BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published recommendations for routine, voluntary human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing of adults in all health care settings, including the emergency department (ED). STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the willingness of ED providers to offer HIV testing, as well as their perceived barriers to implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: Before the establishment of a routine HIV testing program in the ED, a 21-item survey was used to assess ED providers' knowledge, attitudes, and perceived challenges to HIV testing. Six months after program initiation, the identical survey was re-administered to determine whether HIV testing program experience altered providers' perceptions. RESULTS:There were 108 of 146 (74%) providers who completed both the pre- and post-implementation surveys. Although the majority of emergency providers at 6 months were supportive of an ED-based HIV testing program (59/108 [55%]), only 38% (41/108) were willing to offer the HIV test most or all of the time. At 6 months, the most frequently cited barriers to offering a test were: inadequate time (67/108 [62%]), inadequate resources (65/108 [60%]), and concerns regarding provision of follow-up care (64/108 [59%]). CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of a large-scale HIV testing program in an ED, the majority of emergency providers were supportive of routine HIV testing. Nevertheless, 6 months after program initiation, providers were still reluctant to offer the test due to persistent barriers. Further studies are needed to identify feasible implementation strategies that minimize barriers to routine HIV testing in the ED.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published recommendations for routine, voluntary human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing of adults in all health care settings, including the emergency department (ED). STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the willingness of ED providers to offer HIV testing, as well as their perceived barriers to implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: Before the establishment of a routine HIV testing program in the ED, a 21-item survey was used to assess ED providers' knowledge, attitudes, and perceived challenges to HIV testing. Six months after program initiation, the identical survey was re-administered to determine whether HIV testing program experience altered providers' perceptions. RESULTS: There were 108 of 146 (74%) providers who completed both the pre- and post-implementation surveys. Although the majority of emergency providers at 6 months were supportive of an ED-based HIV testing program (59/108 [55%]), only 38% (41/108) were willing to offer the HIV test most or all of the time. At 6 months, the most frequently cited barriers to offering a test were: inadequate time (67/108 [62%]), inadequate resources (65/108 [60%]), and concerns regarding provision of follow-up care (64/108 [59%]). CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of a large-scale HIV testing program in an ED, the majority of emergency providers were supportive of routine HIV testing. Nevertheless, 6 months after program initiation, providers were still reluctant to offer the test due to persistent barriers. Further studies are needed to identify feasible implementation strategies that minimize barriers to routine HIV testing in the ED.
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Milton C Weinstein; Heather E Smith; Kenneth A Freedberg; A David Paltiel Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-09-22
Authors: Daniel W Hungerford; Janet M Williams; Paul M Furbee; William G Manley; James C Helmkamp; Kimberly Horn; Daniel A Pollock Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Adebola A Adedimeji; Aba Asibon; Gerard O'Connor; Richard Carson; Ethan Cowan; Philip McKinley; Jason Leider; Patrick Mallon; Yvette Calderon Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2015-02
Authors: Andrew C Voetsch; James D Heffelfinger; Juliet Yonek; Pragna Patel; Steven F Ethridge; Gretchen W Torres; Margaret A Lampe; Bernard M Branson Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Mitra K Lewis; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Charlotte A Gaydos; Stephen C Peterson; Richard E Rothman Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2017-03-26 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Pollyanna R G Chávez; Laura G Wesolowski; Philip J Peters; Christopher H Johnson; Muazzam Nasrullah; Emeka Oraka; Euna M August; Elizabeth DiNenno Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Pamela W Klein; Ian B K Martin; Evelyn B Quinlivan; Cynthia L Gay; Peter A Leone Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Parastu Kasaie; W David Kelton; Rachel M Ancona; Michael J Ward; Craig M Froehle; Michael S Lyons Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; William M Reichmann; Christian Arbelaez; Elizabeth Wright; Jeffrey N Katz; George R Seage; Steven A Safren; Anna Q Hare; Anna Novais; Elena Losina Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Christian Arbelaez; Brian Block; Elena Losina; Elizabeth A Wright; William M Reichmann; Regina Mikulinsky; Jessica D Solomon; Matthew M Dooley; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2009-09-01