954 - Missed opportunities for HIV Screening in the Emergency Department

The ePoster content is available to users who are logged in.<br><br>Please log in and then come back here to use this button.

Presenting Author(s)

AH

Amanda Hirsch

Medical Student
Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine
Royal Oak, Michigan
Disclosure: I do not have any relevant financial / non-financial relationships with any proprietary interests.

Co-Author(s)

CC

Christopher F. Carpenter

Chair
Beaumont Hospital
Royal Oak, Michigan
Disclosure: I do not have any relevant financial / non-financial relationships with any proprietary interests.

Background: There are 1.14 million people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States, and only about 86% are diagnosed. HIV diagnosis is the first step to care and expanded testing is essential to reduce transmission. Individuals with undiagnosed HIV have a transmission rate 3.5 times higher than those aware of their infection. Individuals seeking testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) represent a higher risk population for HIV infection. Despite revised Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations to expand HIV testing in healthcare settings, testing remains low. A significant obstacle to expanded testing, especially in emergency departments (EDs), is concern about ensuring appropriate HIV test tracking and follow-up.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients presenting with symptoms of an STI between January 1, 2015 and July 8, 2019 at eight Beaumont Health EDs in Southeast Michigan. De-identified data was collected from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients aged 10 and older who had testing for one or more STIs including gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia. Patients were evaluated for concurrent HIV testing during the encounter, and patients known to be HIV infected were excluded.

Results: Of 32,640 encounters during which patients not known to be HIV infected were tested for STIs, only 68 (0.21%) included HIV antibody/antigen screening. Of those tested, only one (1.47%) returned reactive. The remaining 67 screenings returned non-reactive. Applying only 10% of this diagnosis rate to the total number of STI encounters suggests an opportunity to diagnose 47 additional individuals; applying 50% of this rate and the corresponding value is 239 individuals.

Conclusion: These results highlight the need for expanded HIV screening in EDs. Systematic HIV test tracking and follow-up removes this burden from ED providers and enables expanded HIV testing in these settings.