ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2026
Staff perspectives on implementing opt-out blood-borne virus testing in English emergency departments: a qualitative study.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant challenge to achieving global 2030 elimination goals for blood-borne viruses (BBVs) is identifying undiagnosed individuals and relinking those who are no longer in care. To address this, the UK government has implemented opt-out BBV testing in emergency departments (EDs) to increase access to BBV testing in high prevalence areas. All adult ED patients having a routine blood test are automatically tested for HIV, hepatitis B and C, unless they opt out. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ED opt-out BBV testing and provide recommendations for future rollouts.
methodSemi-structured interviews with 23 staff members across five ED sites in very high HIV prevalence areas were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory.
resultsWhile there was some variation in staff knowledge and understanding of the programme, overall acceptance of the opt-out testing approach was found to be high. Training had a positive impact on staff understanding of the purpose of the intervention and the correct process, including the opt-out model. High workloads and competing priorities in EDs were significant barriers to testing. However, some specific systems and processes that facilitated the uptake of testing included automation and BBV champions. Giving the programme time to embed into practice and ensuring feedback loops and flexibility to 'tweak' the process was also essential to sustaining the programme.
conclusionTo embed opt-out testing into emergency care, sites should implement automated test ordering, staff training, clear communication and dedicated champions, which can help to support earlier diagnosis, reduce inequalities and improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.