Emergency Department Staff Satisfaction With Rapid Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing

Authors


  • Presented at the 2009 Western Regional Research Forum of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Park City, UT, January 30, 2009; and the 2009 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, May 16, 2009.

Address for correspondence and reprints: Douglas A. E. White, MD; e-mail: daewhite@gmail.com.

Abstract

Objectives:  The authors sought to determine staff satisfaction with an emergency department (ED) rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing program.

Methods:  A survey was conducted in an urban ED that has provided rapid HIV testing (routine screening and physician-initiated testing) since August 2007. From May 1, 2008, to August 31, 2008, the survey was administered to all ED staff involved with HIV testing. The primary outcome was satisfaction, and secondary outcomes were the staff attitudes toward the program.

Results:  Surveys were administered to 215 of the 217 staff members, and 207 surveys were returned (96% response rate); 201 surveys had complete data available for analysis. The response rate by staffing type was as follows: physicians 64/64 (100%), nurses 124/134 (93%), and registration staff 16/19 (84%). The majority of ED staff (99%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 95% to 100%) were satisfied with the HIV testing program. Physicians, however, rated the program more favorably than nurses or registration staff. Most staff members agreed that HIV testing improved overall care (93%; 95% CI = 89% to 96%) and felt that HIV testing did not interfere with their ability to provide care (82%; 95% CI = 76% to 87%). The majority of staff perceived that patients were satisfied with the procedures for obtaining consent (73%; 95% CI = 67% to 79%) and with the way HIV testing was performed (83%; 95% CI = 77% to 87%).

Conclusions:  Emergency department staff satisfaction and overall attitudes with the HIV testing program is high. ED staff does not appear to be a barrier to program implementation.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:561–565 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Ancillary