» Articles » PMID: 16461602

Supply and Demand: Estimating the Real Need for Care While Meeting the 48 Hour Waiting Time Target in a Genitourinary Medicine Clinic by a Closed Appointment System

Overview
Date 2006 Feb 8
PMID 16461602
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To attempt to assess demand for access to sexual health services in a community where a "closed" appointment system operates in the local genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic.

Setting: A large GUM clinic serving a provincial city in England. Appointments for new episodes are available only 1 or 2 days ahead. Service user complaints about repeated difficulty in getting through to book a visit prompted a review of all methods of access.

Methods: A prospective review of all calls received in the departmental telephone booking service was performed. Temporary extra staff manned a cascade sequence of telephone lines and recorded all calls and caller characteristics such as age and declaration of symptoms. All attempts to book an appointment in person, by written referral, or by telephone in a period of 5 working days were also logged. This total demand was compared with the actual capacity and maximum theoretical capacity of the clinic during the same time period.

Results: 626 appointments would be required in the working week to accommodate all patients within 48 hours of requesting to be seen. 84% of all calls requested a new appointment, and 77% all new appointment requests were by phone. There were 181 new appointments available; 72% of those requesting an appointment could not be seen. The clinic was working at 103% capacity. To accommodate demand at this quiet time of the academic year, the GUM service would need to increase capacity by 3-4-fold.

Conclusions: Closed appointment systems in GUM services may produce an apparent "improvement" in waiting times to 48 hours, but many callers are not able to book an appointment at all. Demand for GUM services outstrips capacity to an extent that internal efficiency savings cannot hope to address.

Citing Articles

How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs?.

Mercer C, Sutcliffe L, Johnson A, White P, Brook G, Ross J Sex Transm Infect. 2007; 83(5):400-5.

PMID: 17475683 PMC: 2659040. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2006.024554.


Near-patient testing will improve the control of sexually transmitted infections: the arguments in favour.

Ward P Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(6):506-8.

PMID: 17151037 PMC: 2563861. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.017962.


"It feels good to be told that I'm all clear": patients' accounts of retesting following genital chlamydial infection.

Piercy H Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(4):330-3.

PMID: 16877587 PMC: 2564724. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.018838.


Still waiting: poor access to sexual health services in the UK.

Ward H, Robinson A Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(1):3.

PMID: 16461592 PMC: 2563832. DOI: 10.1136/sti.2006.edfeb06.

References
1.
Kinghorn G . Patient access to GUM clinics. Sex Transm Infect. 2001; 77(1):1-2. PMC: 1758312. DOI: 10.1136/sti.77.1.1. View

2.
Foley E, Patel R, Green N, Rowen D . Access to genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom. Sex Transm Infect. 2001; 77(1):12-4. PMC: 1758323. DOI: 10.1136/sti.77.1.12. View

3.
Dixon-Woods M, Stokes T, Young B, Phelps K, Windridge K, Shukla R . Choosing and using services for sexual health: a qualitative study of women's views. Sex Transm Infect. 2001; 77(5):335-9. PMC: 1744361. DOI: 10.1136/sti.77.5.335. View

4.
Robinson A, Rogstad K . Modernization in GUM/HIV services: what does it mean?. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(2):89-98. DOI: 10.1258/095646203321156845. View

5.
White P, Ward H, Cassell J, Mercer C, Garnett G . Vicious and virtuous circles in the dynamics of infectious disease and the provision of health care: gonorrhea in Britain as an example. J Infect Dis. 2005; 192(5):824-36. DOI: 10.1086/432004. View