Specialty and Associate Specialist (SAS) doctors in sexual health in the United Kingdom conducted this baseline audit against standards in the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) Management of STIs and related conditions in children and young people (2010) guideline: offer of screen (standard 90%), acceptance of screen (90%), completion of risk assessment proforma (100%), following a guideline (100%). Staff in 73 clinics submitted data for 2108 patient episodes. Of these clinics 68 (93%) follow BASHH guidelines and 68 (93%) use a record proforma. Of the 2108 patients 1732 (82%) were assessed using a proforma. Where a proforma was used the records were more complete: data were present for 82% of four selected characteristics when a proforma was used and 33% of these characteristics when not used. Of the 2108 patients 1946 were at risk of infection, 1871 (96%) were offered tests and 1692 (90%) accepted. Standards were met on offer and acceptance of tests. Most participating clinics follow guidelines, but the standard of 100% was not met. Use of a proforma was frequent and was shown to improve assessment; the standard of 100% use was not met. The main recommendation is to implement conscientious use of a proforma at all clinics.
The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV Genital Dermatology Special Interest Group (SIG) conducted a survey of specialist registrar training in genital dermatology (GD) to inform future training provision provided by the group and other services. The survey shows that training in GD is variable with most trainees receiving GD training through formal lectures or ad hoc clinical teaching, with fewer trainees having access to specialist GD clinics. There is mixed confidence in diagnosis and use of topical steroids, and few trainees are independent in GD practical procedures. Many trainees feel training could be improved with requests for a formalised attachment, formal qualification and greater training in practical procedures. The GD SIG, in liaison with British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH), aims to optimise GD training for registrars. Plans for improved resources are in progress, including a practical skills course and e-learning. It is hoped this survey will also inform GD training at both local and national levels.
paramount importance. I am confident that giving students a framework of standard questions and phrases and then allowing them the combined privacy and space to practice the use of such in a safe learning environment will improve their confidence in sexual history taking. Background/introduction Studies exploring public participation in health research have not, to date, included the perspectives of gay and bisexual men taking part in behavioural surveillance research. Understanding factors which motivate men to participate in behavioural research, and their perceptions of feedback on anonymous HIV antibody tests are important in the design of future studies. Aim(s)/objectives The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into men's motivations for participation in the Gay Men's Sexual Health Survey (GMSHS), and their understandings of, and views on, HIV testing as part of the survey. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 29 gay and bisexual men who participated in the 2011 GMSHS. Men were recruited in 13 licensed premises on the commercial 'gay scene' in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Data were analysed thematically, focusing on motives for participation and perceptions of not receiving individual feedback on HIV status. Results Most men expressed sophisticated understandings of the purpose of behavioural research and distinguished between this and individual diagnostic testing for HIV. Men's accounts suggested a shared understanding of participation in research as a means of contributing to 'community' HIV prevention efforts. Among the men interviewed feedback on HIV status was not deemed crucial. Discussion/conclusion Continuing to engage with gay and bisexual men, and practitioners working within these communities, is vital to engendering trust in, and support for, future behavioural research. This is particularly important during the process of developing new and innovative research strategies. Further research is needed to explore men's perceptions of participation in research, and their perspectives on receiving feedback on testing, within wider contexts. P190 WE DON'T NEED NO SEX EDUCATION: DO YOUNG PEOPLE VALUE THE KNOWLEDGE THEY GAIN FROM SCHOOL AND SEXUAL HEALTH SERVICES?Jonathan Shaw*, John Sweeney. Blackpool Sexual Health Services, Blackpool, UK 10.1136/sextrans-2015-052126.234Introduction There remains ongoing debate regarding the value of sex education in schools and if today's young people subsequently rely on alternative resources to learn about sex and relationships.Aims As a provider of sexual health services for young people aged under 25 we wanted to establish if there was an expectation amongst service users for us to provide sex education. Methods Questionnaires were distributed to all service users between April and September 2014. Questions were designed to assess how sexual knowledge had been acquired, and which method of knowledge acquisition was most valued. Results 179 service users completed questionnaires. 160 were female, 149 were heterosexual. Median ag...
Survey of non-consultant career grade doctors in genitourinary medicine and sexual health departments 2005 Sir: We present the results of a questionnaire survey of delegates who attended the Eighth Annual Non-Consultant Career Grade (NCCG) doctors' conference in Genitourinary (GU) Medicine, held at Loughborough on 9th and 10th of September 2005. One hundred and sixty NCCG doctors completed the survey. GU medicine was the main specialty of 95 (53%) and the only specialty of 58 (36%) of those who participated. Seven hundred and fifty sessions were undertaken weekly by the 160 delegates surveyed, of which 615 were clinical sessions (average 3.84 clinical sessions per doctor per week). This represents more sessions per week than data collected by the Association of Genitourinary Physicians (AGUM) in 2000, when 592 doctors were reported to be doing 1685 GU medicine clinical sessions per week (average 2.85 sessions per doctor). 1 However, our sample was taken from the NCCG conference delegates. Our sample was likely to have been subject to positive bias-it is not unreasonable to assume that NCCGs who do more sessions per week would be more likely to attend the annual conference than General Practitioners (GPs) who do a single session only. (Of interest, 41 participants (26%) were GPs and they performed 67 clinical sessions, i.e. 1.6 sessions per week). Seventeen NCCGs did HIV sessions and accounted for 23 sessions weekly. This suggests, not surprisingly, that NCCG doctors contribute proportionately more to the service delivery of GU medicine rather than HIV. One hundred and thirty-one NCCGs were undertaking Special Interest Clinics with the majority doing family planning (45%), followed by young people's clinics (24%), psychosexual clinics (9%), sexual assault clinics (4.5%), genital dermatology/vulval clinics (4.5%) and colposcopy (3.8%). The other Special Interest Clinics performed by NCCGs included: clinics for men who have sex with men, menopause/hormone replacement therapy, warts, forensic medicine, on-call services for sexual health, termination services, gynaecology and laser treatment. One-hundred and thirty-six respondents were involved in teaching. The majority taught junior doctors (76%). Seventy-two per cent were involved in teaching undergraduates and nurses, 59% GPs and 20% other health professionals (health advisers, family planning trainees, pharmacists, psychologists and allied health practitioners).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.