People with diagnosed HIV infection apparently not in care

1. People with diagnosed HIV infection apparently not in care BHIVA in collaboration with Health Protection Agency

2. Aims • Estimate numbers of people with diagnosed HIV living within the UK but not receiving care • Explore factors associated with non-retention in care • Work towards good practice guidance on retention.

3. Method • England, Wales, NI: HPA used surveillance data to identify: • Patients seen for HIV care in 2010 with no linked care report from any site in 2011 and no linked death report • New diagnoses in 2010 with no linked care report from any site in 2010 or 2011 and no linked death report. • Scotland: Clinics identified patients seen for care in 2010 and not known to have been seen there or elsewhere in 2011. • Casenotereview of all above patients – with extended version for first 5 or 10 per site • Survey of policy and practice on retention in care.

4. England, Wales, Northern Ireland Scotland: Clinics identified 58 patients seen for care in 2010 not in 2011 64,876 received care 2010 (age 15+) 6,299 new diagnoses 2010 (age 15+) 451 (7.2%) not linked as receiving care in 2010 or 2011 3,003 (4.6%) not linked as receiving care in 2011 3,454 – details given by HPA to clinics 2,199 (63.6%) audit forms completed 2 HIV negative: excluded 2,255 included in audit analysis

5. Patient characteristics *More than one answer could be selected.

6. Main outcomes

7. 50 (2.2%) patient not identified 2,255 patients 964 (42.7%) probably in UK 578 (25.6%) status unknown 590 (26.2%) probably left UK 73 (3.2%) died Status in 2011 was not known for 822 (36.5%) patients 508 (22.6%) in care/presumed in care 262 (11.6%) out of care 194 (8.6%) not known/answered whether in care 456 (20.2%) patients in UK presumed out of care

8. Outcomes estimated as proportion of UK adults with diagnosed HIV *Deaths recorded as audit outcomes are additional to deaths already accounted for via SOPHID linking.

9. 50 (2.2%) patient not identified 2255 patients 964 (42.7%) probably in UK 578 (25.6%) status unknown 590 (26.2%) probably left UK 73 (3.2%) died 508 (22.6%) in care/presumed in care 262 (11.6%) out of care 194 (8.6%) not known/answered whether in care

10. Reliability of SOPHID linking? 22.6% audited patients* were thought to still be in care in the UK, but were not linked in SOPHID. Possible scenarios: • Reported to SOPHID, but records not linked: “…seen by IDU services in same hospital - we use GUM number they use hospital number.” • Seen for care, but not reported to SOPHID: “Care provided by haematology service with advice from GUM … not reported to HPA.” “attended for bloods including CD4 and VL but was not seen by a doctor” • Presumed in care at another clinic, but may not have attended: “… informed of the positive result. He said he would attend a clinic in [place] as he was going to be [there]. [He later said he had] attended for confirmatory testing.” “transfer letter done in 2010” *Excluding patients from Scotland where linking was not done.

11. SOPHID unlinked patients within trusts • 163 unlinked patients had attended the same NHS service for HIV care in 2011 and 2010: • No explanation • Reporting error • Drop-in, not booked appointment • Bloods done but not seen by doctor • Name change or multiple names • Joint clinic (HIV/hepatitis) • Care in haematology with advice from GUM • Transfer from GUM to ID, family clinic - switch from clinic to hospital number • Diagnosed as inpatient then attended GUM - switch from hospital to clinic number • In clinical trial/seen in research clinic • Inpatient • Seen in routine GUM or antenatal clinic rather than HIV-badged clinic

12. Patients remaining in the UK Comparisons between patients not in care and those in care

13. 50 (2.2%) patient not identified 2,255 patients 964 (42.7%) probably in UK 578 (25.6%) status unknown 590 (26.2%) probably left UK 73 (3.2%) died 508 (22.6%) in care/presumed in care 262 (11.6%) out of care 194 (8.6%) not known/answered whether in care

14. Comparisons between patients in care and not in care Figures shown are numbers (percentages). Totals do not add because not known/not answered data is not shown. *New diagnoses rather than SOPHID data.

15. Comparisons, continued Figures shown are numbers (percentages). Totals do not add because not known/not answered data is not shown.

16. Comparisons, continued †ART-experienced patients only Figures shown are numbers (percentages). Totals do not add because not known/not answered data is not shown.

17. 50 (2.2%) patient not identified 2255 patients 964 (42.7%) probably in UK 578 (25.6%) status unknown 590 (26.2%) probably left UK 73 (3.2%) died 508 (22.6%) in care/presumed in care 262 (11.6%) out of care 167 (63.7% of 262) attended in 2012 194 (8.6%) not known/answered whether in care 70 (36.1% of 194) attended in 2012

18. Patients in the UK out of care/care status not known: consequences

19. Post-partum follow up Of 306 female patients for whom the extended questionnaire was completed, 40 (13.1%) were pregnant when last seen (20) or within 3 months before last being seen (20): • 21 probably remained in the UK – 7 presumed in care, 9 out of care, 5 unknown • 14 probably left the UK • 4 not known • 1 died. In 3 cases, ending pregnancy/MTCT prevention was mentioned as a reason for disengagement from care. A further 61 patients had been pregnant at or since being diagnosed with HIV.

20. Prison and detention Of 805 patients for whom the extended questionnaire was completed, 51 (6.3%) had been detained, 35 at the time when they were last seen: • 26 in prison (19 when last seen) • 19 by the UK Border Agency (16 when last seen) • 6 both. 29 patients who had been detained had probably left the UK, 15 probably remained in the UK, for 6 this was unknown and one had died. 24 patients stopped attending for care because they were detained, of whom 6 remained living in the UK. For at least 5 patients, care was disrupted by being transferred between prisons/detention centres or deported without clinical information and/or medication.

21. Patients in the UK out of care/not known: action taken

22. Site level data Survey of policy and practice regarding retention in care

23. Standards of Care for People Living with HIV 2013 • Standard 2: • Services must have mechanisms in place for those who miss appointments or transfer their care to another centre, to ensure people with HIV are retained in specialist care. NB the Standards were published after the audit, so this was a baseline audit.

24. Policies on non-retention 134 sites completed the survey. 17 (12.7%) had a written and 106 (79.1%) an unwritten or informal policy on retention: • 76 (56.7%): non-retention policy comes into play after a single missed appointment. • 90 (67.2%): routinely discuss non-attenders in MDT, but 23 (17.1%) only for vulnerable patients. • 40 (29.9%): written policy or template for information for patients transferring out.

25. Support services available

26. Routine details checked at each appointment

27. Summing up

28. Limitations • By definition, information cannot be recorded for patients who are out of contact with care services. • Outcomes for some patients were more “best guess” than certainty. • It is not clear why more than 1 in 5 patients were thought to have remained in UK care without being linked in SOPHID.

29. Conclusions • Leaving the UK accounts for over a quarter of cases of apparent non-retention. • The outcome for many patients was unclear. • However, we estimate that at most 2.6% of people with HIV remained in the UK and out of care during 2011.

30. Conclusions (continued) • In univariate analysis, factors associated with disengagement from care (while remaining in UK) were: • being younger and more recently diagnosed • black-African ethnicity • being ART naïve • poor attendance • poor adherence (if ART experienced). • Other factors may be relevant in individual cases but are unlikely to be useful as predictors.

31. Conclusions (continued) • Being out of care may have consequences in terms of disease progression, and risk of onward transmission. • Services actively attempted to re-engage patients who were recognised as being out of care, but GPs were often not involved even when aware of the patient’s HIV status.

32. Recommendations • Services should report all HIV care for surveillance purposes, regardless of the clinical setting in which the patient is seen. • HIV services should audit non-attendance at least annually and seek to re-engage patients where necessary. • The HPA should provide services with annual lists of patients not linked in SOPHID.

33. Recommendations • BHIVA should consider developing good practice guidance on: • care transfers including verifying that the patient is attending the new provider • action to take when patients do not attend as expected. • Further consideration should be given as to how to measure retention in care and to what extent this may be an indicator of service quality.

34. Acknowledgements • Thanks to all clinical services who participated. • Health Protection Agency: Z Yin, A Brown, V Delpech. • BHIVA Audit & Standards Sub-Committee: E Ong (chair), H Curtis (audit co-ordinator), J Anderson, S Bhagani, F Burns, K Clay, D Churchill, M Desai, S Edwards, A Freedman, P Gupta, A Judd, S Morris, D Ogden, O Olarinde, R Pebody, A Rodger, A Schwenk, C Sabin, A Sullivan, H Veerakathy, V Delpech, E Wilkins.