Jc. Kallenborn et al., Emergency department management of occupational exposures: Cost analysis of rapid HIV test, INFECT CONT, 22(5), 2001, pp. 289-293
OBJECTIVE: To compare costs for evaluation and treatment of a healthcare wo
rker (HCW) experiencing an occupational exposure, using a rapid human immun
odeficiency virus (HIV) test versus a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) HIV test.
DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all HCWs presenting to the emergency
department (ED) for care of an occupational exposure over a 13-month period
.
SETTING: A 404-bed university-based level 1 trauma center with an annual ED
census of approximately 35,000.
PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs experiencing an occupational exposure treated in the
ED using a rapid HIV protocol were included in the analysis.
METHODS: A calculation of selected costs of the initial evaluation and trea
tment of patients whose evaluation included a rapid HIV test on the source
patient were performed. A similar calculation was then made for these patie
nts, had the standard ELISA test been used. Evaluated costs included labora
tory tests, postexposure prophylactic medications, and estimated lost work
time. Other costs were constant and were not included in the evaluation.
RESULTS: Total evaluated cost using the rapid HIV test as part of the evalu
ation and treatment protocol was $465.80 for 17 patients. Had the ELISA tes
t been used instead of the rapid test, the total evaluated cost for the 17
patients would have been $5,965.81.
CONCLUSIONS: When used as part of the evaluation and treatment of the HCW w
ith an occupational exposure, the rapid HIV test results in substantial cos
t savings over the ELISA test (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:289-29
3).