社区计划生育诊所衣原体检测与医院泌尿生殖医学诊所转诊的界面。

C Wilkinson, H Massil, J Evans
{"title":"社区计划生育诊所衣原体检测与医院泌尿生殖医学诊所转诊的界面。","authors":"C Wilkinson,&nbsp;H Massil,&nbsp;J Evans","doi":"10.1783/147118900101194805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess compliance with the protocol for the management of women with Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in community family planning (FP) clinics; to assess the rate of attendance at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics by these women; to assess the rate of adequate treatment and to assess the level of communication between GUM clinics and FP clinics.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Retrospective review of FP clinic records and case notes to identify all women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results during a 6 month period, and a retrospective review of records from five local GUM clinics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and twelve women were identified from FP clinic records with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results. Eighty-nine (79.5%) were referred to a GUM clinic. Twelve out of 14 women not referred had equivocal results. The median delay from the test being taken to the results being seen by a doctor was 9 days, and to the woman being referred was 10 days. Fifty-eight (51.7%, n = l12) women definitely attended a local GUM clinic. The FP clinics provided a letter of referral in 76 (85.4%, n = 89) women and the GUM clinics provided a letter of reply in 21 (48.8%, n = 43) women who attended with a referral letter. Three months after testing, only 54 (48.2%) of the 112 women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia tests were known by the referring FP clinic to have been treated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results were referred to a GUM clinic according to the protocol. Attendance at GUM clinics was disappointing, as only 51.7% of the 112 women with positive or equivocal results had documented evidence of having attended. This raises the question not whether community clinics should be testing, but whether they should be initiating treatment and partner notification. Collaborative work between GUM clinics and community clinics around partner notification is needed, as well as funding for training and additional pharmacy costs. Further collaborative work between GUM and FP and reproductive healthcare (RHC) to evaluate the role of community clinics in the diagnosis and management of chlamydial infection and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":22378,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of family planning","volume":"26 4","pages":"206-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1783/147118900101194805","citationCount":"37","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An interface of chlamydia testing by community family planning clinics and referral to hospital genitourinary medicine clinics.\",\"authors\":\"C Wilkinson,&nbsp;H Massil,&nbsp;J Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1783/147118900101194805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess compliance with the protocol for the management of women with Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in community family planning (FP) clinics; to assess the rate of attendance at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics by these women; to assess the rate of adequate treatment and to assess the level of communication between GUM clinics and FP clinics.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Retrospective review of FP clinic records and case notes to identify all women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results during a 6 month period, and a retrospective review of records from five local GUM clinics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and twelve women were identified from FP clinic records with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results. Eighty-nine (79.5%) were referred to a GUM clinic. Twelve out of 14 women not referred had equivocal results. The median delay from the test being taken to the results being seen by a doctor was 9 days, and to the woman being referred was 10 days. Fifty-eight (51.7%, n = l12) women definitely attended a local GUM clinic. The FP clinics provided a letter of referral in 76 (85.4%, n = 89) women and the GUM clinics provided a letter of reply in 21 (48.8%, n = 43) women who attended with a referral letter. Three months after testing, only 54 (48.2%) of the 112 women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia tests were known by the referring FP clinic to have been treated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results were referred to a GUM clinic according to the protocol. Attendance at GUM clinics was disappointing, as only 51.7% of the 112 women with positive or equivocal results had documented evidence of having attended. This raises the question not whether community clinics should be testing, but whether they should be initiating treatment and partner notification. Collaborative work between GUM clinics and community clinics around partner notification is needed, as well as funding for training and additional pharmacy costs. Further collaborative work between GUM and FP and reproductive healthcare (RHC) to evaluate the role of community clinics in the diagnosis and management of chlamydial infection and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of family planning\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"206-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1783/147118900101194805\",\"citationCount\":\"37\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of family planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1783/147118900101194805\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of family planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1783/147118900101194805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

摘要

目的:评估社区计划生育诊所诊断为沙眼衣原体的妇女对治疗方案的依从性;评估这些妇女到泌尿生殖医学(GUM)诊所就诊的比率;评估适当治疗的比率,以及评估牙龈诊所与计划生育诊所之间的沟通水平。方法:回顾性分析计划生育门诊记录和病例记录,以确定6个月内所有衣原体检测结果阳性或模棱两可的妇女,并对当地5家GUM诊所的记录进行回顾性分析。结果:从计划生育诊所记录中鉴定出112名衣原体阳性或模棱两可的妇女。89人(79.5%)被转介到牙龈诊所。14名未被提及的女性中有12名的结果模棱两可。从进行测试到医生看到结果的中位延迟是9天,而到转诊的妇女是10天。58名(51.7%,n = 112)女性确实去过当地牙龈诊所。计划生育诊所向76名(85.4%,n = 89)妇女提供了转诊信,GUM诊所向21名(48.8%,n = 43)妇女提供了复函。检测三个月后,在112名衣原体检测呈阳性或模棱两可的妇女中,只有54名(48.2%)被转诊的计划生育诊所知道接受过治疗。结论:大多数衣原体阳性或模棱两可的妇女根据协议被转介到GUM诊所。GUM诊所的出诊情况令人失望,在112名结果呈阳性或模棱两可的女性中,只有51.7%的人有书面证据表明她们去过那里。这提出的问题不是社区诊所是否应该进行检测,而是他们是否应该开始治疗并通知伴侣。GUM诊所和社区诊所之间需要围绕伙伴通知开展协作工作,并为培训和额外的药房费用提供资金。需要进一步开展GUM、计划生育和生殖保健(RHC)之间的合作,以评估社区诊所在衣原体感染和其他性传播感染(STIs)的诊断和管理中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An interface of chlamydia testing by community family planning clinics and referral to hospital genitourinary medicine clinics.

Objectives: To assess compliance with the protocol for the management of women with Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in community family planning (FP) clinics; to assess the rate of attendance at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics by these women; to assess the rate of adequate treatment and to assess the level of communication between GUM clinics and FP clinics.

Method: Retrospective review of FP clinic records and case notes to identify all women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results during a 6 month period, and a retrospective review of records from five local GUM clinics.

Results: One hundred and twelve women were identified from FP clinic records with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results. Eighty-nine (79.5%) were referred to a GUM clinic. Twelve out of 14 women not referred had equivocal results. The median delay from the test being taken to the results being seen by a doctor was 9 days, and to the woman being referred was 10 days. Fifty-eight (51.7%, n = l12) women definitely attended a local GUM clinic. The FP clinics provided a letter of referral in 76 (85.4%, n = 89) women and the GUM clinics provided a letter of reply in 21 (48.8%, n = 43) women who attended with a referral letter. Three months after testing, only 54 (48.2%) of the 112 women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia tests were known by the referring FP clinic to have been treated.

Conclusions: The majority of women with positive or equivocal Chlamydia results were referred to a GUM clinic according to the protocol. Attendance at GUM clinics was disappointing, as only 51.7% of the 112 women with positive or equivocal results had documented evidence of having attended. This raises the question not whether community clinics should be testing, but whether they should be initiating treatment and partner notification. Collaborative work between GUM clinics and community clinics around partner notification is needed, as well as funding for training and additional pharmacy costs. Further collaborative work between GUM and FP and reproductive healthcare (RHC) to evaluate the role of community clinics in the diagnosis and management of chlamydial infection and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信