Investigation into the acceptability and effectiveness of a new contact slip in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis at a London genitourinary medicine clinic
- 1Mortimer Market Centre, off Capper Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK
- 2Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, UK
- Correspondence to: Dr Danielle Mercey, Department of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, UK; DMercey{at}gum.ucl.ac.uk
- Accepted 24 July 2002
Abstract
Objectives: To improve contact tracing for chlamydia. To determine (i) the acceptability to patients of using a contact slip that named chlamydia as the sexually transmissible infection that the contact may have been at risk of acquiring, and (ii) whether an augmented contact slip issued for chlamydia significantly increased the number of sexual partners attending for treatment.
Methods: For a 2 month period, all consecutive heterosexual patients diagnosed with chlamydia at the Mortimer Market Centre (MMC) were offered one or more coded contact slips (CS1) as per clinic protocol. During this time, and for 1 month afterwards, contacts presenting as a result of receiving these contact slips were recorded. This was compared to a subsequent 2 month period during which a contact slip naming chlamydia as the potential infection, with an information leaflet attached (CS2), was issued. Contacts attending as a result of receiving this augmented contact slip were recorded over a similar period. For both cohorts the number of patients refusing either contact slip, and contacts attending other GUM clinics, were recorded.
Results: 121 patients were diagnosed with chlamydia and were seen by a health adviser in period one and 130 patients were diagnosed and seen in period two. There was no significant difference detected between the acceptability of CS1 and CS2 (one refusal per cohort). There was a significant increase in the number of sexual contacts attending for treatment after being given CS2 (160 attending of 190 contact slips issued (84%, 95% CI 79 to 89)), compared to CS1 (48 attending of 144 contact slips issued (33%, 95% CI 26 to 43)).
Conclusions: An infection specific contact slip was equally acceptable to patients as the standard contact slip, and it significantly increased the number of sexual contacts attending for treatment.
