Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24734140›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2014

An electronic alert for HIV screening in the emergency department increases screening but not the diagnosis of HIV.

R Schnall, N Liu, J Sperling, R Green, S Clark, D Vawdrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R SchnallColumbia University, School of Nursing, Columbia University Medical Center , New York, NY, United States.
N LiuColumbia University, Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health , New York, NY, United States.
J SperlingWeill Cornell Medical College, Department of Emergency Medicine , New York, NY, United States.
R GreenColumbia University, Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons , New York, NY, United States.
S ClarkWeill Cornell Medical College, Department of Emergency Medicine , New York, NY, United States.
D VawdreyColumbia University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons , New York, NY, United States.

Funding

CTSA: K12 COMPONENTKL2RR024157 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$8.9M
Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR000081 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$3.3M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000081NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024157
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBased on US. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, New York State enacted legislation in 2010 requiring healthcare providers to offer non-targeted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing to all patients aged 13-64. Three New York City adult emergency departments implemented an electronic alert that required clinicians to document whether an HIV test was offered before discharging a patient. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the electronic alert on HIV testing rates and diagnosis of HIV positive individuals.

methodsDuring the pre-intervention period (2.5-4 months), an electronic "HIV Testing" order set was available for clinicians to order a test or document a reason for not offering the test (e.g., patient is not conscious). An electronic alert was then added to enforce completion of the order set, effectively preventing ED discharge until an HIV test was offered to the patient. We analyzed data from 79,786 visits, measuring HIV testing and detection rates during the pre-intervention period and during the six months following the implementation of the alert.

resultsThe percentage of visits where an HIV test was performed increased from 5.4% in the preintervention period to 8.7% (p<0.001) after the electronic alert. After the implementation of the electronic alert, there was a 61% increase in HIV tests performed per visit. However, the percentage of patients testing positive per total patients-tested was slightly lower in the post-intervention group than the pre-intervention group (0.48% vs. 0.55%), but this was not significant. The number of patients-testing positive per total-patient visit was higher in the post-intervention group (0.04% vs. 0.03%).

conclusionsAn electronic alert which enforced non-targeted screening was effective at increasing HIV testing rates but did not significantly increase the detection of persons living with HIV. The impact of this electronic alert on healthcare costs and quality of care merits further examination.

Indexed as

Electronics, MedicalEmergency Service, HospitalAdultAIDS SerodiagnosisDemographyFemaleHIV InfectionsHIV SeropositivityHumansMaleMass ScreeningOdds Ratioelectronic alertelectronic order setHIV testingscreening test

Identifiers

PMID24734140
PMCPMC3974262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.