and syphilis from 0.7 to 2.0 (12.9 %). Rate increases varied by several characteristics across infections. The largest AAPC increases were among visits by groups with lower base rate testing in 2010, including persons aged ≥ 65 years (HIV: 36.4 %), with Medicaid (HIV: 43.8 %), in the lowest income quintile (hepatitis C: 36.9 %), living in the West (syphilis: 49.4 %) and with non-emergency diagnoses (hepatitis C: 44.1 %). Co-testing increased significantly for all infections except hepatitis C.

Conclusions

HIV, hepatitis C, and STI testing increased in EDs during 2010-2019; however, co-testing patterns were inconsistent. Co-testing may improve diagnosis and linkage to care, especially in areas experiencing higher rates of infection.

HIV in youth prevention in the emergency department initiative: A survey of pediatric emergency medicine providers

BACKGROUND

The incidence of HIV among adolescents remains high, and adolescents are known to participate in sexual behaviors that increase their risk for HIV, such as unprotected sex and sex with multiple partners. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be effective at preventing HIV when taken daily and is approved by the FDA for use in adolescents. Efforts to screen patients in adult emergency departments and connect them with PrEP services have been validated. We surveyed pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) providers to determine their knowledge of PrEP, prescribing practices, willingness to prescribe, and barriers to a screening protocol in the pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

We administered a survey to a multidisciplinary group of PEM providers to measure knowledge, use, willingness, and implementation barriers to PrEP as well as elements needed for a successful referral system.

RESULTS

A total of 87 responses were included for analysis. While 79.1% of all providers had heard of PrEP, only 14.8% of prescribing providers had ever discussed PrEP with a patient, and none had ever prescribed PrEP. Overall, 76.3% of all providers were knowledgeable about PrEP based on answers to true/false questions, with prescribing providers significantly more likely to be knowledgeable compared to nurses (p = 0.005). Knowledgeable providers had higher willingness scores to refer for PrEP compared to providers who were not knowledgeable. Ninety-two percent of providers felt a PrEP referral process from the PED would be feasible. Creation of an eligibility algorithm and educational materials were the most common efforts providers preferred to make them more likely to refer for PrEP. The most notable barriers perceived by providers included patient noncompliance with therapy (20.9%), acceptance of PrEP discussion among patients and parents (19.8%), and cost of therapy (15.1%).

CONCLUSION

PEM providers are knowledgeable about PrEP but have little experience with discussing or prescribing PrEP. Their willingness to refer for PrEP and anticipated feasibility of a PrEP referral system is encouraging. These results support the need for future educational efforts among PEM providers and creation of referral systems for PrEP services from the PED.

Comparison of Targeted and Routine Adolescent HIV Screening in a Pediatric Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were (1) to compare targeted and routine HIV screening in a pediatric emergency department (PED) and (2) to compare provider documented HIV risk assessment with adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment conducted during the PED visit.

METHODS

This prospective study ran concurrent to a PED routine HIV screening pilot. Adolescents could be tested for HIV by the PED provider per usual care (targeted testing); if not tested, they were approached for the routine screening pilot. A subset of adolescents completed a questionnaire on HIV risk. χ 2 analysis compared adolescents with targeted testing and routine screening. HIV-tested patients were asked if HIV risk was assessed; κ analysis compared this with documentation in the provider note.

RESULTS

Over 4 months, 107 adolescents received targeted testing and 344 received routine screening. One 14-year-old patient tested positive by routine screening; this adolescent had 2 PED visits without targeted testing within 60 days. Compared with routine screening, adolescents with targeted testing were more likely female (82% vs 57%, P < 0.001), 16 years or older (71% vs 44%, P < 0.001), or had genitourinary/gynecologic concerns (48% vs 6%, P < 0.001). Adolescents with HIV risk factors were missed by targeted testing but received routine screening. Adolescents with documented HIV risk assessment were more likely to receive targeted testing. There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.61) between provider documentation and adolescent perception of HIV risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There are gaps in PED HIV risk assessment and testing, which may miss opportunities to diagnose adolescent HIV. Routine HIV screening addresses these gaps and expands adolescent HIV testing in the PED.

A systematic review of HIV screening programs conducted in pediatric emergency departments in the United States

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review of studies published in peer-reviewed journals on HIV screening programs conducted in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) in the United States (US) with the objective of describing the methods, testing yields and challenges in these programs.

METHODS

We searched for full-text, English-language, original research articles focused on the conduct, development, initiation or implementation of any HIV screening program in a US PED through eight online databases (Pubmed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Google Scholar) from their inception through July 2020. We also searched for articles on the websites of thirteen emergency medicine journals, 24 pediatric and adolescent health journals, and ten HIV research journals, and using the references of articles found through these searches. Data on HIV testing program components and yield of testing was extracted by one investigator independently and verified by a second investigator. Each program was summarized and critiqued.

RESULTS

Of the eight articles that met inclusion criteria, most involved descriptions of their HIV testing program, except for one that was focused on quality improvement of their program. Five described an opt-in and three an opt-out approach to HIV screening. Programs differed greatly by type of HIV test utilized and who initiated or performed testing. There were large variations in the percentage of patients offered (4.0% to 96.7%) and accepting (42.7% to 86.7%) HIV testing, and HIV seropositivity in the studies ranged from 0 to 0.6%. Five of the eight studies reported an HIV seropositivity greater than 0.1%, above Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended threshold for testing in a healthcare setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies illustrate opportunities to further optimize the integration of HIV screening programs within US PEDs and reduce barriers to testing, improve efficiency of testing results and increase effectiveness of programs to identify cases. Future research should focus on advancing the methodology of screening programs beyond feasibility studies as well as conducting investigations on their implementation and longer-term sustainability.