ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Maintaining patient access to GUM clinics: is it compatible with appointments?

J A Cassell¹, M G Brook^1,2, C H Mercer¹, S Murphy² and A M Johnson³

¹ Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Mortimer Market Centre, Off Capper Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK
² Patrick Clements Clinic, 2nd floor, West Wing Outpatients Department, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Central Middlesex Hospital, Acton Lane, London NW10 7NS, UK
³ Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences and Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, University College London, London, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Jackie Cassell, Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Mortimer Market Centre, off Capper Street, London WC1E GAU, UK;
jackiec{at}quadrivium.demon.co.uk

Objectives: To determine whether a planned change from a walk-in service to a system in which 35% of appointments were prebooked and 65% obtained on the day, preserved access to the service for patients with, or at risk of, STIs. To describe patients’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to accessing the clinic, and relate these to disease status and other epidemiological factors. To evaluate the effect of the change on clinical outcomes. To develop a tool for evaluating access to services.

Method: A natural experiment was studied, in which a cohort of patients attending just before the change in appointments policy (phase 1) was compared with a cohort following the change (phase 2). A questionnaire was administered to all new patients, and linked to disaggregated epidemiological and demographic data and case notes.

Results: The age, ethnic, symptom status, and disease mix of the clinic did not change significantly, and more patients were seen in phase 2. Time from telephoning to being seen did not change. Under 25s and Afro-Caribbeans used prebooked appointments less than others. Partner notification improved and HIV testing rates increased, while staff preferred the new system.

Conclusion: This specific appointment system in a GUM clinic preserved access for high risk groups. However, this may not generalise to systems with a higher proportion of prebooked appointments.

Keywords: access; delay; appointments; GUM clinics

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Brief encounters

Helen Ward
Sex Transm Inf 2003 79: 1. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Carlin, E M, Kellock, D J (2008). Uptake of 48-hour access appointments in genitourinary medicine. Int J STD AIDS 19: 79-82 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mercer, C. H, Sutcliffe, L., Johnson, A. M, White, P. J, Brook, G., Ross, J. D C, Dhar, J., Horner, P., Keane, F., Jungmann, E., Sweeney, J., Kinghorn, G., Garnett, G. G, Stephenson, J. M, Cassell, J. A (2007). How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs?. Sex. Transm. Infect. 83: 400-405 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ross, J D C, Copas, A, Stephenson, J, Fellows, L, Gilleran, G (2006). Public involvement in modernising genitourinary medicine clinics: using general public and patient opinion to influence models of service delivery. Sex. Transm. Infect. 82: 484-488 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Menon-Johansson, A S, Hawkins, D A, Mandalia, S, Barton, S E, Boag, F C (2004). Failure to maintain patient access to GUM clinics. Sex. Transm. Infect. 80: 76-77 [Full Text]