Background: There exist a limited number of studies demonstrating the benefit of initiating anti-retroviral agents (ARVs) for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the critical care setting. However, there are physiological, practical, and ethical arguments against making HIV testing and initiation of ARVs routine practice. Methods: A self-administered, cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals was conducted with data collected using a questionnaire distributed to delegates of the Critical Care Society of South Africa (CCSSA) 2016 Congress, and members of the society. Results: There were 101 respondents. Eight per cent would not consider testing a critically ill patient for HIV (status previously unknown), largely because they considered this unethical. Sixty-nine per cent would consider commencing ARVs in a patient newly-diagnosed with HIV during an inter-current critical illness. The factor most likely to guide them towards this was severity of illness. In general, the greatest concerns focused around biological/medical issues. However, those clinicians who would not consider initiation of ARVs were more likely than those who would, to be concerned about psychosocial issues. Conclusion: Although the majority of clinicians would consider initiation of ARVs acutely in critically ill patients, it is apparent that the clinical decision-making around this matter is complex. Advocacy is needed to further clarify relevant ethical and legal dilemmas, and in the interim consultative and collaborative care is encouraged.
|Number of pages||6|
|Journal||Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia|
|Publication status||Published - 2020|
- Anti-retroviral agents
- Critical care
- South Africa