scholarly journals A Comparison of Patient Satisfaction with Emergency Department Opt-In and Opt-Out Rapid HIV Screening

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. E. White ◽  
Alicia N. Scribner ◽  
Maria E. Martin ◽  
Stacy Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Emergency Department Patient ◽  
Hiv Screening ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Test Result

Study objective. To compare patient satisfaction with emergency department (ED) opt-in and opt-out HIV screening.Methods. We conducted a survey in an urban ED that provided rapid HIV screening using opt-in (February 1, 2007–July 31, 2007) and opt-out (August 1, 2007–January 31, 2008) approaches. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients that completed screening in each phase. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with HIV screening.Results. There were 207 and 188 completed surveys during the opt-in and opt-out phases, respectively. The majority of patients were satisfied with both opt-in screening (95%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 92–98) and opt-out screening (94%, 95% CI = 89–97). Satisfaction ratings were similar between opt-in and opt-out phases even after adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and test result (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI = 0.5–3.1).Conclusions. Emergency department patient satisfaction with opt-in and opt-out HIV screening is similarly high.

scholarly journals Payer Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Acceptance of Free Routine Opt-Out Rapid HIV Screening Among Emergency Department Patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 877-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Sankoff ◽  
Emily Hopkins ◽  
Comilla Sasson ◽  
Alia Al-Tayyib ◽  
Brooke Bender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Hiv Screening ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Emergency Department Patients

Analgesia in the emergency department: why is it not administered?

2018 ◽  
pp. emermed-2018-207629
Author(s):  
Joyce Kant ◽  
Mahesha Dombagolla ◽  
Fiona Lai ◽  
Andreas Hendarto ◽  
David McDonald Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Tertiary Referral ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Patient Refusal

ObjectivePain management in the ED is often suboptimal, with many patients not receiving analgesia. We aimed to determine why some patients refuse it, why others do not receive it, and whether these variables impact on patient satisfaction with their pain management.MethodsWe undertook a prospective, observational study in a large, Australian, tertiary referral ED (February–May 2017). A convenience sample of consecutive adult patients with a triage pain score of ≥4 were examined. Data were collected from the medical record and the treating nurses. At follow-up at least 48 hours postdischarge, patients were asked if they received analgesia in the ED (if not, then why not) and how satisfied they were with their pain management (very dissatisfied/dissatisfied/slightly dissatisfied/slightly satisfied/satisfied/very satisfied). The primary outcome was why patients refuse analgesia.ResultsOf the 651 enrolled patients, 171 (26.3%) did not receive analgesia; for 30 (17.5%), patients and their nurses agreed that analgesia was refused. Patients mainly refused analgesia because their pain was not bad enough, they had recent analgesia intake, and concerns about side effects and interactions. Patients who received analgesia were more likely to be ‘very satisfied’ with their pain management (difference in proportions 10.8%, 95% CI 2.1 to 19.4). The satisfaction of patients who refused analgesia and those who did not receive analgesia for other reasons did not differ.ConclusionPatient refusal is the most common reason for patients not receiving analgesia. Analgesia receipt is associated with greater patient satisfaction. However, a patient’s knowledge of their analgesia receipt status may be incorrect. Disregard of the reasons for patients not receiving analgesia may underestimate the number offered analgesia.

scholarly journals 845. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Routine HIV Screening in an Emergency Department

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S513-S513
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Aguilera ◽  
Gilhen Rodriguez ◽  
Gabriela P Del Bianco ◽  
Gloria Heresi ◽  
James Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Hiv Infections ◽  
Hiv Screening ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Confirmatory Tests ◽  
Routine Hiv Screening ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The Emergency Department (ED) at Memorial Hermann Hospital (MHH) - Texas Medical Center (TMC), Houston, Texas has a long established screening program targeted at detection of HIV infections. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this screening program is unknown. Methods The Routine HIV screening program includes opt-out testing of all adults 18 years and older with Glasgow score > 9. HIV 4th generation Ag/Ab screening, with reflex to Gennius confirmatory tests are used. Pre-pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) to Pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021) intervals were compared. Results 72,929 patients visited MHH_ED during the pre-pandemic period and 57,128 in the pandemic period, a 22% decline. The number of patients tested for HIV pre-pandemic was 9433 and 6718 pandemic, a 29% decline. When the pandemic year was parsed into first and last 6 months interval and compared to similar intervals in the year pre pandemic, 39% followed by 16% declines in HIV testing were found. In total, 354 patients were HIV positives, 209, (59%) in the pre-pandemic and 145 (41%) in the pandemic period.The reduction in new HIV infections found was directly proportional to the decline in patients visiting the MHH-ED where the percent of patients HIV positive was constant across intervals (2.21% vs 2.26%). Demographic and outcome characteristics were constant across the compared intervals. Conclusion The COVID -19 pandemic reduced detection of new HIV infections by screening in direct proportion to the reduction in MHH-ED patient visits. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic decreased with duration of the pandemic. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals The Effect of Bedside Presentations in the Emergency Department on Patient Satisfaction

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig I. Schranz ◽  
Robert J. Sobehart ◽  
Kiva Fallgatter ◽  
Robert H. Riffenburgh ◽  
Michael J. Matteucci
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Resident Education ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
First Year ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Visual Analog Scales ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Due to increasing time constraints, the use of bedside presentations in resident education has declined. We examined whether patient satisfaction in the emergency department is affected when first-year residents present at the bedside with attendings. Methods We performed an observational, prospective, nonblinded study in the emergency department of a military teaching hospital. We alternately assigned first-year residents to present a convenience sample of 248 patients to the attending physician at the patient's bedside or away from the patient. We measured patient satisfaction by using the Patient Satisfaction Questionaire-18 (PSQ-18), a validated survey instrument that utilizes a Likert scale, and additional nonvalidated survey questions involving Likert and visual analog scales. Results While the median PSQ-18 score of 74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 72–76) was higher for patient satisfaction when residents made bedside presentations than that for standard presentations, 72 (95% CI, 70–74), the difference did not reach statistical significance (P  =  .33). Conclusion There was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction between residents' bedside presentations and presentations to attendings away from the patient. Although not significant, the differences noted in PSQ-18 subscales of communication, general satisfaction, and interpersonal manner warrant further investigation. Patients did not appear to be uncomfortable with having their care discussed and with having subsequent resident education at the bedside. Future research on patient satisfaction after implementation of standardized bedside teaching techniques may help further elucidate this relationship.

Impact of Traditional Versus Flavored Tongue Depressors on Pediatric Oropharynx Exam

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 1053-1057
Author(s):  
Brian Murray ◽  
Marina Gore ◽  
Nicole R. Leonard ◽  
Nadia M. Pearson ◽  
Jeremiah J. Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Provider Perceptions ◽  
Patient Discomfort ◽  
Tongue Depressor ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

We compared patient-reported discomfort associated with oropharynx examination using traditional (unflavored) versus flavored tongue depressors among pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department in a single-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial using a convenience sample ages 3 to 12 years. Our primary outcome was patient discomfort. Secondary outcomes included provider perceptions of patient discomfort, provider-reported examination ease, and caregiver perceptions of patient discomfort. Of 96 recruited patients, 92 (95.8%) completed the study. Forty-six (50%) were randomized to a traditional tongue depressor. Mean patient-reported oropharynx examination discomfort scores were 2.3 cm (95% confidence interval = 1.4-3.2 cm) with traditional tongue depressors versus 1.9 cm (95% confidence interval = 1.0-2.8 cm) with flavored tongue depressors ( P = .72). There were similarly no significant differences between the 2 arms with regard to any of the secondary outcomes. We conclude that the use of flavored tongue depressors does not appear to significantly alleviate discomfort associated with examination of the oropharynx in pediatric patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document