Sexually transmitted diseases and communications with general practitioners

Abstract

Objectives: To devise a method of communicating with the general practitioners (GPs), overcoming the constraints imposed by patient confidentiality and the low levels of staYng in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics. To assess the GPs' responses to this method of communication. Setting: GUM clinics at two centres in Kent-Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. Methods: Patients were recruited if they attended the clinic of their own accord without a letter of referral from their GPs; a definitive or provisional diagnosis was made and the patient was managed in the clinic; the patient's GP had received a conventional reply from the GUM clinic for other patients referred in the past. Separate GP letters were developed for male and female patients. These handwritten study letters were read by the patients who took the responsibility to deliver them to their GPs. This was followed by a questionnaire to the GPs. Results: 75 patients were eligible. Seven patients refused to participate. All questionnaires were returned by the GPs for the 68 participating patients (100%). Seven GPs failed to receive the study letter. For these unreferred patients, this was an improvement in communication level from 0% to 80%. 79% (95% confidence interval: 67%-87%) preferred the study letter, 97% (89%-99%) would like to receive a similar letter for future patients. All GPs thought that the study letter was at least as good as the standard letter, 52% (40%-64%) thought it was better. For 82% (70%-90%) it was the preferred format for future communication. Conclusion:The study has shown a way of establishing communication with GPs for patients who do not object to this. The results also suggest that in the study districts neither the GPs nor the majority of study patients had any objection to the sharing of information between the GUM clinics and GPs. (Sex Transm Inf 1999;75:45-48)

Genitourinary medicine clinic and general practitioner contact: what do patients want?

“…This is in contrast to a previous study by Winceslaus et a l ,12 which demonstrated 80% uptake of an offer of a self delivered GUM clinic letter to GPs. This uptake was based on a detailed understanding of the contents of the letter and reserving the option of not delivering it to the GP.…”

Increased electronic information sharing by sexual health services: Confidentiality and consent

“…This finding aligns with a previous study at GUM clinics in the United Kingdom that found that 80 per cent of self-referred patients delivered a discharge letter to their GP following a detailed discussion of letter contents with the right to change content. 24 The need to address this high level of reluctance by SHS patients to share information is highlighted by the consequences of increased information sharing without any intervention. With separate coding systems from mainstream health services, SHS traditionally deliver care with a high level of confidentiality.…”

“…This finding aligns with a previous study at GUM clinics in the United Kingdom that found that 80 per cent of self-referred patients delivered a discharge letter to their GP following a detailed discussion of letter contents with the right to change content. 24…”

Letters from beyond: do patients attending Genitourinary Medicine clinics want their general practitioner to know?

“…1 As a result of historical statutes many clinics still communicate with GPs only when patients are formally referred from general practice, but this policy may not reflect current patient or GP preferences. 2 All patients attending the GUM clinic in the Scottish Borders complete a registration form that includes a section concerning communication with their GP; therefore, a retrospective analysis was performed on a random sample of 630 case notes (43% male and 57% female) from patients attending between 2002 and 2006.…”

“…Standard letters and electronic systems may reduce the work involved. 1 Many patients initially attend GPs for sexual-health-related issues 3 ; therefore GUM physicians must be aware of the importance of correspondence with colleagues in primary care. Future possibilities include the adoption of an ''opt out'' clause for patients regarding communication with their GP.…”