{"title":"去(抗)病毒:改善初级保健中的 HIV 和 HCV 筛查及 HPV 疫苗接种","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C (HCV) screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake remain suboptimal. To improve HIV and HCV<span> screening and HPV </span></span>vaccination<span>, the authors implemented a quality improvement project in three southwestern Pennsylvania family medicine residency practices.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>From June 1 to November 30, 2021, participating practices used universal screening and vaccination guidelines and chose from multiple strategies at the office (for example, standing orders), provider (for example, multiple forms of provider reminders), and patient (for example, incentives) levels derived from published literature and tailored to local context. Age-eligible patients for each recommendation with at least one in-person office visit during the intervention period were included. To assess the interventions’ effect, the authors obtained testing and vaccination data from the electronic health record for the intervention period, contrasted it with identical data from June 1 to November 30, 2020, and used </span>logistic regression controlling for patient age, sex, and race to determine differences in screening and vaccination between intervention and baseline periods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 14,920 and 15,523 patients were eligible in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Following the intervention, HIV lifetime screening but not first-time screening for patients 13–64 years old was significantly higher (78.9% vs. 76.1%, <em>p</em> = 0.004, and 39.6% vs. 36.6%, <em>p</em><span> = 0.152, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.38). HCV lifetime screening for patients 18–79 years old was significantly higher postintervention (62.5% vs. 53.5%, </span><em>p</em><span> < 0.001, aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.4–1.64). For patients 9–26 years old, no change in HPV initiation was observed, but the percentage of patients who completed their HPV vaccinations in the observed period was significantly higher postintervention (7.0% vs 4.6%, </span><em>p</em> = 0.006, aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14–2.2). During the postintervention period, the researchers identified 0 new HIV diagnoses and 48 HCV diagnoses (19 eligible for treatment).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Family medicine residency office-based multistrategy efforts appear to successfully increase patient uptake of HIV and HCV screenings and maintain HPV vaccination rates.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Going (Anti)Viral: Improving HIV and HCV Screening and HPV Vaccination in Primary Care\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C (HCV) screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake remain suboptimal. To improve HIV and HCV<span> screening and HPV </span></span>vaccination<span>, the authors implemented a quality improvement project in three southwestern Pennsylvania family medicine residency practices.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>From June 1 to November 30, 2021, participating practices used universal screening and vaccination guidelines and chose from multiple strategies at the office (for example, standing orders), provider (for example, multiple forms of provider reminders), and patient (for example, incentives) levels derived from published literature and tailored to local context. Age-eligible patients for each recommendation with at least one in-person office visit during the intervention period were included. To assess the interventions’ effect, the authors obtained testing and vaccination data from the electronic health record for the intervention period, contrasted it with identical data from June 1 to November 30, 2020, and used </span>logistic regression controlling for patient age, sex, and race to determine differences in screening and vaccination between intervention and baseline periods.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 14,920 and 15,523 patients were eligible in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Following the intervention, HIV lifetime screening but not first-time screening for patients 13–64 years old was significantly higher (78.9% vs. 76.1%, <em>p</em> = 0.004, and 39.6% vs. 36.6%, <em>p</em><span> = 0.152, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.38). HCV lifetime screening for patients 18–79 years old was significantly higher postintervention (62.5% vs. 53.5%, </span><em>p</em><span> < 0.001, aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.4–1.64). For patients 9–26 years old, no change in HPV initiation was observed, but the percentage of patients who completed their HPV vaccinations in the observed period was significantly higher postintervention (7.0% vs 4.6%, </span><em>p</em> = 0.006, aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14–2.2). During the postintervention period, the researchers identified 0 new HIV diagnoses and 48 HCV diagnoses (19 eligible for treatment).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Family medicine residency office-based multistrategy efforts appear to successfully increase patient uptake of HIV and HCV screenings and maintain HPV vaccination rates.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155372502400179X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155372502400179X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Going (Anti)Viral: Improving HIV and HCV Screening and HPV Vaccination in Primary Care
Background
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C (HCV) screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake remain suboptimal. To improve HIV and HCV screening and HPV vaccination, the authors implemented a quality improvement project in three southwestern Pennsylvania family medicine residency practices.
Methods
From June 1 to November 30, 2021, participating practices used universal screening and vaccination guidelines and chose from multiple strategies at the office (for example, standing orders), provider (for example, multiple forms of provider reminders), and patient (for example, incentives) levels derived from published literature and tailored to local context. Age-eligible patients for each recommendation with at least one in-person office visit during the intervention period were included. To assess the interventions’ effect, the authors obtained testing and vaccination data from the electronic health record for the intervention period, contrasted it with identical data from June 1 to November 30, 2020, and used logistic regression controlling for patient age, sex, and race to determine differences in screening and vaccination between intervention and baseline periods.
Results
A total of 14,920 and 15,523 patients were eligible in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Following the intervention, HIV lifetime screening but not first-time screening for patients 13–64 years old was significantly higher (78.9% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.004, and 39.6% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.152, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.38). HCV lifetime screening for patients 18–79 years old was significantly higher postintervention (62.5% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001, aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.4–1.64). For patients 9–26 years old, no change in HPV initiation was observed, but the percentage of patients who completed their HPV vaccinations in the observed period was significantly higher postintervention (7.0% vs 4.6%, p = 0.006, aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14–2.2). During the postintervention period, the researchers identified 0 new HIV diagnoses and 48 HCV diagnoses (19 eligible for treatment).
Conclusion
Family medicine residency office-based multistrategy efforts appear to successfully increase patient uptake of HIV and HCV screenings and maintain HPV vaccination rates.