Azadeh, Natalya

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening for all persons aged 13 to 64 years who present to a health care provider. We sought to improve adherence to the CDC guidelines on the Internal Medicine Resident Hospital Service. We surveyed residents about the CDC guidelines, sent email reminders, provided education, and engaged them in friendly competition. Credit for guideline adherence was awarded if an offer of HIV screening was documented at admission, if a screening test was performed, or if a notation in the resident sign out sheet indicated why screening was not performed. We examined HIV screening of a postintervention group of patients admitted between August 8, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and compared them to a preintervention group admitted between August 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. Postintervention offers of HIV screening increased significantly (7.9% [44/559] vs 55.5% [300/541]; P<.001), as did documentation of residents' contemplation of screening (8.9% [50/559] vs 67.5% [365/541]; P<.001). A significantly higher proportion of HIV screening tests was ordered postintervention (7.7% [43/559] vs 44.4% [240/541]; P<.001). Monthly HIV screening documentation ranged from 0% (0/53) to 17% (9/53) preintervention, whereas it ranged from 30.6% (11/36) to 100% (62/62) postintervention. HIV screening adherence can be improved through resident education, friendly competition, and system reminders. Barriers to achieving sustained adherence to the CDC guidelines include a heterogeneous patient population and provider discomfort with the subject.

ABSTRACT The FilmArray respiratory panel (FARP) reliably and rapidly identifies 17 viruses and 3 bacterial pathogens. A nasopharyngeal swab FARP (NP FARP) is performed for many patients with respiratory symptoms. For patients who are acutely ill or immunocompromised or fail to improve, a bronchoalveolar lavage sample FARP (BAL FARP) is performed in addition to the NP FARP. To date, no studies have compared the yield of a BAL FARP with that of an NP FARP. We retrospectively studied all patients who had a BAL FARP within 7 days after an NP FARP between June 2013 and May 2014. Demographic information, comorbidities, FARP results, and all microbiologic data from BAL fluid were collected. Eighty-six patients had a BAL FARP performed within 7 days (mean, 1.6; median, 1) after an NP FARP. Of these, 66 (77%) had concordant BAL and NP FARP results: 15 (23%) had the same pathogen identified from the NP and BAL FARPs, and 51 (77%) had concordant negative FARP results. In 18 of the 86 patients (21%), a pathogen was detected from the NP FARP; of these, 15 (83%) had a concordant match on a subsequent BAL FARP, and the remaining 3 had negative BAL FARPs. In 17 of the 86 patients (20%), pathogens were identified from the BAL FARPs that were not detected by the NP FARPs; of these, 16 (94%) had initial negative NP FARPs. The data suggest that once a pathogen is identified by an NP FARP, a subsequent BAL FARP is unlikely to add new microbiologic information. However, a BAL FARP may provide new, useful microbiologic information when performed within 7 days after a negative NP FARP.