A7a Evaluation of Statewide Case-Report Based System for Triaging Patients to Receive Partner Services for Gonorrhea or Chlamydial Infection

Tuesday, March 9, 2010: 10:15 AM
Dogwood B (M1) (Omni Hotel)
Matthew Golden, MPH, MD, Center for AIDS and STD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Roxanne Kerani, PhD, STD Control Program, Public Health - Seattle and King County, Seattle, WA, James Hughes, PhD, Biostatisics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Mark Aubin, BA, STD Services Section, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA, King Holmes, MD, PhD, Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA and Mark Stenger, MA, Infectious Disease & Reproductive Health, Assessment Unit, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA

Background: Most health departments cannot provide partner services (PS) to all persons with gonorrhea or chlamydial infection.

Objectives: To evaluate a statewide system that uses case-report forms to triage persons to receive PS.

Methods: A new Washington State case report form required clinicians to choose one of the following partner notification (PN) plans: 1) health department to provide PS (HDPS); 2) clinician to assure partner treatment (clinician PN); 3) all partners already treated. The form recommended that clinicians choose HDPS if patients met any of the following criteria: >1 sex partner prior 60 days; ≥1 partner that patient does not plan to have sex with again; man who has sex with men; patient refuses to notify partner. We interviewed randomly selected cases, and used GEE to compare PN outcomes among opposite sex partners based on the case report PN plan.

Results: A total of 5610 (20%) of 28,732 cases were randomly selected, of whom 3266 (58%) were interviewed. Clinicians indicated a PN plan on 87% of case reports, and selected HDPS, clinician PN and all partners treated on 55%, 21%, and 24%, respectively. At time of initial interview, partners of cases referred for HDPS were less likely to have been notified (74% vs. 90%), treated (39% vs. 73%), or to have received patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) prescribed by the case’s diagnosing provider (10% vs. 54%) than partners of cases who were not referred for HDPS. Partners of cases referred for HDPS were more likely to receive PDPT from Disease Intervention Specialists (DIS) (24% vs. 5%) and to be notified by DIS (18% vs. 8%). (All p-values <0.0001)

Conclusions: Case-report based triage can successfully direct PS to the persons most likely to benefit from the intervention.

Implications for Programs, Policy, and/or Research: Widespread adoption of this approach to targeting PS could improve program efficiency.

Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>