INTRODUCTION Bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) contribute to a significant burden of ill-health despite being easy to diagnose and treat. STI management guidelines provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance on best-practice case management. AIM To determine the extent of adherence to STI management guidelines for partner notification, follow up and testing for reinfection following diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. METHODS Retrospective review of electronic patient records for individuals diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhoea in eight primary care clinics in Wellington, New Zealand. At each clinic, 40 clinical records were reviewed (320 in total). Outcome measures were: overall numbers (%) of cases with documented evidence of reason for testing, sexual history, treatment, advice, partner notification and follow up. Partner notification outcomes were: n (%) with evidence of partner notification discussion and n (%) with partners advised, tested and treated. Proportions retested between 6 weeks and 6 months and n (%) positive on retesting were also determined. RESULTS Presenting features and treatment were generally well documented. Recent sexual history including number of partners was documented for half of cases reviewed (159/320). Partner notification discussion was documented for 74% (237/320) of cases, but only 24.4% (78/320) had documentation on numbers of partners notified and 17% (54/320) on numbers of partners treated. Testing for reinfection between 6 weeks and 6 months occurred for 24.7% (79/320), of whom 19% (15/79) re-tested positive. CONCLUSIONS This research suggests there are gaps in important aspects of patient care following bacterial STI diagnosis - a factor that may be perpetuating our high rates of infection. A more systematic approach will be needed to ensure people diagnosed with an STI receive the full cycle of care in line with best practice guidelines.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
4%
Other
3
12%
Unknown
10
40%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#25,003,415
of 27,788,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Primary Health Care
#293
of 333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,434
of 344,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Primary Health Care
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 333 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,517 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
