Journal of Community Health

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1247–1254 | Cite as

Improving STD Screening Rates on a University Campus

  • Amanda Myers
  • Sherrie P. McCaskill
  • Kathryn VanRavenstein
Original Paper
  • 361 Downloads

Abstract

Gonorrhea and chlamydia infections have a high incidence among young adults. To increase screening rates among individuals aged 25 years of age and younger on a university campus, this quality improvement project was implemented to improve providers’ knowledge of CDC guidelines through education. Education was provided to providers and staff members at a health clinic on a private residential university campus through informational sessions to increase knowledge of guideline-directed screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia. This education was coupled with a multifaceted approach for provider-reminder interventions: flagging patients in the EHR system that fall within the age group (25 years of age and younger) to generate an alert, patients completing a questionnaire while in the exam room, and identification of a project champion. Screening rates were evaluated during pre- and post-implementation phases to determine if a change in practice occurred among providers. Post-intervention revealed the average number of patients screened for gonorrhea and chlamydia was 65.85% (349/530). This change represented a marked increase from pre-intervention screening of 2% (11/405). The testing rate increased during the post-intervention phase to 17.86% (65/364), up from 7.90% (32/405) pre-implementation. Provider education on guideline-directed screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia increased screening among providers at a university health clinic. This intervention, combined with provider-reminder interventions, increased screening of patients, leading to an increased testing rate for gonorrhea and chlamydia.

Keywords

Gonorrhea Chlamydia Screening Detection Young adults  Health care providers 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization & Department of Reproductive Health and Research [WHO]. (2016). Global incidence and prevalence of selected curable sexually transmitted infections-2015. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/rtis/stis-surveillance-2015/en/.
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2016). Sexually transmitted diseases surveillance, 2015. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats14/surv2014-print.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Owusu-Edusei, K., Chesson, H.W., Gift, T.L., Mahajan, R., Ocfemia, M.C.B., & Kent, C.K. (2013). The estimated direct medical cost of selected sexually transmitted infections in the United States, 2008. Sexually Transmitted Disease 40(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2015). Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(3), 1–140. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/tg2015/default.htm.
  5. 5.
    Loosier, P. S., Malcarney, M., Slive, L., Cramer, R. C., Burgess, B., Hoover, K. W., & Romaguera, R. (2014). Chlamydia screening for sexually active young women under the Affordable Care Act: New opportunities and lingering barriers. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 41(9), 538–544. doi: 10.1097/QLQ.0000000000000170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNulty, C. A., Freeman, E., Howell-Jones, R., Hogan, A., Randall, S., et al. (2010). Overcoming the barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice: A qualitative study. Family Practice, 27(3), 291–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ricketts, E. J., Francischetto, E. O., Wallace, L. M., Hogan, A., & McNulty, C.A.M. (2016). Tools to overcome potential barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice: Qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention. BMC Family Practice, 17(33), 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0430-2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McNulty, C.A.M., Hogan, A.H., Ricketts, E.J., et al. (2014). Increasing chlamydia screening tests in general practice: A modified Zelen prospective cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Sexual Transmitted Infections, 90, 188–194. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kettinger, L. D. (2012). A practice improvement intervention increases chlamydia screening among young women at a women’s health practice. JOGNN, 42, 81–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1552.6909.2012.01427.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walker, J., Fairley, C. K., Walker, S. M., Gurrin, L. C., Gunn, J., Pirotta, M. et al., (2010). Computer reminders for chlamydia screening in general practice: A randomized controlled trial. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 37(7), 445–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Rashidian, A., & Russell, I. (2011). Intentions and statins prescribing: Can the Theory of Planned Behaviour explain behavior in following guideline recommendations? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 749–757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Myers
    • 1
  • Sherrie P. McCaskill
    • 2
  • Kathryn VanRavenstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Wingate UniversityWingateUSA

Personalised recommendations