Article Text

Download PDFPDF

P139 To attend or not to attend – “why” is the question?
  1. Dianne Neal,
  2. Oluseyi Hotonu
  1. Morpeth Clinic, Northumberland, UK


Background/introduction Documents such as “10 high impact changes for genitourinary medicine 48 h access” produced by the Department of Health (DH) in 2006 have helped reduce waiting times and increase capacity. Our service experienced a significant increase in the rate of non-attendance of appointments following a change in service base in February 2014. In response we decided to ascertain whether adopting some or all of the DH’s high impact changes would improve the poor attendance.

Aim(s)/objectives On review we were already employing most of the recommended changes. One omission was high impact change 5: “Review current access system and make it easier for patients to access the service”, therefore we asked patients their preferred means of attendance (appointment or drop in) and times of attendance.

Methods 105 services users were questioned over a 4 week period from the 1st until the 31st August 2014.

Results 44% preferred the option of both appointments and drop in, whilst 28% each favoured either all appointments or drop in access only. There was no preferred time of attendance.

Discussion/conclusion As the service already provides both appointments and drop in access the audit provided little to no evidence that a change to service delivery would reduce levels of non-attendance. There remains minimal data about how best to fulfil public and individual sexual health obligations, especially to an extensive rural community such as ours. A further audit on actual non-attenders could identify patterns in patient expectation.

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.