No abstract

Background: People in prison have a higher burden of blood-borne virus (BBV) infection than the general population, and prisons present an opportunity to test for BBVs in high-risk, underserved groups. Changes to the BBV testing policies in English prisons have recently been piloted. This review will enable existing evidence to inform policy revisions. We describe components of routine HIV, hepatitis B and C virus testing policies in prisons and quantify testing acceptance, coverage, result notification and diagnosis. Methods: We searched five databases for studies of both opt-in (testing offered to all and the individual chooses to have the test or not) and opt-out (the individual is informed the test will be performed unless they actively refuse) prison BBV testing policies. Results: Forty-four studies published between 1989 and 2013 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 82% were conducted in the USA, 91% included HIV testing and most tested at the time of incarceration. HIV testing acceptance rates ranged from 22 to 98% and testing coverage from 3 to 90%. Mixed results were found for equity in uptake. Six studies reported reasons for declining a test including recent testing and fear. Conclusions: While the quality of evidence is mixed, this review suggests that reasonable rates of uptake can be achieved with opt-in and, even better, with opt-out HIV testing policies. Little evidence was found relating to hepatitis testing. Policies need to specify exclusion criteria and consider consent processes, type of test and timing of the testing offer to balance acceptability, competence and availability of individuals.

BackgroundWith increasingly intensive treatments and population ageing, more people face complex treatment and care decisions. We explored patterns of the decision-making processes during critical care, and sources of conflict and resolution.MethodsEthnographic study in two Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in an inner city hospital comprising: non-participant observation of general care and decisions, followed by case studies where treatment limitation decisions, comfort care and/or end of life discussions were occurring. These involved: semi-structured interviews with consenting families, where possible, patients; direct observations of care; and review of medical records.ResultsInitial non-participant observation included daytime, evenings, nights and weekends. The cases were 16 patients with varied diagnoses, aged 19-87 years; 19 family members were interviewed, aged 30-73 years. Cases were observed for <1 to 156 days (median 22), depending on length of ICU admission. Decisions were made serially over the whole trajectory, usually several days or weeks. We identified four trajectories with distinct patterns: curative care from admission; oscillating curative and comfort care; shift to comfort care; comfort care from admission. Some families considered decision-making a negative concept and preferred uncertainty. Conflict occurred most commonly in the trajectories with oscillating curative and comfort care. Conflict also occurred inside clinical teams. Families were most often involved in decision-making regarding care outcomes and seemed to find it easier when patients switched definitively from curative to comfort care. We found eight categories of decision-making; three related to the care outcomes (aim, place, response to needs) and five to the care processes (resuscitation, decision support, medications/fluids, monitoring/interventions, other specialty involvement).ConclusionsDecision-making in critical illness involves a web of discussions regarding the potential outcomes and processes of care, across the whole disease trajectory. When measures oscillate between curative and comfort there is greatest conflict. This suggests a need to support early communication, especially around values and preferred care outcomes, from which other decisions follow, including DNAR. Offering further support, possibly with expert palliative care, communication, and discussion of ‘trial of treatment’ may be beneficial at this time, rather than waiting until the ‘end of life’.