What can be learnt from a qualitative evaluation of implementing a rapid sexual health testing, diagnosis and treatment service?

Ava Lorenc; Emer Brangan; Joanna M Kesten; Paddy J Horner; Michael Clarke; Megan Crofts; Jonathan Steer; Jonathan Turner; Peter Muir; Jeremy Horwood

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050109

What can be learnt from a qualitative evaluation of implementing a rapid sexual health testing, diagnosis and treatment service?

BMJ Open. 2021 Oct 22;11(10):e050109. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050109.

Authors

Ava Lorenc^{1

2}, Emer Brangan³, Joanna M Kesten^{1

2

4}, Paddy J Horner^{4

5}, Michael Clarke⁵, Megan Crofts⁵, Jonathan Steer⁶, Jonathan Turner⁶, Peter Muir⁶, Jeremy Horwood^{7

2

4}

Affiliations

¹ Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
² National Institute for Health Research, Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
³ Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
⁴ NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
⁵ Unity Sexual Health, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
⁶ South West Regional Laboratory, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Bristol, UK.
⁷ Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK j.horwood@bristol.ac.uk.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate experiences of implementing a new rapid sexual health testing, diagnosis and treatment service.

Design: A theory-based qualitative evaluation with a focused ethnographic approach using non-participant observations and interviews with patient and clinic staff. Normalisation process theory was used to structure interview questions and thematic analysis.

Setting: A sexual health centre in Bristol, UK.

Participants: 26 patients and 21 staff involved in the rapid sexually transmitted infection (STI) service were interviewed. Purposive sampling was aimed for a range of views and experiences and sociodemographics and STI results for patients, job grades and roles for staff. 40 hours of observations were conducted.

Results: Implementation of the new service required co-ordinated changes in practice across multiple staff teams. Patients also needed to make changes to how they accessed the service. Multiple small 'pilots' of process changes were necessary to find workable options. For example, the service was introduced in phases beginning with male patients. This responsive operating mode created challenges for delivering comprehensive training and communication in advance to all staff. However, staff worked together to adjust and improve the new service, and morale was buoyed through observing positive impacts on patient care. Patients valued faster results and avoiding unnecessary treatment. Patients reported that they were willing to drop-off self-samples and return for a follow-up appointment, enabling infection-specific treatment in accordance with test results, thus improving antimicrobial stewardship.

Conclusions: The new service was acceptable to staff and patients. Implementation of service changes to improve access and delivery of care in the context of stretched resources can pose challenges for staff at all levels. Early evaluation of pilots of process changes played an important role in the success of the service by rapidly feeding back issues for adjustment. Visibility to staff of positive impacts on patient care is important in maintaining morale.

Keywords: COVID-19; change management; organisational development; qualitative research; sexual medicine.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Appointments and Schedules
Humans
Male
Qualitative Research
Sexual Behavior
Sexual Health*
Sexually Transmitted Diseases* / diagnosis
Sexually Transmitted Diseases* / drug therapy