Wilkinson C, Massil H, Evans J
Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Br J Fam Plann. 2000 Oct;26(4):206-9. doi: 10.1783/147118900101194805.
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.
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.
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.
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.
评估社区计划生育(FP)诊所对沙眼衣原体感染女性的管理方案的依从性;评估这些女性前往泌尿生殖医学(GUM)诊所就诊的比例;评估充分治疗的比例,并评估GUM诊所与FP诊所之间的沟通水平。
回顾性审查FP诊所记录和病历,以确定6个月期间所有衣原体检测结果为阳性或可疑的女性,并回顾性审查来自五个当地GUM诊所的记录。
从FP诊所记录中确定了112名衣原体检测结果为阳性或可疑的女性。其中89名(79.5%)被转诊至GUM诊所。未被转诊的14名女性中有12名检测结果可疑。从取样到医生看到结果的中位延迟时间为9天,到女性被转诊的中位延迟时间为10天。58名(51.7%,n = 112)女性确实前往当地GUM诊所就诊。FP诊所为76名(85.4%,n = 89)女性提供了转诊信,GUM诊所为43名持转诊信就诊的女性中的21名(48.8%)提供了回信。检测三个月后,转诊的FP诊所仅知晓112名衣原体检测结果为阳性或可疑的女性中有54名(48.2%)接受了治疗。
大多数衣原体检测结果为阳性或可疑的女性按照方案被转诊至GUM诊所。GUM诊所的就诊情况令人失望,因为112名检测结果为阳性或可疑的女性中只有51.7%有就诊记录。这引发了一个问题,不是社区诊所是否应该进行检测,而是它们是否应该开始治疗并通知性伴侣。GUM诊所与社区诊所在性伴侣通知方面需要开展合作,同时需要培训资金和额外的药房费用。GUM诊所、FP诊所和生殖健康保健(RHC)之间需要进一步开展合作,以评估社区诊所在衣原体感染和其他性传播感染(STIs)诊断和管理中的作用。