Question

Scenario: A nurse working in the Emergency Room is attempting to start an IV on a very bloody trauma patient. The patient starts to seize and the nurse looses her grip and sticks herself with the bloody IV needle.

Should the trauma patient be tested for HIV? Why or why not?

Should the patient enjoy the right to consent to the HIV test? Why or why not?

If the patient is in the initial few weeks of their HIV infection, is it likely that the test will show their true HIV status? Would the test need to be repeated at a later date? If so, why?

Answer 1

Certainly the traumatized patient who bleed slot needs to be tested for HIV. Because the patient bleeds a lot and the others, specially healthcare personal would come into contact with it. It increases the risk of transmission. Moreover, a seriously traumatized patient might require some invasive procedures or surgery. So it would be better to check the HIV status of patient.

The patient is having the right to consent for HIV if he is conscious. In case of this patient who is with bleeding trauma, and start to seize, may give consent for HIV test or in the emergency situation the care giver can sign it.

If the patient is in the initial weeks of infection, it won't show the exact result value and also should be repeated . After becoming HIV infected, it typically takes up to 3 months to develop a positive antibody test result. In rare cases, it may take even longer. During this "window period" when the HIV antibody test is negative, a different type of test - a type of 'viral load' test - can detect the presence of HIV