The level of reported prescribing by health visitors and district nurses in this study indicates that they are not acting as substitute prescribers for general practitioners of the products in the limited formulary. Implementation of a major role change such as nurse prescribing requires a number of conditions, including adequate education/preparation, a formulary that meets practitioners' needs, and acceptance by the practitioners themselves.

We investigated the prevalence of various genital organisms in 268 men with (cases) and 237 men without (controls) urethral symptoms/signs (urethral discharge, dysuria and/or urethral irritation) from two sexual health clinics in Sydney between April 2006 and November 2007. The presence of urethral symptoms/signs was defined as non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) for this study. Specific aims were to investigate the role of Ureaplasma urealyticum in NGU and the prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium in our population. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based reverse line blot (mPCR/RLB) assay was performed to detect 14 recognized or putative genital pathogens, including Chlamydia trachomatis, M. genitalium, U. urealyticum and U. parvum. U. urealyticum was associated with NGU in men without another urethral pathogen (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.8; P = 0.04); this association remained after controlling for potential confounding by age and history of unprotected vaginal sex in the last four weeks (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1-3.9; P = 0.03). C. trachomatis (OR 7.5, P < 0.001) and M. genitalium (OR 5.5, P = 0.027) were significantly associated with NGU. The prevalence of M. genitalium was low (4.5% cases, 0.8% controls). U. urealyticum is independently associated with NGU in men without other recognized urethral pathogens. Further research should investigate the role of U. urealyticum subtypes among heterosexual men with NGU.

The aim of this review was to evaluate an 'Email a Clinician' link on a medically reviewed sexual health website, which was established to allow general practitioners (GPs) to communicate remotely with sexual health clinic specialists. The website was developed in consultation with GPs and extensively promoted throughout the relevant professional primary health-care networks. Despite this, the email link appeared to fail in its objective of facilitating GP access to specialist sexual health physician opinion within five working days. An audit examining use of the email link was conducted for a one-year period, during which time 324 emails were received. Results showed that the bulk of the emails (93.2%) were spam, and only 6.8% were genuine enquiries. Of the 22 genuine emails, 21 (95%) originated from the general public and there were no enquiries from the GPs, who were the target audience of the website, resulting in removal of the email link from the site. Direct survey of local GPs to evaluate reasons for non-utilization of the link was not possible. However, discomfort with the technology, time added to existing workload, lack of direct perceived benefit and lack of immediate response have been cited as contributing factors that may limit widespread adoption of other telemedicine services. As a new generation of recently graduated GPs enters the Australian workforce, who might be expected to be skilled and comfortable with electronic medical communication, the option of a direct email link to a sexual health clinic, with a faster turnaround time, may be worth re-visiting in the future.