The service providers’ descriptions of their activities and roles in their clinics were shaped by three themes including specialization, scarcity, and maintaining the status quo. These thematic perspectives were reflected in the way they explained the complexity of their work, how they practiced, and the challenges they faced. While one theme seemed to dominate the participants’ discussions, many of the service providers shifted between themes in the context of the interview as they sought to situate their practice in different ways. As we interviewed only those working in the province of BC, we acknowledge that our findings are not generalizable and limited only to service providers delivering STI care in this province.
Specialization
The theme of specialization was often invoked to set STI practice apart from other forms of health care practice. Given the sensitive subject matter and stigma attached to STI testing, service providers described their practice as a specialty requiring a particular set of skills and understanding that not all service providers possess. Those who did not possess these specialized skills were “weeded out” and not afforded the opportunity of working in these settings, as pointed out by Robert, a nurse working in a busy urban STI clinic:
“You can’t work in this program unless you’re cool with gays…unless you’re cool with substance use.... I don’t have to use heroin to work in this program, but I have to be non-judgmental. If you have a judgmental thing happening…you’re weeded out in the interview process.”
Providers taking up this theme described themselves as more knowledgeable and skilled at providing STI care than those who do not specialize in sexual health. Some providers, mainly nurses, positioned their practice in opposition to primary care physicians, whom they perceived as “generalists.” They described generalists as those having some knowledge, but not an “in-depth” knowledge of STIs (primarily because they do not focus exclusively on sexual health and STIs). It was suggested by some that physicians were deficient in the knowledge and skills needed to adequately assess and test for STIs, as illustrated by Beth, a nurse working in a youth wellness clinic, who recounted one of her experiences:
‘I mean I’ve had doctors at the walk-in clinic who have treated somebody who’s symptomatic for Gonorrhea with the wrong medication…the one guy it happened to, I think he went in four or five times, and he was treated each time, and on the fourth or fifth time, had a urine test.... In the end it turned out he hadn’t been adequately screened, hadn’t been adequately treated.”
Providers who invoked the specialization theme also emphasized their ability to “spend time” with youth compared to other providers. For the majority of STI providers, time spent with a client was an important factor that determined the quality of STI care. In general, service providers argued that the more time one has to establish an environment conducive to the client’s disclosure of sensitive information, the more comprehensive the assessment and the deeper the understanding of both the medical and psychosocial aspects of sexual health. Mary, a salaried STI physician working in a busy urban STI clinic specializing in STI care made the following comment:
‘We find people that have been to four or five different walk-in clinics and they finally come, you give them time, sit them down, get the proper history and you’ve sorted them out…I think that the medical system should provide the ability to spend time so you can actually listen to people and they would save a lot of money in the long run…”
Mary thought that health care delivery could be improved by eliminating fee-for-service billing (FFS). She explained that because physicians bill FFS, they must restrict the time they spend with each client in order to maintain sufficient throughput in their daily billing – making it difficult to perform a comprehensive assessment and/or counselling. Physicians in primary care, who bill FFS, were most often perceived as not having enough time with clients and were frequently described as providing ‘piecemeal’ STI services. Beth, a nurse working in a youth wellness clinic explained:
“They are providing Pap tests, and in addition to that they are doing screening but they are not doing the pre-counselling, they are not doing the HIV, not doing Syphilis or Hepatitis, so they’re doing a piece, but they’re not doing STD testing.”
This approach was said to be detrimental to the welfare of youth largely because vital aspects of sexual health are not addressed. Ultimately, it was maintained that this led to substandard care and inconvenience for youth (e.g., requiring multiple clinic visits and further testing to resolve STI issues). FFS was described as the root of these problems by those who did not bill for health services in this manner.
Another aspect of the specialization theme was the particular emphasis placed on the need for confidentiality. Confidentiality was a predominant topic among STI providers as they viewed the privacy needs of youth as being much different from those seeking services in other areas of health care. Some clinics, mainly those in the Vancouver area, had the ability to provide testing that did not require youth to present their provincial personal health number (PHN) or to show ID. This was often contrasted with medical clinics, including walk-in clinics that require a PHN in order to bill the provincial Medical Services Plan (MSP) for services rendered. Several providers maintained that producing a PHN is problematic for some youth (e.g., their parents may have possession of their PHN cards). Others maintained that youth are at higher risk of potential confidentiality breaches (as compared to adults) because some providers, mainly physicians, were perceived not to be aware of or as understanding of the confidentiality issues associated with STIs. Valerie, a nurse working in an urban youth clinic explained, “There’s doctors who say things like ’If a kid comes in to me I have to tell their parents.” Thus, STI “specialists” distinguished themselves from generalists by highlighting the privacy advantage they believe they offer to youth seeking STI services.
The theme of specialization was also used to emphasize how providers were able to overcome the inadequacies of current policies related to STI/HIV services/care in meeting the needs of youth seeking STI services. Importantly, this theme was used to justify how providers moved beyond the rules and policies in order to meet youths’ needs. Erica, a physician in Vancouver, discussed how providers in her clinic offered youth the opportunity to opt out of having their names entered into the electronic record keeping system, despite the tension that this created with administration. Others such as Beth, a nurse working in a youth clinic described circumventing policy if she felt it to be beneficial for the youth. For example, although provincial policy (at the time of this interview) was to swab for Gonorrhea, Beth requested a urine test instead:
“we’ve been telling doctors who have tested people [who receive a] positive [for a STI], ‘you know you may want to confirm with a swab if this person isn’t high risk’. But if they’re high risk, I’m not waiting for a swab to treat them because they could disappear and never come back and…it could be too serious.”
In some instances, the specialization theme appeared to override young people’s agency, as providers suggested they knew what was best for young people because they were specialists. Difficulties experienced in providing care were located with youth, rather than the approach taken. In particular, STI care problems were thought to stem directly from youths’ lack of responsibility and sense of entitlement, as highlighted by Dorothy, a nurse working in a student health clinic:
“They [the youth] have the sense of entitlement or a sense of ‘someone is just going to give me condoms.’ Whereas they don’t have the responsibility to sort of say ‘It's my job to go out to BUY them or get them any way I CAN, that’s my responsibility, and not for someone to put them under my door, or given them to me for free.’"
Ray, a nurse working in a STI clinic, indicated that many youth seemed unwilling to listen closely to messages about safe sex and that "everything you say is virtually irrelevant.“ Given the alleged lack of responsibility, these providers indicated that it was within their scope of practice to employ extraordinary measures to ensure that youth receive additional follow-up care. Dorothy described using whatever measures were required to locate someone with an STI, and implied that many youth are not responsible enough to get their test results:
“But if I’m concerned I also have ways of getting information…because if it’s really risky I won’t let it bother me. If someone was a -- had a positive HIV result…I’ll use whatever devious means, ‘cause I’ve done that before with the STD clinic, as you can just find some way around.”
Ruth, a nurse working in a youth clinic, indicated that, in addition to sexual health issues, she also tries to help youth with other health issues. She stated that she is able to consolidate her workload to deal with issues such as poverty and mental illness and suggested she knows what is best for youth in relation to these issues: “I also know who needs a little boost and who doesn’t along the way.“ When service providers override young people’s agency, they also appear to invoke a sense of “ownership” in relation to youth (e.g., the youth need to be encouraged to return to the clinic; and, particular tactics are used because the providers know what is best). Perhaps most importantly, the providers describe talking to youth in such a way that suggests they are taking on a parental role:
Ruth - “and I had a fit one night because I had a young woman, obviously needed emergency contraception. I said, ‘Under no circumstances do I want your mother pulling a wallet out to pay for something that you need and I consider completely private. So let’s you and I make a little deal that I’m presenting it to you as a gift and you can just quietly tell your mother nothing.‘"
In this scenario, Ruth does not mention whether or not the young woman had discussed the need for emergency contraception with her mother. It may have been likely that this young woman's mother knew why her daughter was at the clinic, especially considering that the mother was present at the clinic and willing to pay. Even when youth have made a decision, Ruth describes intervening because she believes she knows what is best:
"I mean if I do a pregnancy options counselling, and even though I know they've pretty well made their decision but it's a little bit of roaring ambivalence that flies in. I said, ‘Let's you and I make a deal. My role really does end here…but let's follow up in two weeks…and so they'll get a phone call from me in two weeks’ time.’"
Ruth went on to describe how she kept a detailed list of youth whom she perceived were in need of additional support and follow up, even though their cases had been resolved. Unless youth had specifically requested or agreed to be followed up, follow up in these situation may be uncalled-for and create more anxiety or confidentiality concerns, especially if unwarranted voicemail messages are left for health issues a young person thought were resolved. Efforts at maintaining unnecessary relationships with the youth and a sense of "mothering" were invoked when Ruth suggested that youth must be physically present to discuss partner notification, rather than discussing this over the phone. Discussing partner notification can be conducted over the phone and does not necessarily require youth to be physically present in the clinic setting. In her interview Ruth recounted telling some youth who required partner notification:
"’So why don't you come in tonight?’… I mean I've had people say, 'Well it's not a good time.' ‘Well, it's never going to be a good time and what's going to make it positive for you? How about we do it tomorrow?’"
Scarcity
Some providers made reference to notions of scarcity as they emphasised what could not be achieved because of a lack of resources, frequently describing themselves as ‘overwhelmed’ and ‘frustrated’. These providers recognized that certain STI services were lacking, and that their practice could be improved by offering these services. The theme of scarcity was characterised by a recognition that resources were lacking in the system, and an expression of frustration that things should change but cannot, as Beth, a nurse in Northern BC explained: "We have always been really full.... We're at full capacity and we just don't have the resources to increase, which we need to do." In the end this theme emphasised that STI providers were “doing the best that they could do.”
One of the main scarcity issues described concerned a lack of human resources. Providers expressed frustration with not having enough staff to cover existing services, to expand these services, or to hire new personnel to meet the needs of youth. For example, Ruth, a youth clinic nurse , told us:
"we need more staff. We need more nurses. That would be lovely if we had one more nurse doing more delegation and that sense of flow…it would be incredible. That's a daydream."
The theme of scarcity was also used in discussing practitioners’ physical space. Several providers stated that their clinics did not have enough space, or that the clinic location and hours of operation were not suitable for meeting their clientele's needs. Some described not being able to offer services because of the lack of material supplies, as illustrated by Anne, a nurse in Northern BC:
"So when we went down to the STI training [offered by the BCCDC], I came back, I still couldn't do women, even though we had been shown it. We didn't have a set up, we didn't have any means of doing it, we didn't have any of the equipment, we didn't have any lights, nothing."
Maintaining the status quo
In this third theme, STI providers, mainly nurses, recognized that there are inefficiencies within the system yet, for the most part, they appeared resigned to these inefficiencies. A key element of this theme is an expression of resignation and frustration over things that cannot be changed, as evidenced by Helen, a public health nurse , who spoke about the process for follow up on positive test results: "…time-consuming, that's frustrating. And I don't know if that's fixable or not." In their descriptions of their practices, providers reflected this theme only indirectly. No practitioner indicated that they were in favour of the status quo, but this theme was hinted at as the providers suggested that they follow the routines and policies of the clinics even when they led to questionable outcomes.
In many cases nurse providers were qualified and competent to carry out several of the same functions as physicians. Clare, a youth clinic nurse explained:
"All of us that work here have a degree in nursing and then we've all taken extra courses at BCCDC, the STI clinic, that's one of the prerequisites."
However, at some clinics these nursing activities were restricted and not supported by administration or the physicians working there. Interestingly, the nurses at these clinics did not appear to dispute policies or guidelines that unnecessarily restricted their practice, perhaps in part because they felt unsure about their nursing responsibilities in relation to STI care, and what they were "allowed" to do and what they were "not allowed" to do. For example, Anne, a public health nurse discussed how she was unaware what nurses were permitted to do in terms of STI testing, diagnosis, and treatment until she heard information from another nurse provider:
"And so it's one of those…what you don't know, you sometimes don't question."
Others could not envision operating a STI clinic without a physician present for consultations: "I couldn't imagine sort of constantly having to operate that way, because some clinics do, you know, it's strictly nurse-run, but it is limiting in terms of how much you could provide and your sense of what it means to have a touchstone." (Ruth, a sexual and reproductive health clinic nurse).
Many nurses who were qualified to perform specific functions (e.g., Pap tests and STI tests) were ‘tasked’ with these responsibilities during busy time periods in clinics, but only completed these procedures when the clinic physician was too busy and there was a back up of clients in the waiting room. In some clinics, there appeared to be incorrect delineation of tasks between physician and nurse, which in the following case resulted in a lengthy delay in following up with youth who have tested positive for a STI at a physician's office:
"If Dr. X gets a gonorrhoea, we have--sometimes a month delay before we're allowed to try and contact that person…because we have to get permission from him to contact them. … If it was up to us, we could probably do it faster but that might interfere with the doctor-client relationships, [which] we're not allowed to, so…" (Helen, public health nurse)
Despite being qualified to provide STI care and being aware of the problems and inefficiencies within the system, providers invoked the status quo and did not discuss how their own skills or qualifications could be part of the solution. Anne, a public health nurse , began to understand this only after a new nurse, who questioned the status quo, began working at her clinic:
Julie is just very good at pushing it until it happens. You know, it made no sense that we couldn't give it [herpes, trichomoniasis, bacterial vaginosis treatment]. They give it down at BCCDC. And then we found out that they were giving it in [name of city] but it still took a lot--it's that whole getting through the paperwork and the hierarchy to be allowed to actually do it. So we are now and she's phenomenal, that's how we get so much going."
