English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Research suggests nonoccupational Post Exposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) is underprescribed when indicated in the Emergency Department (ED). This study is an assessment of ED providers’ attitudes and practices regarding administration of HIV nPEP. Methods This was an anonymous survey based on literature review and modified Delphi technique. We approached 153 ED providers at work over a 4-month period from 5 hospital-based and 2 freestanding EDs with an annual census between 35,000 and 75,000 patients. The EDs are a combination of urban, suburban, and rural EDs. There were 152 completed surveys: 80 attendings, 27 residents, and 44 physician assistants. Results The majority of surveyed providers (133/149, 89.3%) believe it is their responsibility as an emergency provider to provide HIV nPEP in the emergency department (Figure 1). Although 91% (138/151) and 87% (132/151) of respondents are willing to prescribe nPEP to a patient in the ED for IV drug use and unprotected sex, respectively, only 40% (61/152) of participants felt they could confidently prescribe the appropriate regimen. Ultimately, only 25% (37/151) of participants prescribed nPEP in the last year. Number of years in practice, age, and gender did not result in a significant difference in nPEP administration. Respondents noted time (27%), access to follow-up care (26%), cost to patients (23%), patients’ perceived interest in HIV counseling (15%), and concern for ongoing risky behaviors (9%) as barriers to prescribing nPEP (Figure 2). 64% (95/149) of respondents feel that it is their responsibility as an ED provider to refer patients at risk of nonoccupational exposures for risk-reduction counseling. Conclusion This study identified an opportunity for HIV prevention in the emergency department. The majority of participants had not prescribed nPEP in the past 12 months. Although most were willing to prescribe nPEP and felt it was their responsibility, the majority of participants were not confident in prescribing it. Future interventions to increase the use of nPEP in the ED should target provider education, cost, access to follow-up care and counseling. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

1283. Attitudes and Practices Regarding HIV Post-Exposure Prophylaxis