4.1 Article

Emergency Department Testing Patterns for Sexually Transmitted Diseases in North Texas

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 434-439

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001003

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health
  2. National Cancer Institute/NIH [R25 CA57712, T32CA057712]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Little is known about population-level sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing in emergency departments (EDs). We sought to explore STD testing patterns in EDs in a large, urban metroplex in North Texas, a high prevalence region. Methods Emergency department claims data were extracted from the Dallas Fort Worth Hospital Council databank for patients attending 54 EDs in 4 counties (Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton) who were tested for an STD during an ED visit between July 2014 and June 2015. We analyzed patterns of testing for 3 types of STD tests: (1) combined gonorrhea and chlamydia DNA-based tests, (2) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody tests, and (3) syphilis serological tests. Results Emergency departments administered at least 1 STD test to 65,702 unique patients over 1 year; most were ethnoracial minorities (73%), female (72%), and had no known insurance (59%). Only 8% of patients received more than 1 of these tests at that same visit; of those, 90% were cotested for HIV. The most common diagnosis code associated with STD testing was genital/urinary symptoms (31%). The majority of tests took place at the ED of a single county-funded hospital (42%). Only 36% of all patients had visits that were deemed true emergencies. Conclusions Most patients tested for syphilis, HIV, or chlamydia/gonorrhea in EDs received only 1 test type at that visit, and most visits were nonemergent in nature. Given shared risk factors for multiple STD and high coinfection rates, EDs serving high-risk populations could consider STD cotesting to help reduce transmission of undiagnosed, untreated infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据