200 likes | 358 Views
Provider Notification Audit - Implications for Practice Fiona Johnston, Outreach Nurse Richard Williams, Lead Health Adviser Western Sussex Hospitals Trust. Provider Notification. Definition Background Rationale Recording Audit.
E N D
Provider Notification Audit- Implications for PracticeFiona Johnston, Outreach NurseRichard Williams, Lead Health Adviser Western Sussex Hospitals Trust
Provider Notification • Definition • Background • Rationale • Recording • Audit
DefinitionThe active process of a health care professional tracing a sexual contact is known as a ‘provider referral’Manual for Sexual Health Advisers, 2004
RationaleNot offering an effective provider referral service will result in many people not being contacted and warned of the risk to their sexual healthManual for Sexual Health Advisers, 2004
Background • Contagious Diseases Acts, 1864-69 • Emergency Regulation 33B, 1942 • Tyneside scheme, 1937 • Wakefield scheme, 1948 • Pilot study at the London and St Thomas’ hospitals, 1964 • National Health Service (VD) Regulations, 1968 • Handbook on Contact Tracing in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 1980
Audit – Infection and Numbers • Chlamydia • 60 provider referrals in 2010
Audit • How effective are health advisers at offering/obtaining provider referrals? • Who is making the provider referrals? • How effective are health advisers at securing attendances? • Who is attending following a provider referral?
Methodology • Offering/obtaining provider referrals Number of provider referrals Total numbers diagnosed = Provider referral rate (PRR) • Source of provider referrals by age, sex, ethnicity • Securing attendances Provider Referral Attendances Numbers eligible = Provider referral attendance rate (PRAR) • Attendances by age, sex, ethnicity
Chlamydia PRAR by Age Range • Inadequate data
Results • Provider referral rate is 0.16 • Females make more provider referrals than males (0.1 M, 0.23 F) • Most popular age range 16-19 (0.23 F, 0.16 M) • Provider Referral Attendance Rate 0.6 (slightly higher for females (0.6) than males (0.57)) • Inadequate information available on ages of recipients of provider referral
Conclusion • PR most popular for females (0.23) • Age range 16-19 (0.27) • Males have far lower PRR (0.10) • PRAR is high for both males and females
Discussion • Establish standards in provider referral • Define standards • Effects • Focus on ‘breaking bad news’ to enhance partner referral (Coleman and Lohan, 2007) • Develop adjuncts to partner referral (Trelle et al, 2007) • Referrer and recipient views (Hogben et al, 2005; Pavlin et al, 2010)
Recommendations • Develop standards • Audit – data collection to include recipient ages • Enhance male provider referral • Develop adjuncts for provider referral (posters, patient information leaflet) • Patient satisfaction survey for provider referral recipients • Enhance partner notification services (breaking ‘bad news’, partner materials, patient information leaflet)