Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program

BACKGROUND: The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines recommend screening for HIV infection in all healthcare settings, including the emergency department (ED). In urban areas with a high background prevalence of HIV, the ED has become an increasingly important...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Christopoulos, Katerina A, Koester, Kim, Weiser, Sheri, Lane, Tim, Myers, Janet J, Morin, Stephen F
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21450053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-30
_version_ 1782201663095832576
author Christopoulos, Katerina A
Koester, Kim
Weiser, Sheri
Lane, Tim
Myers, Janet J
Morin, Stephen F
author_facet Christopoulos, Katerina A
Koester, Kim
Weiser, Sheri
Lane, Tim
Myers, Janet J
Morin, Stephen F
author_sort Christopoulos, Katerina A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines recommend screening for HIV infection in all healthcare settings, including the emergency department (ED). In urban areas with a high background prevalence of HIV, the ED has become an increasingly important site for identifying HIV infection. However, this public health policy has been operationalized using different models. We sought to describe the development and implementation of HIV testing programs in three EDs, assess factors shaping the adoption and evolution of specific program elements, and identify barriers and facilitators to testing. METHODS: We performed a qualitative evaluation using in-depth interviews with fifteen 'key informants' involved in the development and implementation of HIV testing in three urban EDs serving sizable racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Testing program HIV prevalence ranged from 0.4% to 3.0%. RESULTS: Three testing models were identified, reflecting differences in the use of existing ED staff to offer and perform the test and disclose results. Factors influencing the adoption of a particular model included: whether program developers were ED providers, HIV providers, or both; whether programs took a targeted or non-targeted approach to patient selection; and the extent to which linkage to care was viewed as the responsibility of the ED. A common barrier was discomfort among ED providers about disclosing a positive HIV test result. Common facilitators were a commitment to underserved populations, the perception that testing was an opportunity to re-engage previously HIV-infected patients in care, and the support and resources offered by the medical setting for HIV-infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: ED HIV testing is occurring under a range of models that emerge from local realities and are tailored to institutional strengths to optimize implementation and overcome provider barriers.
format Text
id pubmed-3073926
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30739262011-04-12 A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program Christopoulos, Katerina A Koester, Kim Weiser, Sheri Lane, Tim Myers, Janet J Morin, Stephen F Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: The 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV testing guidelines recommend screening for HIV infection in all healthcare settings, including the emergency department (ED). In urban areas with a high background prevalence of HIV, the ED has become an increasingly important site for identifying HIV infection. However, this public health policy has been operationalized using different models. We sought to describe the development and implementation of HIV testing programs in three EDs, assess factors shaping the adoption and evolution of specific program elements, and identify barriers and facilitators to testing. METHODS: We performed a qualitative evaluation using in-depth interviews with fifteen 'key informants' involved in the development and implementation of HIV testing in three urban EDs serving sizable racial/ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Testing program HIV prevalence ranged from 0.4% to 3.0%. RESULTS: Three testing models were identified, reflecting differences in the use of existing ED staff to offer and perform the test and disclose results. Factors influencing the adoption of a particular model included: whether program developers were ED providers, HIV providers, or both; whether programs took a targeted or non-targeted approach to patient selection; and the extent to which linkage to care was viewed as the responsibility of the ED. A common barrier was discomfort among ED providers about disclosing a positive HIV test result. Common facilitators were a commitment to underserved populations, the perception that testing was an opportunity to re-engage previously HIV-infected patients in care, and the support and resources offered by the medical setting for HIV-infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: ED HIV testing is occurring under a range of models that emerge from local realities and are tailored to institutional strengths to optimize implementation and overcome provider barriers. BioMed Central 2011-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3073926/ /pubmed/21450053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-30 Text en Copyright ©2011 Christopoulos et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Christopoulos, Katerina A
Koester, Kim
Weiser, Sheri
Lane, Tim
Myers, Janet J
Morin, Stephen F
A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title_full A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title_short A comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department HIV testing program
title_sort comparative evaluation of the process of developing and implementing an emergency department hiv testing program
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21450053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-30
work_keys_str_mv AT christopouloskaterinaa acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT koesterkim acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT weisersheri acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT lanetim acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT myersjanetj acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT morinstephenf acomparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT christopouloskaterinaa comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT koesterkim comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT weisersheri comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT lanetim comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT myersjanetj comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram
AT morinstephenf comparativeevaluationoftheprocessofdevelopingandimplementinganemergencydepartmenthivtestingprogram