Preexposure Prophylaxis Provided in the Emergency Department: Clinician Perspectives.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sarah M Guess, Ava Roth, Mirinda Ann Gormley, Prerana Roth, Jessica Hobbs, Alain H Litwin, Moonseong Heo, Phillip Moschella
{"title":"Preexposure Prophylaxis Provided in the Emergency Department: Clinician Perspectives.","authors":"Sarah M Guess, Ava Roth, Mirinda Ann Gormley, Prerana Roth, Jessica Hobbs, Alain H Litwin, Moonseong Heo, Phillip Moschella","doi":"10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The southern United States is facing a burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses, with 52% of new diagnoses made in the region. The emergency department (ED) is an important access point for patient care, especially given nationwide shortages in primary care appointments. The objective of our study was to assess ED (ED) clinician knowledge regarding preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the perceived barriers to initiation of PrEP, and clinician willingness to initiate it in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An institutional review board-approved survey was distributed using an internal e-mail listserv to all ED physicians and advanced practice clinicians within a southern academic level I trauma center ED. The survey was available throughout August 2023. Descriptive statistics described survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-six Emergency Medicine clinicians participated, for a response rate of 25.0%. Nearly one-fourth of clinicians reported not prescribing PrEP because they believed they lacked knowledge of or familiarity with the medication. Whereas 52 believed that PrEP could be integrated in the ED, 54 mentioned a potential barrier to implementation. The most common barrier to integrating PrEP into the ED was lack of information/training; additional barriers included time and staff constraints. More than half expressed a lack of confidence (58.9%) assessing PrEP eligibility. When asked how likely they would be to discuss linkage to PrEP, 52.8% answered confident or very confident and 52.8% were not confident or slightly not confident.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite recognition of the utility of prescribing PrEP in the ED, clinicians identified multiple barriers to providing this essential component of health care. Findings indicate, however, that Emergency Medicine clinicians would be willing to prescribe PrEP with appropriate education and connection to care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22043,"journal":{"name":"Southern Medical Journal","volume":"118 8","pages":"556-560"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001861","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The southern United States is facing a burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses, with 52% of new diagnoses made in the region. The emergency department (ED) is an important access point for patient care, especially given nationwide shortages in primary care appointments. The objective of our study was to assess ED (ED) clinician knowledge regarding preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the perceived barriers to initiation of PrEP, and clinician willingness to initiate it in the ED.

Methods: An institutional review board-approved survey was distributed using an internal e-mail listserv to all ED physicians and advanced practice clinicians within a southern academic level I trauma center ED. The survey was available throughout August 2023. Descriptive statistics described survey responses.

Results: Fifty-six Emergency Medicine clinicians participated, for a response rate of 25.0%. Nearly one-fourth of clinicians reported not prescribing PrEP because they believed they lacked knowledge of or familiarity with the medication. Whereas 52 believed that PrEP could be integrated in the ED, 54 mentioned a potential barrier to implementation. The most common barrier to integrating PrEP into the ED was lack of information/training; additional barriers included time and staff constraints. More than half expressed a lack of confidence (58.9%) assessing PrEP eligibility. When asked how likely they would be to discuss linkage to PrEP, 52.8% answered confident or very confident and 52.8% were not confident or slightly not confident.

Conclusions: Despite recognition of the utility of prescribing PrEP in the ED, clinicians identified multiple barriers to providing this essential component of health care. Findings indicate, however, that Emergency Medicine clinicians would be willing to prescribe PrEP with appropriate education and connection to care.

在急诊科提供暴露前预防:临床医生的观点。
目标:美国南部正面临着人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)诊断的负担,该地区有52%的新诊断。急诊科(ED)是病人护理的重要接入点,特别是在全国初级保健预约短缺的情况下。本研究的目的是评估ED (ED)临床医生关于暴露前预防(PrEP)的知识,启动PrEP的感知障碍,以及临床医生在ED中启动PrEP的意愿。方法:一项机构审查委员会批准的调查使用内部电子邮件列表分发给南方学术一级创伤中心ED的所有ED医生和高级临床医生。该调查于2023年8月进行。描述性统计描述了调查结果。结果:56名急诊临床医生参与调查,有效率为25.0%。近四分之一的临床医生报告说,他们不开PrEP处方,因为他们认为自己对这种药物缺乏了解或熟悉。52人认为PrEP可以纳入ED, 54人提到了实施的潜在障碍。将PrEP纳入急诊科的最常见障碍是缺乏信息/培训;其他障碍包括时间和人员限制。超过一半(58.9%)的人表示缺乏评估PrEP资格的信心。当被问及他们有多大可能讨论与PrEP的联系时,52.8%的人回答有信心或非常有信心,52.8%的人回答不自信或稍微不自信。结论:尽管认识到在急诊科开PrEP处方的效用,临床医生确定了提供这一医疗保健基本组成部分的多重障碍。然而,研究结果表明,急诊医学临床医生愿意在适当的教育和护理联系下开PrEP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Southern Medical Journal
Southern Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
222
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Birmingham, Alabama-based Southern Medical Association (SMA), the Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) has for more than 100 years provided the latest clinical information in areas that affect patients'' daily lives. Now delivered to individuals exclusively online, the SMJ has a multidisciplinary focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists in all relevant aspects of the profession, including medicine and medical specialties, surgery and surgery specialties; child and maternal health; mental health; emergency and disaster medicine; public health and environmental medicine; bioethics and medical education; and quality health care, patient safety, and best practices. Each month, articles span the spectrum of medical topics, providing timely, up-to-the-minute information for both primary care physicians and specialists. Contributors include leaders in the healthcare field from across the country and around the world. The SMJ enables physicians to provide the best possible care to patients in this age of rapidly changing modern medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信