Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

The Real World of STD Prevention

New Xpress Sexually Transmissible Infection Screening Clinic Improves Patient Journey and Clinic Capacity at a Large Sexual Health Clinic

Knight, Vickie MHSEd*; Ryder, Nathan MPH, TM; Guy, Rebecca PhD; Lu, Heng MComSc*; Wand, Handan PhD; McNulty, Anna MMed

Author Information
Sexually Transmitted Diseases: January 2013 - Volume 40 - Issue 1 - p 75-80
doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182793700
  • Free


Timely access to services is essential to reducing the duration of sexually transmissible infections (STIs) and controlling further transmission.1 Access to health services, both preventive and therapeutic, is an important predictor of outcomes for many diseases and plays a particularly central role in the control of STIs.2 Lack of access can arise for a range of reasons including social disadvantage of people at risk, underresourcing of health care services, geographical isolation, and gaps in health service delivery.2

Contributing to the very low rates of bacterial STIs among women engaged in sex work in Australia3,4 is the ease of access to preventive and therapeutic health services. Conversely, the continuing high rates of bacterial STIs in some remote Aboriginal communities5 are now seen as largely attributable to decades of poor access to such services.6 Another example in the United Kingdom is modeling that showed that reduced access to genitourinary medicine services would result in onward transmission of infections, and this increase in numbers of infections would only decline with improved access.7

In New South Wales, Australia, publicly funded sexual health services are directed to provide services only to predefined priority populations laid out in the national and state strategies. Although general practice clinics are involved in sexual health, many people are sensitive about consulting their general practitioner about STIs and prefer the more confidential systems and the greater expertise available in publicly funded sexual health services.8 In Australia, sexual health services can be found in a range of settings, located within hospitals, free-standing, or integrated into other primary care services.

To increase access for at-risk populations, a number of sexual health services in Australia and internationally have introduced fast-track services to allocate patients based on presentation to various screening options.9–12 These services generally involve dedicated staff and space separate from the main service area; staffing by senior, more experienced personnel with the ability to think quickly and independently; a set of triage criteria for service referral; and set operating times.9,13–22

In response to long wait times and an inability to meet patient demand, in December 2010, a large urban public sexual health clinic in Sydney Australia (Sydney Sexual Health Clinic) implemented a new model of fast-track services. The service involved a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) for risk assessment, self-collected samples for testing of STIs, and staffing by an enrolled nurse (second-level nurse who provides nursing care under the direction and supervision of the registered nurse). We evaluated the impact of this new model of service delivery on the patient population seen, patient journey, staff costs, and clinical capacity.


Routine Triage System

Routinely, all patients attending Sydney Sexual Health Centre without an appointment or telephoning for an appointment are triaged by an experienced sexual health registered nurse using a standardized triage tool.23 Patients are allocated a 30-minute consultation slot with a registered nurse in the routine nurses clinic if they meet the following criteria: asymptomatic for STIs and from a priority population (men who have sex with men, Aboriginal people, sex workers, intravenous drug users (IDUs), HIV-positive people, and youth younger than 25 years). The consultation consists of a pen-and-paper sexual history and risk assessment, using a pro forma, and genital examination and clinician-collected specimens if clinically indicated (Table 1). Asymptomatic patients from nonpriority populations are triaged to primary care. Symptomatic patients are triaged to a doctor or registered nurse according to defined protocols based on signs and symptoms and reason for presentation.

Key Features of Xpress Service Compared With Routine Nurse Clinic

Xpress Period

Figure 1 shows the clinic pathway in the Xpress period; during the triage, patients were offered either the routine nurses clinic or the Xpress clinic. Only asymptomatic patients were eligible for the Xpress clinic because the model aims to offer a faster screening service. Patients were recommended to attend the routine clinic if they were symptomatic, were contacts of an STI, and had postexposure prophylaxis in the last 6 months or if they were higher-risk people who had not received formal pretest counseling for HIV at the clinic previously (men who have sex with men, current IDUs, and people who have had sex in a country with high HIV prevalence). Asymptomatic patients who were eligible for both the routine clinic and the Xpress clinic chose which they would prefer to attend.

Figure 1:
Clinic pathway in the Xpress period. EN indicates enrolled nurse; RN, registered nurse.

The Xpress clinic used an interactive CASI similar to that described by Vodstrcil and colleagues.,24 to obtain a risk and sexual history and allocates a 15-minute consultation slot with an enrolled nurse. The patient completes the CASI first, which takes an average of 4 minutes. Computer-assisted self-interview collects the same information as the paper pro forma, and questions are formatted to look like the paper pro forma. Patients must answer each question to progress. The results are then viewed on the enrolled nurse’s computer. Education and streamlined pretest information based on each patient’s reported risk factors is built into the CASI (Table 1). During the Xpress clinical consultation, patients’ self-collect genital specimens and the nurse performs venepuncture and collects throat swabs if required.


The Centre has a networked electronic operating system that houses the medical record database, patient data, appointments, and patient management system, which is used to move the patient through the service electronically. We extracted routine consultation data from the operating system and calculated a range of attributes related to the patient journey, staff costs, and clinic capacity and patient population seen.

Patient Journey

We calculated the median wait time to see a clinician in minutes (seen time − arrival time), and the median length of stay in minutes (consult finish time − arrival time). Time periods of more than 100 minutes and less than 3 minutes were excluded from the analysis because these data are likely to be errors associated with clinicians not recording start and finish times correctly.

Staff and Patient Costs

We calculated the total clinical staff hours worked and salaries associated with staff hours worked in Australian dollars using a standard rate for both enrolled and registered nurses and doctors. The cost per patient seen was calculated by dividing the total staff costs by the total number of patients seen in the period.

Clinic Capacity

We calculated the total patients seen (not including patients who failed to attend for their appointments), average patients seen per clinical staff hour, utilization (patients that could be seen/patients that actually attended and were seen), and capacity (total patients that could be seen in clinic hours). In the routine clinic, patients are given half-hour appointment slots, meaning that 2 clients can be seen per hour. In Xpress, the appointment slots are 15 minutes, which means that 4 clients can be seen per hour. We used these total numbers in our calculations of capacity.

Change in Patient Population

We assessed the number and proportion of patients who were asymptomatic, male and female, and in specific risk groups (Aboriginal people, heterosexuals, men who have sex with men, current sex workers, current IDU).

Statistical Analysis

Frequency distribution and percentages were used to describe the demographic and other characteristics of attendees by period. Groups were formally tested using the χ2 test. Patients’ ages, waiting time to see a clinician, and length of stay were described using summary statistics and formally tested using analysis of variance methods. The ratio of total patients seen per total clinic hour was calculated and formally tested by odds ratio and P value.

We compared all these attributes in the first 5 months Xpress clinic was operating (10th December 2010 to 30th April 2011) with a similar 5-month period before (10th December 2009 to 30th April 2010) and by clinic type (Xpress/routine nurse/routine doctor).

Ethics approval was granted by the South Eastern Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service (Northern Sector) Human Research Ethics Committee for use of retrospective patient data.


Characteristics of Patients Seen

In the Xpress period, the median age of the 5335 patients seen was 29 years (interquartile range [IQR], 24–36) and younger than 30 years (IQR, 25–37) among 4804 patients seen in the before period (P < 0.01). In the Xpress period, the slightly lower median age was due to a younger population of patients attending the Xpress clinic (median age, 25 years; IQR, 23–31). There was no significant difference in sex of patients between study periods. The proportion of symptomatic patients and men who have sex with men seen in the Xpress period was 46.9% and 48.2%, respectively, compared with 43.7% and 53.2%, respectively, in the before period (P < 0.01; Table 2). The proportion of sex workers in the Xpress period was 11.8% compared with 13.4% in the before Xpress period (Tables 2 and 3).

Characteristics of Patients Seen in the Xpress Period (Xpress Clinic and Other Routine Clinics) Compared With Routine Clinics Before Xpress
Clinic Efficiency Attributes in the Xpress Period (Xpress Clinic and Other Routine Clinics) Compared With Routine Clinics Before Xpress, by Type of Clinic

Patient Journey

The median waiting time to see a clinician in the Xpress period was lower at 19 minutes (IQR, 8–36; 10 minutes in the Xpress clinic and 17 minutes in routine clinics) compared with 23 minutes in the before period (P < 0.001). The median length of stay in the Xpress period was also lower at 40 minutes (IQR, 27–58; 21 minutes in the Xpress clinic and 40 minutes in routine clinics) compared with 43 minutes in the before period (P < 0.001) (3).

Staff Costs

Staff hours in the Xpress period were 13% greater compared with the before period (3567 vs. 3151). However, in the Xpress period, there was a higher number of nursing staff hours: 437 enrolled nurse and 1524 registered nurse compared with 0 and 1341 in the before period, respectively. The cost per patient seen in the Xpress period was lower compared with the before period ($26.79 compared with $28.48). Overall total staff costs increased 4.5% in the Xpress period compared with the before period ($AUD 142,954.89 vs. $AUD 136,844.44) (3).

Clinic Capacity

In the Xpress period, 5335 patients were seen, of which 705 were seen in the Xpress clinic. This is 11% more than the 4804 seen in the before period. The ratio of total patients seen and clinical staff hour rostered in the Xpress period was 1.49 (1.7 in the Xpress clinic and 1.4 in other clinics) compared with 1.52 in the before period (odds ratio, 1.02; confidence interval, 0.96–1.09; P < 0.44). The total capacity of the clinic in the Xpress period was 8007 patients compared with 6301 in the before period. The utilization rates were lower in the Xpress period at 67% (40% in the Xpress clinic and 74% in other clinics) compared with 76% in the before period (P < 0.01) (3).


To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of an express STI screening service using CASI and enrolled nurses, which has demonstrated improved sexual health service efficiencies and the patient journey. Our evaluation found that during the period when the express clinic was operating, a greater number of patients were seen, particularly young heterosexuals and symptomatic patients; the average wait times to be seen and length of clinic visits declined; clinic capacity increased substantially; and the cost per visit declined. These findings were in the context of only a 40% utilization rate of the Xpress, suggesting that with future active promotion and a lower threshold for accessing the Xpress clinic, the demonstrated benefits should be even greater.

The addition of Xpress clinic resulted in more total patients being seen in the Xpress period, but more enrolled nursing staff hours were rostered to see the additional patients. However, because enrolled nurses are on a lower annual salary, the average cost per patient seen was lower in the Xpress clinic, and overall equated to a lower cost per patient between the Xpress period and before period. Other fast-track STI screening services have also been demonstrated to provide greater access for at-risk populations without using extra resources.9–12

The evaluation also showed that there has been a significant increase in the number of youth younger than 25 years seen in the Xpress clinic reflected by the median age being 25 years in the Xpress clinic compared with close to 30 years in other routine clinics. In particular, more young heterosexuals were seen, which is an important public health outcome because the burden of chlamydia disease is high in this group,25 but only a small proportion get tested in primary care clinics. Chlamydia testing rates range from 3.3% of 15- to 24-year-old females and 1.0% of males in general practice clinics in the southeast of England in 2006/200726 and 12.5% of young sexually active females and 3.7% of males in Australia in 2008.27

Similarly, there were more symptomatic patients seen in the Xpress period compared with the before period (P < 0.01). This is most likely due to asymptomatic patients being streamed to the Xpress clinic and thus freeing up registered nurses and doctors to see symptomatic patients. There were slightly less men who have sex with men seen in the Xpress period, which probably reflects the restrictive eligibility criteria of the Xpress clinic, with new MSM unable to have an HIV test as part of Xpress clinic until they have had a test and pretest discussion in the routine clinic. We aim to enhance access by removing the prerequisite for high-risk patients to have previously had an HIV test at the routine clinic. Less sex workers were also seen in the Xpress period, which may be because the Xpress clinic is only for people who read and understand English and therefore is not an option for the non–English-speaking background sex workers seen at the Centre.

The average length of stay was significantly reduced in the Xpress period. This could be due to a range of factors including using CASI in Xpress clinic for collecting the risk assessment, the use of enrolled nursing staff, or self-collected swabs being used in Xpress and more frequently in the routine nurses clinic for asymptomatic patients. The literature consistently shows that use of CASI in sexual health identifies high-risk behavior more commonly than clinician interview and is more complete and acceptable to both patients and clinicians. On the other hand, a recent evaluation of routine use of CASI at Melbourne Sexual Health found CASI had no significant influence on the duration of consultations; however, their model does not use an enrolled nurse.24

The “drop-in” nature of the new Xpress clinic, reduced waiting times to see a clinician, and reduced length of stay could play a strong role in the ongoing use of services, which we plan to evaluate in 12 months. We previously reported the findings of a patient questionnaire that found that satisfaction with the Xpress clinic was high; respondents felt involved in their care and had as much time with the health care worker as they wanted, and overall, and the majority reported that they would use Xpress again and recommend it to others.28 Assuming the Xpress clinic had a similar utilization rate of 80% to the routine nurse clinics in the before period, the clinic has the potential to increase the total patients seen by 25%. The rate of patients failing to attend for their appointments at Sydney Sexual Health Centre have been shown to be between 12% and 16%.

Utilization in the first 5 months of the Xpress clinic was only 40%. We believe that this was due to 2 main reasons. First, the service was being trialled and had not been marketed outside the Centre, so only patients calling the Centre or attending the Centre could be offered it. Second, the restrictive eligibility criteria of the Xpress clinic with new MSM unable to have a HIV test as part of Xpress clinic until they have had a test and pretest discussion in the routine clinic meant that many of the new clients to the Centre could not be offered Xpress. Marketing of the service and changes to the inclusion criteria have resulted in Xpress use improving to 74% for the first 3 months of 2012 (1192 patients seen in 1618 rostered patient slots).

The strengths of the evaluation are as follows: we assessed a range of different efficiency attributes, we compared 2 periods (during and before) to minimize the influence of confounders, and the before period was the same time of the year to minimize any influence of seasonal variation on clinic attendance. This study was limited by the inability to control for differences between clinicians, which may have influenced the consultation duration. In addition, we did not evaluate every specific component of the Xpress service separately (electronic pretest information in the CASI, acceptability of self-collected swabs), so we cannot determine the differential impact of these factors. Our study reports on actual patient visits rather than on study participants enrolled into a research trial; therefore, we believe that it is generalizable to the general sexual health clinic population.

In conclusion, this evaluation of the first 5 months of operation of the Xpress clinic has demonstrated that it improves the patient journal by successfully reducing the time asymptomatic patients spend at the clinic, and although the Xpress clinic was not fully used, 11% more patients were seen with minimal additional staffing costs. If fully used, the Xpress clinic has the potential to increase the total patient seen at the clinic even further.


1. Aral SO, Roegner R. Mathematical modeling as a tool in STD prevention and control: A decade of progress, a millennium of opportunities. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27: 556–557.
2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Second National Sexually Transmissible Infections Strategy 2010–2013.
3. Donovan B, Harcourt C, Egger S, et al.. Improving the health of sex workers in NSW: Maintaining success. N S W Public Health Bull 2010; 21: 74–77.
4. Lee DM, Binger A, Hocking J, et al.. The incidence of sexually transmitted infections among frequently screened sex workers in a decriminalised and regulated system in Melbourne. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81: 434–436.
5. National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research. Bloodborne Viral and Sexually Transmitted Infections in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Surveillance Report 2009. Sydney, NSW: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, The University of New South Wales 2010.
6. Fairley CK, Bowden FJ, Gay NJ, et al.. Sexually transmitted diseases in disadvantaged Australian communities. JAMA 1997; 278: 117–118.[PubMed].
7. White PJ, Ward H, Cassell JA, et al.. 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: 824–836. [PubMed].
8. Ryder N, McNulty AM. Confidentiality and access to sexual health services. Sex Health 2009; 6: 153–155.
9. Heijman TLJ, Van Der Bij AK, De Vries HJC, et al.. Effectiveness of a risk-based visitor-prioritizing system at a sexually transmitted infection outpatient clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 2007; 34: 508–512.
10. Shamos SJ, Mettenbrink CJ, Subiadur JA, et al.. Evaluation of a testing-only “express” visit option to enhance efficiency in a busy STI clinic. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35: 336–340.
11. Borrelli J, Paneth-Pollak R, Wright S, . The impact of introducing “express visits” for asymptomatic persons seeking STD services in a busy urban STD clinic system, New York City, 2005–2006. In: Proceedings of the 2008 National STD Prevention Conference, Chicago, IL. March 10–13 2008. Available at: Accessed November 24, 2011.
12. Wong W, Broad J, Rutledge T, . Impact of a pilot fast-track screening program for a high volume STD clinic—Chicago, Illinois 2005. In: Proceedings of the 2006 National STD Prevention Conference, Jacksonville, FL, May 8–11 2006. Available at: Accessed November 24, 2011.
13. Booth ML, Bernard D, Quine S, et al.. Access to health care among Australian adolescents: Young people’s perspectives and their sociodemographic distribution. J Adolesc Health 2004; 34: 97–103.
14. Bockting W, Robinson B, Benner A, et al.. Patient satisfaction with transgender health services. J Sex Marital Ther 2004; 30: 277–294.
15. Djuretic T, Catchpole M, Bingham JS, et al.. Genitourinary medicine services in the United Kingdom are failing to meet current demand. Int J STD AIDS 2001; 12: 571–572.
16. Esler D, Merritt T, Ooi C. Sexual health care for sex workers. Austr Family Physician 2008; 37: 590–592.
17. Sheriff K. Improving patient satisfaction with a sexual health service. Nurs Standard 2007; 21: 44–48.
18. Ieraci S, Digiusto E, Sonntag P, et al.. Streaming by case complexity: Evaluation of a model for emergency department fast track. Emerg Med Austr 2008; 20: 241–249.
19. Nash K, Zachariah B, Nitschmann J, et al.. Evaluation of the fast track unit of a university emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2007; 33: 14–20.
20. Rodi SW, Grau MV, Orsini CM. Evaluation of a fast track unit: Alignment of resources and demand results in improved satisfaction and decreased length of stay for emergency department patients. Qual Manage Health Care 2006; 15: 163–170.
21. Kwa P, Blake D. Fast track: Has it changed patient care in the emergency department? Emerg Med Austr 2008; 20: 10–15.
22. Darrab AA, Fan J, Fernandes CMB, et al.. How does fast track affect quality of care in the emergency department? Eur J Emerg Med 2006; 13: 32–35.
23. NSW Sexually Transmissible Infections Programs Unit 2011 NSW Health Sexual Health Services Standard Operating Procedures Manual 2011. Available at: Accessed November 19, 2012.
24. Vodstrcil L, Hocking J, Cummings R, et al.. Computer assisted self interviewing in a sexual health clinic as part of routine clinical care: impact on service and patient and clinician views. PLoS One 2011; 6: e18456.
25. Walker J, Fairley CK, Bradshaw CS, et al.. The incidence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis in a cohort of young Australian women. Abstracts of the 19th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research. Sex Transm Infect 2011; 87: A21.
26. Johnson SA, Simms I, Sheringham J, et al.. The implementation of chlamydia screening: A cross-sectional study in the south east of England. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86: 217–221.
27. Kong FY, Guy RJ, Hocking JS, et al.. Australian general practitioner chlamydia testing rates among young people. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 249–252.
28. Martin L, Knight V, Lu H, Ryder N, Read PJ, McNulty A. Client feedback and satisfaction with an express STI screening service at an inner city sexual health centre. National Sexual Health Conference; August 28, 2011; Canberra Australia. Poster.
© Copyright 2013 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association