533 
Interim Findings from a Multi-site Evaluation of HIV Testing in Emergency Departments
James Heffelfinger*1, R Rothman2, H Pollack3, J Brown4, M Lyons5, G Almond6, P Sullivan1, S Barera7, and G Williams Torres7
1CDC, Atlanta, GA, US; 2Johns Hopkins Univ, Baltimore, MD, US; 3Sch of Social Svc Admin, Ctr for Hlth Admin Studies, Univ of Chicago, IL, US; 4George Washington Univ, Washington, DC, US; 5Univ of Cincinnati Coll of Med, OH, US; 6Metropolitan Hosp Ctr, New York, NY, US; and 7Hlth Res and Ed Trust, Chicago, IL, US
Background: In
2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended routine,
voluntary HIV testing for all persons aged 13 to 64 years in health care
settings. Translation to emergency department practice
could improve HIV diagnosis rates, enabling reductions in morbidity, mortality,
and transmission. In 2007, we began evaluating 6 emergency department HIV
testing programs to identify operational models, costs, barriers, and
facilitators.
Methods: We used a standardized pre-site visit survey and on-site
interviews for data collection. Sites had HIV testing programs for >6 months
and were chosen for diversity in geography and facility type. Operational model,
process outcome, and cost-effectiveness (program costs per newly diagnosed HIV+
person linked to care) are reported for the first 3 sites evaluated (university
hospital emergency departments in Washington, DC, and Cincinnati, Ohio; and a city hospital emergency department in New York City).
Results: The DC emergency
department used undergraduate students to offer point-of-care rapid
HIV testing to medically stable patients ≥13 years on a voluntary,
opt-out basis with support from department of health (DOH) and private grants. The
Ohio emergency department used HIV counseling and testing
staff to provide diagnostic and targeted testing using standard
laboratory-based HIV testing with support from the local and state DOH. The New York City emergency department used existing nursing staff to
offer laboratory-based rapid HIV testing to all patients ≥13 years with support
from the city DOH. The results of testing conducted during January through June
are shown in the table. All sites indicated that support from emergency
department and infectious disease leadership as well as DOH
funding facilitated implementation. However, staffing and resource constraints are
principle barriers to sustaining and expanding testing programs.
|
Site
|
DC
|
OH
|
NYC
|
|
Offered HIV test, n
|
2611
|
2270
|
21156
|
|
Received HIV test, n (%)
|
1300 (49.8)
|
1340 (59.0)
|
1880 (9.0)
|
|
Newly diagnosed HIV+, n
(%)
|
11 (0.8)
|
14 (1.0)
|
13 (0.7)
|
|
Linked to care, n (%)
|
11 (100)
|
12 (85.7)
|
12 (92.3)
|
|
Program cost per newly diagnosed HIV+
person linked to care
|
$12,300
|
$10,200
|
NA
|
Conclusions: Expanded
HIV testing in emergency departments will benefit
individuals and public health significantly; the proportion of new HIV diagnoses
ranged from 0.7 to 1.0% and most were linked to care. Considerable operational
variability suggests a variety of approaches will be needed to enhance implementation
of HIV testing in emergency departments and overcome
significant barriers in this setting. Sources of external support such as
health departments might expect a cost per newly diagnosed patient linked to
care of approximately $11,000.
|