Patients' understanding of blood tests and attitudes to HIV screening in the emergency department of a Swiss teaching hospital: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, patients may undergo "blood tests" without being informed what these are screening for. Inadequate doctor-patient communication may result in patient misunderstanding. We examined what patients in the emergency department (ED) believed they had been screened for and explored their attitudes to routine (non-targeted) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening. METHODS: Between 1st October 2012 and 28th February 2013, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted among patients aged 16-70 years old presenting to the ED of Lausanne University Hospital. Patients were asked: (1) if they believed they had been screened for HIV; (2) if they agreed in principle to routine HIV screening and (3) if they agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. RESULTS: Of 466 eligible patients, 411 (88%) agreed to participate. Mean age was 46 ± 16 years; 192 patients (47%) were women; 366 (89%) were Swiss or European; 113 (27%) believed they had been screened for HIV, the proportion increasing with age (p ≤0.01), 297 (72%) agreed in principle with routine HIV testing in the ED, and 138 patients (34%) agreed to be HIV tested during their current ED visit. CONCLUSION: In this ED population, 27% believed incorrectly they had been screened for HIV. Over 70% agreed in principle with routine HIV testing and 34% agreed to be tested during their current visit. These results demonstrate willingness among patients concerning routine HIV testing in the ED and highlight a need for improved doctor-patient communication about what a blood test specifically screens for.

Reduction in the use of diagnostic tests in infants with risk factors for early-onset neonatal sepsis does not delay antibiotic treatment

BACKGROUND: Despite a low positive predictive value, diagnostic tests such as complete blood count (CBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are commonly used to evaluate whether infants with risk factors for early-onset neonatal sepsis (EOS) should be treated with antibiotics. STUDY DESIGN: We investigated the impact of imple- menting a protocol aiming at reducing the number of dia- gnostic tests in infants with risk factors for EOS in order to compare the diagnostic performance of repeated clinical examination with CBC and CRP measurement. The primary outcome was the time between birth and the first dose of antibiotics in infants treated for suspected EOS. RESULTS: Among the 11,503 infants born at 35 weeks during the study period, 222 were treated with antibiotics for suspected EOS. The proportion of infants receiving an- tibiotics for suspected EOS was 2.1% and 1.7% before and after the change of protocol (p = 0.09). Reduction of dia- gnostic tests was associated with earlier antibiotic treat- ment in infants treated for suspected EOS (hazard ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.07; p <0.001), and in infants with neonatal infection (hazard ratio 2.20; 95% CI 1.19-4.06; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the duration of hospital stay nor in the proportion of infants requiring respiratory or cardiovascular support before and after the change of protocol. CONCLUSION: Reduction of diagnostic tests such as CBC and CRP does not delay initiation of antibiotic treat- ment in infants with suspected EOS. The importance of clinical examination in infants with risk factors for EOS should be emphasised.