OBJECTIVES: To explore staff attitudes towards and experiences of the implementation of routine HIV testing in four healthcare settings in areas of high diagnosed HIV prevalence. METHODS: As part of the HINTS (HIV Testing in Non-traditional Settings) Study, routine offer of an HIV test to all 16-65-year-old patients was conducted for 3 months in an emergency department, an acute admissions unit, a dermatology outpatients department and a primary care practice. The authors conducted focus groups with staff at these sites before and after the implementation of testing. Transcriptions of focus groups were subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four major themes were identified: the stigma of HIV and exceptionalisation of HIV testing as a condition; the use of routine testing compared with a targeted strategy as a means of improving the acceptability of testing; the need for an additional skill set to conduct HIV testing; and the existence within these particular settings of operational barriers to the implementation of HIV testing. Specifically, the time taken to conduct testing and management of results were seen by staff as barriers. There was a clear change in staff perception before and after implementation of testing as staff became aware of the high level of patient acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The routine offer of HIV testing in general medical services is feasible, but implementation requires training and support for staff, which may be best provided by the local sexual health service.
OBJECTIVES: To explore staff attitudes towards and experiences of the implementation of routine HIV testing in four healthcare settings in areas of high diagnosed HIV prevalence. METHODS: As part of the HINTS (HIV Testing in Non-traditional Settings) Study, routine offer of an HIV test to all 16-65-year-old patients was conducted for 3 months in an emergency department, an acute admissions unit, a dermatology outpatients department and a primary care practice. The authors conducted focus groups with staff at these sites before and after the implementation of testing. Transcriptions of focus groups were subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four major themes were identified: the stigma of HIV and exceptionalisation of HIV testing as a condition; the use of routine testing compared with a targeted strategy as a means of improving the acceptability of testing; the need for an additional skill set to conduct HIV testing; and the existence within these particular settings of operational barriers to the implementation of HIV testing. Specifically, the time taken to conduct testing and management of results were seen by staff as barriers. There was a clear change in staff perception before and after implementation of testing as staff became aware of the high level of patient acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: The routine offer of HIV testing in general medical services is feasible, but implementation requires training and support for staff, which may be best provided by the local sexual health service.
Authors: James L Harmon; Michelle Collins-Ogle; John A Bartlett; Julie Thompson; Julie Barroso Journal: J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 1.354
Authors: Randy Seewald; R Douglas Bruce; Rashiah Elam; Ruy Tio; Sara Lorenz; Patricia Friedmann; David Rabin; Yana B Garger; Valentin Bonilla; David C Perlman Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: J Womack; E Herieka; M Gompels; S Callaghan; E Burt; C F Davies; M T May; N O'Brien; J Macleod Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Rosalie L Allison; Ellie J Ricketts; Thomas Hartney; Anthony Nardone; Katy Town; Claire Rugman; Kate Folkard; J Kevin Dunbar; Cliodna Am McNulty Journal: BJGP Open Date: 2018-04-07
Authors: Ann K Sullivan; Dorthe Raben; Joanne Reekie; Michael Rayment; Amanda Mocroft; Stefan Esser; Agathe Leon; Josip Begovac; Kees Brinkman; Robert Zangerle; Anna Grzeszczuk; Anna Vassilenko; Vesna Hadziosmanovic; Maksym Krasnov; Anders Sönnerborg; Nathan Clumeck; José Gatell; Brian Gazzard; Antonella d'Arminio Monforte; Jürgen Rockstroh; Jens D Lundgren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 3.240