Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):14.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2824-9.

Use of an electronic medical record reminder improves HIV screening

Colleen Kershaw  1 , Jessica L Taylor  2 , Gary Horowitz  3 , Diane Brockmeyer  4 , Howard Libman  4 , Gila Kriegel  4 , Long Ngo  4
Affiliations

Use of an electronic medical record reminder improves HIV screening

Colleen Kershaw et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: More than 1 in 7 patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States are unaware of their serostatus despite recommendations of US agencies that all adults through age 65 be screened for HIV at least once. To facilitate universal screening, an electronic medical record (EMR) reminder was created for our primary care practice. Screening rates before and after implementation were assessed to determine the impact of the reminder on screening rates.

Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for patients age 18-65 with visits between January 1, 2012-October 30, 2014. EMR databases were examined for HIV testing and selected patient characteristics. We evaluated the probability of HIV screening in unscreened patients before and after the reminder and used a multivariable generalized linear model to test the association between likelihood of HIV testing and specific patient characteristics.

Results: Prior to the reminder, the probability of receiving an HIV test for previously unscreened patients was 15.3%. This increased to 30.7% after the reminder (RR 2.02, CI 1.95-2.09, p < 0.0001). The impact was most significant in patients age 45-65. White race, English as primary language, and higher median household income were associated with lower likelihoods of screening both before and after implementation (RR 0.68, CI 0.65-0.72; RR 0.74, CI 0.67-0.82; RR 0.84, CI 0.80-0.88, respectively).

Conclusions: The EMR reminder increased rates of HIV screening twofold in our practice. It was most effective in increasing screening rates in older patients. Patients who were white, English-speaking, and had higher incomes were less likely to be screened for HIV both before and after the reminder.

Keywords: Decision support; Electronic medical record reminder; HIV; Screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Institutional Review Board on August 15, 2014 (protocol #2014P000210). Waiver of consent was requested due to the nature of the study as a de-identified retrospective chart review, and this was granted by the IRB.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

Authors CK, JT, GH, DB, GK, and LN declare that they have no competing interests. HL has consulted for the Medical Advisory Committee of Gilead Sciences and is employed by Up to Date.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
HIV Testing by Age. Differences in percentage of patients screened by age groups before and after the EMR prompt. Age < 25yo: 22.5 vs 34.3%, RR 1.52 (CI 1.38–1.69), p < 0.0001; Age 26–35: 23.1% vs 37%, RR 1.61 (CI 1.53–1.71), p < 0.0001; Age 36–45: 15.8% vs 31%, RR 1.98 (CI 1.83–2.13), p < 0.0001; Age 46–65: RR 2.81 (2.65–2.99), p < 0.0001
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control. Monitoring selected national HIV prevention and care objectives by using HIV surveillance data—United States and 6 U.S. dependent areas—2011. In: HIV Surveillance Supplemental Reports. CDC. 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. Accessed 9 Dec 2016.
    1. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-14):1–17. - PubMed
    1. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection: Screening. In: Recommendations for Primary Care Practice. United States Preventive Services Task Force. 2013. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspshivi.htm. Accessed 21 Oct 2015.
    1. Libman H. Clinical crossroads. Screening for HIV infection: a healthy, “low-risk” 42-year-old man. JAMA. 2011;306:637–644. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chaudhry R, Scheitel SM, McMurtry EK, Leutink DJ, Cabanela RL, Naessens JM, et al. Web-based proactive system to improve breast cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):606–611. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.6.606. - DOI - PubMed