The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025
Implementing HIV prevention in the emergency department: Strategies and outcomes from seven California emergency departments.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
White Douglas A E, Packel Laura, Garcia-Chinn Maria, Godoy Ashley, Jewett Montana, Burns Molly, May Larissa, Collins Destiny, Azimian Kian, Burson Leslie, Coyne Christopher, Blumenthal Jill, Woods-Roberts Tashema, Terp Sophie, Axeen Sarah, Kearl Yvette Liza, Lyon Kristopher, McCoy Sandra I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (ED) are critical access points for individuals at increased risk for acquiring HIV infection. Expanding ED-based HIV screening programs to provide HIV prevention services (HPS), including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), may fill an important public health gap.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a mixed-methods, type 3 hybrid implementation effectiveness study of seven California EDs that integrated HPS for HIV negative patients between September 2021 and March 2023. A data collection instrument was used to obtain care cascade metrics. Semi-structured interviews were performed to understand the procedures for determining HPS eligibility and for making HPS referrals.
RESULTS: All EDs had pre-existing HIV screening programs. Protocols were heterogeneous, sites used HPS navigators, and none initiated same-day PrEP. There were steep drop-offs at each cascade step. Of the 104,309 patients that tested HIV negative across all sites, 1851 (1.8 %) were eligible for a HPS referral, of which 1548 (83.6 %) received ED HPS information. After receiving ED HPS information, 988 (63.8 %) were referred to an outpatient HPS appointment. Of those who were referred and linkage data was available (N = 696), 497 (71.4 %) attended their outpatient HPS appointment. Two sites reported that 29 of the 39 patients who attended an appointment (74.4 %) were started on PrEP. We identified three models used to identify HPS eligibility (Behavioral Risk Assessment, STI-based Risk Assessment, and Automated Risk Assessment) and two models for making HPS referrals (Primary and Secondary).
CONCLUSION: ED HIV screening programs can be leveraged to implement HPS. Different models for identifying and referring eligible patients to HPS allow for flexible integration. Each model has strengths and weaknesses for addressing the prevention care cascade and for informing practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a mixed-methods, type 3 hybrid implementation effectiveness study of seven California EDs that integrated HPS for HIV negative patients between September 2021 and March 2023. A data collection instrument was used to obtain care cascade metrics. Semi-structured interviews were performed to understand the procedures for determining HPS eligibility and for making HPS referrals.
RESULTS: All EDs had pre-existing HIV screening programs. Protocols were heterogeneous, sites used HPS navigators, and none initiated same-day PrEP. There were steep drop-offs at each cascade step. Of the 104,309 patients that tested HIV negative across all sites, 1851 (1.8 %) were eligible for a HPS referral, of which 1548 (83.6 %) received ED HPS information. After receiving ED HPS information, 988 (63.8 %) were referred to an outpatient HPS appointment. Of those who were referred and linkage data was available (N = 696), 497 (71.4 %) attended their outpatient HPS appointment. Two sites reported that 29 of the 39 patients who attended an appointment (74.4 %) were started on PrEP. We identified three models used to identify HPS eligibility (Behavioral Risk Assessment, STI-based Risk Assessment, and Automated Risk Assessment) and two models for making HPS referrals (Primary and Secondary).
CONCLUSION: ED HIV screening programs can be leveraged to implement HPS. Different models for identifying and referring eligible patients to HPS allow for flexible integration. Each model has strengths and weaknesses for addressing the prevention care cascade and for informing practice.