Journal of Medical Screening > Volume 16, Number 1 > Pp. 29-32

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lyons, M. S Articles by Fichtenbaum, C. J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original Articles

Comparison of emergency department HIV testing data with visit or patient as the unit of analysis

Michael S LyonsMD, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine, Primary Investigator, Faculty Physician  , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Christopher J LindsellPhD, Co-investigator, Biostatistician, Research Director, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Dana L RaabRN, MS, Research Coordinator , Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Andrew H RuffnerMA, Early Intervention Program (EIP) Coordinator, Research Coordinator , Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Alexander T TrottMD, Professor of Emergency Medicine, Co-investigator, Faculty Physician , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Carl J FichtenbaumMD, Professor of Internal Medicine, Co-investigator , Faculty Physician Infectious Disease Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinatti, Ohio, USA

Correspondence to: Michael S Lyons MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, PO Box 670769 Cincinnati, OH 45267-0769, USA; lyonsme{at}ucmail.uc.edu

---

Objectives Outcomes in an episodic care setting like an emergency department (ED) are traditionally evaluated in comparison with the number of visits as opposed to the number of unique patients, although patients commonly present to the ED multiple times. We examined the differences in HIV screening programme outcomes that would occur if the analysis were conducted at the patient-level, rather than the traditional visit-level. We hypothesized that while our ED-based HIV screening programme does test some patients repeatedly, the primary programme outcome of percent positive is not substantially altered by the unit of analysis.

Methods We reviewed the clinical database of an ED HIV screening programme at a large, urban, teaching hospital in the United States from 2003–2007. Data were analyzed descriptively. The main outcome measure was the rate of positive test results computed with either the visit or the patient as the unit of analysis.

Results HIV testing was provided at 9629 visits, representing 8450 unique patients. For patient-level analysis, the proportion of patients found to be positive was 0.91%. For visit-level analysis, the proportion of tests with positive results was 0.83%. Of the 910 patients with repeat testing, 7 (0.77%) were identified as positive at a repeat test. The median time between tests was 383 days (range 1–1742).

Conclusions Results changed little regardless of whether unique patients or unique visits were used as the unit of analysis. Any differences in positive rates were mitigated by the contribution of repeat testing to the identification of newly infected patients. Given these findings, and the difficulty of tracking repeat testing over time, visit-level analysis are appropriate for comparing programme outcomes when detailed modeling of epidemiology, cost, and/or outcomes is not required.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?