A4e Improving Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Clinic Based HIV Partner Services: Checking the HIV/AIDS Registry (HARS) for Named Partners in 9 New York City Publicly Funded STD Clinics

Tuesday, March 9, 2010: 11:15 AM
International Ballroom A/B/C/D (M2) (Omni Hotel)
Alexis V. Kowalski, MPH1, Elizabeth Begier, MD, MPH2, Kathy Middleton, MPH3, Tamar Renaud, MPH4, Rose Gasner, JD5, Steven R. Rubin6 and Susan Blank, MD, MPH6, 1Bureau of STD Control, NYC Department of health & Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, 2Division of Vital Statistics, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Manhattan, NY, 3STD Control, NYC DOHMH, Manhattan, NY, 4Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Manhattan, NY, 5Division of Disease Control, NYC DOHMH, New York, NY, 6Bureau of STD Control, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY

Background: At the health department’s 9 STD clinics all patients are offered HIV testing. Those infected with HIV, are offered HIV partner services (PS).  In 2007, DOHMH successfully petitioned New York State to allow our case investigators to use the NYC HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS) data to obtain the HIV status of named partners to HIV-positive patients.

Objectives: To measure the impact of HARS checks for named partners on disease intervention activities.

Methods: HARS checks, which are based on first name, last name, date of birth, and zip code, once completed, are reported back as: matches (i.e. in HARS, HIV+) or non-matches (not found in HARS). Partner notification, performed for all named partners, is prioritized based on HARS (i.e. HIV) status.

Results: In 2008, of 71,834 HIV tests performed in the NYC STD clinics, 604 were positive. HIV PS interviews produced 256 partners. HARS checks were possible for 109 (43%) of the named partners. 74 (68%) partners did not match in HARS, and 35 (32%) partners did match in HARS (i.e. HIV+). Priority for notification was given to partners who did not match in HARS (i.e. non-matched partners), over those who did match in HARS (i.e. in HARS, HIV+). Using this strategy, time to notification was ~10 days for partners that did not match in HARS versus ~22 days for partners known to be HIV+.

Conclusions: HARS checks for HIV-exposed partners provides additional information which enables clinic staff to prioritize work to best address the needs of named partners who may not yet be aware of their exposure to HIV.

Implications for Programs, Policy, and/or Research:HARS access helps target public health activities.