Variation in partner notification outcomes for chlamydia in UK genitourinary medicine clinics: multilevel study

Objectives To compare different ways of measuring partner notification (PN) outcomes with published audit standards, examine variability between clinics and examine factors contributing to variation in PN outcomes in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the UK. Methods Reanalysis of the 2007 BASHH national chlamydia audit. The primary outcome was the number of partners per index case tested for chlamydia, as verified by a healthcare worker or, if missing, reported by the patient. Control charts were used to examine variation between clinics considering missing values as zero or excluding missing values. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to investigate factors contributing to variation in outcomes. Results Data from 4616 individuals in 169 genitourinary medicine clinics were analysed. There was no information about the primary outcome in 41% of records. The mean number of partners tested for chlamydia ranged from 0 to 1.5 per index case per clinic. The median across all clinics was 0.47 when missing values were assumed to be zero and 0.92 per index case when missing values were excluded. Men who have sex with men were less likely than heterosexual men and patients with symptoms (4-week look-back period) were less likely than asymptomatic patients (6-month look-back) to report having one or more partners tested for chlamydia. There was no association between the primary outcome and the type of the health professional giving the PN advice. Conclusions The completeness of PN outcomes recorded in clinical notes needs to improve. Further research is needed to identify auditable measures that are associated with successful PN that prevents repeated chlamydia in index cases.

Implementation status of error disclosure standards reported by Swiss hospitals

QUESTION UNDER STUDY To establish at what stage Swiss hospitals are in implementing an internal standard concerning communication with patients and families after an error that resulted in harm. METHODS Hospitals were identified via the Swiss Hospital Association's website. An anonymous questionnaire was sent during September and October 2011 to 379 hospitals in German, French or Italian. Hospitals were asked to specify their hospital type and the implementation status of an internal hospital standard that decrees that patients or their relatives are to be promptly informed about medical errors that result in harm. RESULTS Responses from a total of 205 hospitals were received, a response rate of 54%. Most responding hospitals (62%) had an error disclosure standard or planned to implement one within 12 months. The majority of responding university and acute care (75%) hospitals had introduced a disclosure standard or were planning to do so. In contrast, the majority of responding psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty (53%) clinics had not introduced a standard. CONCLUSION It appears that Swiss hospitals are in a promising state in providing institutional support for practitioners disclosing medical errors to patients. This has been shown internationally to be one important factor in encouraging the disclosure of medical errors. However, many hospitals, in particular psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty clinics, have not implemented an error disclosure policy. Further research is needed to explore the underlying reasons.