Comparing Quality of Care for Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Specialized and General Clinics

Published in: Public Health Reports, v. 117, no. 2, Mar./Apr. 2002, p. 157-163

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2001

by Steven M. Asch, Marjorie G. Sa'adah, Rajni Lopez, Alicia Kokkinis, Gary A. Richwald, David C. Rhew

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.publichealthreports.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare quality of care for patients with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in specialized vs. general clinics. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating compliance with a set of STD-related process of care quality indicators for adult patients seen in six Los Angeles County clinics (two STD specialized clinics and four general medical clinics) RESULTS: Thirty-two quality indicators were selected using a modified Delphi process. From March 1, 1996, to June 31, 1996, there were 205 STD-related visits to the two specialized STD clinics and 373 STD-related visits to the four general medical clinics. For patients with classic STDs (those for which sexual contact is the primary means of transmission), STD clinics achieved greater compliance than general medical clinics on 14 quality indicators, while general medical clinics achieved greater compliance on 4 indicators. CONCLUSION: STD clinics provide better overall STD care than general medical clinics. Possible explanations include differences in clinician experience with STD patients and greater use of standardized protocol sheets.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.