Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Patient-initiated delay at a genitourinary medicine clinic: are there public health consequences?
  1. L Sanmani1,
  2. E Foley1,
  3. S Samraj1,
  4. D Rowen1,
  5. G Yadegarfar2,
  6. R Patel1
  1. 1
    Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Southampton City Primary Care Trust, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton, UK
  2. 2
    Research and Development Support Unit (RDSU), Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
  1. Dr Leela Sanmani, Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Royal South Hants Hospital, B level Out-Patient Centre, St Mary’s Road, Southampton, SO14 OYG, UK; leela.sanmani{at}


Objectives: To assess the public health consequence of patients electing not to be seen within 48 hours in a genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic.

Methods: A 3-month retrospective case notes review was carried out for 310 new and re-book patients who chose to wait for more than 48 hours to be seen.

Results: Altogether, 10% (310/3110) of patients opted to be seen beyond 48 h. Their median wait was 6 days including weekends and 4 days excluding weekends. Demographic details did not vary except for the male to female ratio of 1:1.7 (1:1 in patients seen within 48 h).

We found that no symptomatic patients or asymptomatic contacts of those with known sexually transmitted infections (STIs) reported sex with a new partner after booking their appointment. No patient reported sex with a recently treated partner who consequently required re-treatment and none suffered a complication of a STI. In addition, there were no cases of new HIV infection in this group and the rates of STIs were similar compared with patients seen within 48 hours of contacting the unit.

Conclusions: Despite 10% of patients choosing to delay attendance beyond 48 h, no adverse public health outcomes were demonstrated.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • See Editorial, p 514

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Ethics approval: As a service evaluation study, it was approved by the clinical audit facilitator at Southampton City PCT (Audit No: 407).

  • Contributors: LS: study design, data collection, data analysis, drafting of manuscript; EF: study design, data analysis, drafting of manuscript; SS: data collection; DR: data analysis GY: data analysis; RP: study design, data collection, data analysis, drafting of manuscript.

Linked Articles