RSM logo
International Journal of STD & AIDS

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
Int J STD AIDS 2008;19:473-476
doi:10.1258/ijsa.2008.008138
© 2008 Royal Society of Medicine Press

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McClean, H.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Audit reports

UK National Audit of Chlamydial Infection Management in Sexual Health Clinics. Case notes audit: information-giving, partner notification and follow-up

Hugo McClean FRCP , Chris Carne MD FRCP, Paul Bunting MSc, Sumit Bhaduri FRCP, Arnold Fernandes MRCOG, Jyoti Dhar MD FRCP, Steve Estreich FRCP, David Daniels FRCP on behalf of the National Audit Group of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV

Royal Society of Medicine, 1 Wimpole Street, London W1G 0AE, UK

Correspondence to: Dr Hugo McClean, Sexual Health Resource Centre, 32–36 Prospect Street, Hull HU13 0RW, UK Email: Hugo.McClean{at}hullpct.nhs.uk

Verbal information-giving is good, but only half of cases were reportedly given written information on chlamydia. Follow-up by ‘phoning or texting (43%) was as common as follow-up in clinics (39%). About one-fourth of cases did not have follow up, with no recall for around 60% of these cases. Advice about partner notification (PN) was provided by a health adviser or other suitably trained health professional to 91% of cases, and the method of PN was documented for 92% of these cases. PN outcome was not documented for about 25% of these cases. There was no information on the chlamydial status of sexual contacts of about half of cases, and no information about the treatment status of sexual contacts of about 40% of cases. The average number of contacts screened per index was 0.52 outside London and 0.29 for the London Regions, levels below those suggested in the National Guideline.

Key Words: clinical audit • Chlamydia trachomatis • sexually transmitted diseases • female urogenital diseases • male urogenital diseases


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J STD AIDSHome page
H. McClean, C. Carne, P. Bunting, S. Bhaduri, A. Fernandes, J. Dhar, S. Estreich, D. Daniels, and on behalf of the National Audit Group of the Briti
UK National Audit of Chlamydial Infection Management in Sexual Health Clinics. Case notes audit: demography, diagnosis and treatment
Int J STD AIDS, July 1, 2008; 19(7): 469 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J STD AIDSHome page
C. Carne, H. McClean, S. Bhaduri, P. Bunting, A. Fernandes, J. Dhar, S. Estreich, and D. Daniels
UK National Audit of Chlamydial Infection Management in Sexual Health Clinics. Clinic policies audit
Int J STD AIDS, July 1, 2008; 19(7): 477 - 479.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



History of the London Clinic