4.6 Article

Hepatitis C Virus Screening and Emergency Department Length of Stay

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164831

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. HIV FOCUS Grant from Gilead Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Recent studies demonstrate high rates of previously undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients screened in urban emergency departments (ED). Experts caution, however, that public health interventions, such as screening for infectious diseases, must not interfere with the primary mission of EDs to provide timely acute care. Increases in ED length of stay (LOS) have been associated with decreased quality of ED care. Objective In this study, we assess the influence of an integrated HCV screening protocol on ED LOS. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing timestamp data for all discharged patients over a 1-year period. The primary outcome compared the median LOS in minutes between patients who completed HCV screening and those who did not. Further analysis compared LOS for HCV screening by whether or not complete blood count (CBC) testing was conducted. Results Of 69,639 visits, 2,864 (4%) had HCV screening tests completed and 272 (9.5%) were antibody positive. The median LOS for visits that included HCV screening was greater than visits that did not include screening (151 versus 119 minutes, P < 0.001). Among the subset of visits in which CBC testing was conducted, there was no significant difference in median LOS between visits that also included HCV screening and those that did not (240 versus 242 minutes, P = 0.68). Conclusion Integrated HCV screening modestly prolongs ED LOS. However, among patients undergoing other blood tests, screening had no effect on LOS. Programs may consider routinely offering HCV screening to patients who are undergoing laboratory testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available