1. Sexual Health Improvement for Populations and Patients SHIPP – a Health Integration Team John Macleod, 12 th June 2015

2. SHIPP: a partnership between “people with a stake in sexual health improvement with shared ambitions and agreed vision of how to achieve them” University of Bristol, University of the West of England, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucester Council, Bristol Clinical Commissioning Group, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, North Bristol NHS Trust, Public Health England, NHS England Area Team, Terrence Higgins Trust, Brook Bristol, Marie Stopes International, Aquarius Public Health – and patients

3. The SHIPP model Assess and prioritise need Advise on commissioning evidence based care pathways to meet this effectively (and provide value for money) Identify evidence gaps and facilitate research to fill these

4. Examples of projects Strengthening Chlamydia screening Prevalence of TV in the community Recognising and responding to IPV Increasing earlier diagnosis of HIV Refreshing the JSNA to inform re- commissioning Improving patient pathways with POC tests Using routine data in evaluation

5. IMPACT-PC Improved Management of Patients with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoea diagnosed in Primary Care Trial

6. IMPACT-PC 16% probability that a CT episode will cause PID and 45% of TFI are caused by CT 10-15% of sexual health spend on NCSP 50% of CT testing in primary care amongst asymptomatic individuals 5-10% of these tests are positive Evidence that timely treatment and PN effective Primary care not set up to provide these and GPs say they would value help

7. IMPACT-PC Evaluating feasibility and acceptability of centralised nurse led Rx and PN 6-month randomised feasibility study  INTERVENTION practices – option to choose the centralised telephone-based service for management of all CT and NG tests by specialist nurses where clinically appropriate  CONTROL practises – usual care

8. IMPACT-PC Support obtained from CLAHRCwest and HPRU (evaluation) in Spring 2014 Ethical approval Autumn 2014 NIHR portfolio adoption Winter 2014 Agreement of SSCs, practice recruitment etc Winter 2014-15 Patient enrolment from Spring 2015

9. Discussion Primary research within the “HIT model” still takes time “HIT friendly” funding streams more suited to secondary research  Expertise mainly in data analysis and evidence synthesis  Limited ability to support fieldwork unless small scale and qualitative  Still confusion over portfolio eligibility (hence CRN input and SSCs) of CLAHRC studies

10. Conclusions HITs are a success and are supporting evidence based commissioning and practice HITs should be ambitious but their ambitions should be realistic HITs are evolving