O20 On-line STI testing services: improving access, efficiency and user experience

Abstract

invited by reception staff to leave the clinic until they were sent another text when they were due to be seen. Patients in possession of a Smartphone could refresh a link to check their place in the queue at any time. IR1s and patient feedback were assessed before and after implementation Results Average no of symptomatic patients seen over a weekend was 70 with an average wait time of 89 min. In the 4 month period prior to the software implementation there were 6 IR1 forms received from staff about patient aggression. In the 4 month period after its introduction there were none. Two months post its introduction the average number of patient complaints about waiting times received was 1 from an average of 4 prior to its use. Conclusion The introduction of the queuing software has been an inexpensive and effective method of reducing complaints about patient waiting times and improving patient satisfaction with the service.

Sexual health clinic attendance and non-attendance in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

“…These may act as a triage, referring those at higher risk or with a positive test result. Such services offering diagnosis and/or treatment have been found to be highly acceptable to users 31 and may address some of the barriers to SHC attendance. 32 …”

Protocol for a scoping review of literature on digital sexual, reproductive, and gender health care for LGBTQI+ youth

“…Interventions refer to digital strategies that have been developed to change a specific SRH related behaviour(s) or outcome(s) for LGBTQI+ youth populations, such as education programmes (Mustanski et al, 2015), social marketing campaigns (e.g., Hickson et al, 2015), or signposting to local services (e.g., West et al, 2015) (e.g., to increase condom use, sexual health related knowledge, uptake of STI self-sampling kits) including offering a digital version of a service that is typically delivered in person (e.g., Brady et al, 2015).…”