New program dramatically increases HIV screening and detection

Since 2006, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended that all people aged 13-64 be screened for HIV by their health care providers.  That was supposed to help identify a lot of patients who had HIV, but didn’t know it.  It would also allow them to get treated, and make them less likely to transmit HIV.

In theory, it was a great idea.  In practice, it hasn’t worked as well as it could have.

Let’s look at how a patient might get screened today in areas where the current CDC screening guidelines are followed, without the extra fail safes that two sites have now implemented.

A 23 year-old male goes to his local county health department clinic because he’s developed a genital discharge and pain in the area.  The doctor orders several tests, including an HIV test.  The patient agrees.  His doctor suspects a sexually transmitted infection (STI), and starts treatment.  The patient leaves, completes treatment and does well.  He never returns for his follow-up appointment. Three days later, the clinic gets a positive HIV test back on the patient.  The staff at the clinic attempts to contact the patient several times by phone, mail and email. The patient never responds.  He’s HIV positive but doesn’t know it and may be spreading the disease to several other sexual partners.  And they won’t know that they’re infected.

HIV/AIDS ribbon via Shutterstock

HIV/AIDS ribbon via Shutterstock

The possibility also exists that the patient has HIV, but he’s in a “window” period when the tests the county health department will be negative, because the patient hasn’t yet produced the necessary antibodies that the HIV tests detect.  So he can be positive, with a high viral load, yet his results are negative.

So, in either of these two instances, the patient is capable of unknowingly spreading HIV.  And, since neither patient knows that he’s positive, he’s not receiving any treatment or counseling.

These patients are ones that fall into the group of about 15-20% of cases of HIV where the patient is unaware of their status and is not enrolled in treatment.  In the above scenarios, even had the patient tested positive and been notified of the fact, many don’t go for treatment.  They may elect not to get treated, there may be a communication failure by the testing site to contact or refer the patient for treatment, or there may be paperwork errors and/or other problems.

Two sites, one in New York City and one in New Orleans, received funding to look at and attempt to correct this problem.  They were to look at:

1) institutional policy change reflecting an organization-wide commitment to routine HIV testing and diagnosis; 2) integration of HIV testing into existing clinical workflows to promote its normalization and sustainability; 3) use of electronic health records (EHR) to prompt testing, automate laboratory orders, and track performance; and 4) required staff education on best HIV testing practices and outcomes.

What they did was to ask every patient to agree to have HIV testing along with other necessary blood work. And the vast majority agreed (though all were offered the opportunity to opt out of HIV testing).  The patient’s demographics and the lab tests (among other things) were entered into the electronic health record (EHR).  The EHR would prompt staff to check the HIV test, contact the patient, have them come in to discuss test results and receive HIV education, set up follow-up appointments for future testing (if HIV negative), or enroll them in treatment (if HIV positive.) The screening test results are available at the same visit where the blood is drawn.  So the patient knows their status even before they leaves the hospital or clinic.  One site can even test for the acute phase of HIV infection that is positive before the antibody tests become positive.  The sites have HIV counselors and navigators available to guide the patients through the initial paperwork and referral process, and get them connected to a clinic or doctor that can start HIV treatment.  The EHR also prompts the staff to check with the patients after they are referred to a treating doctor to support them, and in general to follow them and help with other problems if they arise.

Instituting this plan caused an impressive increase in the number of patients screened, detected as HIV positive, and referred to treatment.  At one site, the number of patients screened before this program was about 8% of all patients who were eligible for screening.  After implementation of the program, they averaged 56% of patients getting screened (remember, patients can opt out and not give consent for HIV testing.)  At one of the sites in one year, almost 150 patients were diagnosed with HIV, and about 125 of those were successfully enrolled in programs for HIV treatment and care.

This method seems to be much better suited to identify and treat HIV patients than others currently in use.  Surprisingly, it is not much more expensive to use this method.  Both sites used already-available resources (their EMRs, laboratory facilities, navigators, counselors, physicians, nurses, etc.)  They did need to do some additional staff education, reconfigure some clinical pathways, spend more time doing follow-up and make some other changes, but the costs were relatively small and mostly just a one-time expense.

Perhaps, if this system gets used in more locations, we’ll be able to decrease the numbers of untested people who have HIV, get them into treatment more quickly, and have an impact on decreasing rates of HIV infection.


Mark Thoma, MD, is a physician who did his residency in internal medicine. Mark has a long history of social activism, and was an early technogeek, and science junkie, after evolving through his nerd phase. Favorite quote: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science... is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny.'” - Isaac Asimov

Share This Post

  • michelleobetts

    my classmate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the
    computer . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was
    $15495 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  • Tatts

    Even the “old” rapid tests (OraQuick) limited the number of people who could be tested in a day, because the process took at least 30 minutes per patient (including the 20-minute time for the results to develop). The new gold standard is Insti; 60 seconds for your results. They can screen a lot more people (and the test registers positives many days earlier than the other rapid tests).

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Oh, he tested my husband also.

  • docsterx

    The CDC was recommending that sexually active men who have sex with men (MSMs) be tested yearly for HIV. The doctor is right that, in general, the possibility of infidelity exists and that he needs to put that concern in the equation when he recommends yearly HIV testing for you. I doubt he was trying to cast aspersions on your husband’s fidelity.

  • docsterx

    The recommendation is that HIV testing be ordered on everyone in that age group. That is explained to the patient and he is told that he is free to refuse to be tested.

  • nicho

    I don’t think anyone said you had to be tested. It’s recommended for that significant portion of the population that does have sex. One danger is that some people — who are on the downlow — will claim that they don’t have sex, share needles, etc., when in fact they do those things. And those are the people at a higher risk of disease transmission because they tend to be less cautious when they do have sexual encounters.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Perhaps the doctor needs to correct me, but I got the impression that those sites were free clinics. Someone like you wouldn’t be going there, besides the article said you could always opt out.

    When we moved to Minneapolis fifteen years ago, I had to find a new doctor. He has persuaded me every year to be tested. Although, I was in a monogamous relationship, he said that unless I was watching my husband 24/7, I couldn’t be 100% certain that I hadn’t been infected. At first I was rather aggravated, but since insurance paid for it and blood had to be drawn for other things, why not?

  • http://buddybest.tripod.com/index.html BuddyNovinski

    Not everyone should be tested. Those of us who do not engage in sexual activity with others, do not share needles, and anything else, should not have to be tested.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS