Understanding patient acceptance and refusal of HIV testing in the emergency department

<p>ABSTRACT</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite high rates of patient satisfaction with emergency department (ED) HIV testing, acceptance varies widely. It is thought that patients who decline may be at higher risk for HIV infection, thus we sought to better understand patient acceptance and refusal of ED HIV testing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews with fifty ED patients (28 accepters and 22 decliners of HIV testing) in three ED HIV testing programs that serve vulnerable urban populations in northern California.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Many factors influenced the decision to accept ED HIV testing, including curiosity, reassurance of negative status, convenience, and opportunity. Similarly, a number of factors influenced the decision to decline HIV testing, including having been tested recently, the perception of being at low risk for HIV infection due to monogamy, abstinence or condom use, and wanting to focus on the medical reason for the ED visit. Both accepters and decliners viewed ED HIV testing favorably and nearly all participants felt comfortable with the testing experience, including the absence of counseling. While many participants who declined an ED HIV test had logical reasons, some participants also made clear that they would prefer not to know their HIV status rather than face psychosocial consequences such as loss of trust in a relationship or disclosure of status in hospital or public health records.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Testing for HIV in the ED as for any other health problem reduces barriers to testing for some but not all patients. Patients who decline ED HIV testing may have rational reasons, but there are some patients who avoid HIV testing because of psychosocial ramifications. While ED HIV testing is generally acceptable, more targeted approaches to testing are necessary for this subgroup.</p

Resource Utilization and Cost-Effectiveness of Counselor- vs. Provider-Based Rapid Point-of-Care HIV Screening in the Emergency Department

Routine HIV screening in emergency department (ED) settings may require dedicated personnel. We evaluated the outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening when offered by either a member of the ED staff or by an HIV counselor.We employed a mathematical model to extend data obtained from a randomized clinical trial of provider- vs. counselor-based HIV screening in the ED. We compared the downstream survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of three HIV screening modalities: 1) no screening program; 2) an ED provider-based program; and 3) an HIV counselor-based program. Trial arm-specific data were used for test offer and acceptance rates (provider offer 36%, acceptance 75%; counselor offer 80%, acceptance 71%). Undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and linkage to care rates (80%) were assumed to be equal between the screening modalities. Personnel costs were derived from trial-based resource utilization data. We examined the generalizability of results by conducting sensitivity analyses on offer and acceptance rates, undetected HIV prevalence, and costs.Estimated HIV screening costs in the provider and counselor arms averaged $8.10 and$31.00 per result received. The Provider strategy (compared to no screening) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $58,700/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the Counselor strategy (compared to the Provider strategy) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of$64,500/QALY. Results were sensitive to the relative offer and acceptance rates by strategy and the capacity of providers to target-screen, but were robust to changes in undiagnosed HIV prevalence and programmatic costs.The cost-effectiveness of provider-based HIV screening in an emergency department setting compares favorably to other US screening programs. Despite its additional cost, counselor-based screening delivers just as much return on investment as provider based-screening. Investment in dedicated HIV screening personnel is justified in situations where ED staff resources may be insufficient to provide comprehensive, sustainable screening services