STI

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

The most recent version of this article was published on 1 February 2008

Sex Transm Infect. Published Online First: 30 October 2007. doi:10.1136/sti.2007.026922
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
sti.2007.026922v1
84/1/67    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fernando, I.
Right arrow Articles by Clutterbuck, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fernando, I.
Right arrow Articles by Clutterbuck, D.

Paper

Genitourinary medicine clinic and General Practitioner contact- what do patients want?

Imali Fernando 1* and Dan Clutterbuck 1

1 New Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: imali.fernando{at}luht.scot.nhs.uk.

Accepted 8 October 2007


*   Abstract

Objectives: While GUM records have historically been kept separate from other medical data, there is a current trend towards the sharing of patient information across the NHS. There is justification for this; for example, GPs are increasingly involved in delivering targets for STI screening and sexual health service delivery. We ascertained service-user attitudes to proposals to routinely send clinic letters to GPs and to share GUM data on common IT systems.

Methods: Clinic attendees in the period 24/03/06 to 05/04/06 completed a questionnaire concerning their opinion on letters to GPs, GUM data sharing and personal presumptions regarding the implications of having HIV testing. Patient demographic data, clinic test results and questionnaire answers were analysed using SPSS.

Results: Of 527 patients who completed the questionnaire, 187 (35%) agreed to GP contact, 337 (64%) declined and 3 (1%) failed to express a preference. Factors significantly associated with agreement to GP contact included: heterosexual sexual orientation (p<0.05), initial GP referral (p<0.001) and not considering HIV testing to have negative implications for future mortgage and life insurance applications (p<0.05). When questioned on attitudes to GP access of computerised results 291 patients (55%) approved, 231 (44%) disagreed and 5 (1%) failed to reply; 128 patients (24%) said that they would be less likely to attend GUM if this occurred.

Conclusions: Mode of referral and concerns regarding the implications of HIV testing affect patient preference regarding information sharing. A significant proportion of patients still desire GUM visits to be anonymous and a policy of sharing GUM data on common IT systems may deter patient attendance.

Key Words: GPs, GUM, HIV test, IT systems, confidentiality







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.