Routine HIV testing in acute care hospitals: Changing practice to curb a local HIV epidemic in Vancouver, BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early treatment of HIV infection increases life expectancy and reduces infectivity; however, delayed HIV diagnosis remains common. Implementation and sustainability of hospital-based routine HIV testing in Vancouver, British Columbia, was evaluated to address a local HIV epidemic by facilitating earlier diagnosis and treatment. Public health issued a recommendation in 2011 to offer HIV testing to all patients presenting to three Vancouver hospitals as part of routine care, including all patients admitted to medical/surgical units with expansion to emergency departments (ED). We evaluated acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness from 2011 to 2014 and continued monitoring through 2016 for sustainability. Between October 2011-December 2016, 114,803 HIV tests were administered at the three hospitals; an 11-fold increase following implementation of routine testing. The rate of testing was sustained and remained high through 2018. Of those tested, 151 patients were diagnosed with HIV for a testing yield of 0.13%. Review of 12,996 charts demonstrated 4935/5876 (96·9%) of admitted patients agreed to have an HIV test when offered. People diagnosed in hospital were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with acute stage (aOR 1·96, 95% CI 1·19, 3·23) infection, particularly those diagnosed in the ED. This study provides practice-based evidence of the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of implementing a recommendation for routine HIV testing among inpatient and emergency department admissions, as well as the ability to normalize and sustain this change. Routine hospital-based HIV testing can increase diagnoses of acute HIV infection and facilitate earlier initiation of antiretroviral treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".