BMC Public Health 2006, 6:3 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/3 Table 1: Response rates & role in the care of patients with Chronic Hepatitis C by specialty Number in survey n (%) Overall responding n (% total) Management role by specialty* No role n (%) DIP n (%) CSP n (%) GI Hepatology ID GUM Total 200 (58) 53 (15) 43 (13) 48 (14) 344 (100) 124 (52) 48 (19) 30 (13) 38 (16) 240 (70) DIP = diagnostic & investigative provide CSP = comprehensive service provider * e.g. number (%) of management role provided by speciality 28 (64) 3 (7) 1 (2) 12 (27) 44 (100) 50 (51) 9 (9) 14 (14) 26 (26) 99 (100) 46 (47) 36 (37) 15 (16) 0 (0) 97 (100) guidance for their use in the UK has been issued [5,6]. Since the screening of blood donors for hepatitis C (HCV) was introduced, the main risk groups are ex and current injecting drug-users (IDUs), who are hard to reach by health care services. National Strategies for Hepatitis C in the UK have been published [7-9]. These recognize the need for a systematic approach to the identification, testing, referral, selection for treatment and follow-up of HCV positive patients. They recommend the establishment of managed clinical networks for CHC -managed clinical networks may be defined as linked groups of health professionals working in a coordinated manner across organisations and struc- tural boundaries, with a common strategic agenda to pro- mote health improvement and reduce health inequalities for a given population thus maximising shared resources in a coordinated way[10]. They also suggested a national survey of current practice and service configuration to establish baseline information upon which to plan the future services for patients with CHC. This study reports on the findings of such a survey. Methods The four clinical specialties most likely to manage patients with Hepatitis C – Gastroenterology (GI), Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM), Hepatology, and Infectious Diseases (ID) were targeted by postal questionnaire sent out in 2002. The sample was drawn from memberships lists sup- plied by the respective professional organisations. Gastroenterologists at consultant grade were identified by membership of British Society of Gastroenterology and a 1:5 random sample was taken, stratified by Health Region. A similar approach was used to sample Genito- Urinary Medicine consultants identified by membership of the Association of Genito-Urinary Physicians. An expert steering group was consulted in the design of a self-completed questionnaire. This was piloted on 20 phy- sicians randomly sampled from each of the four clinical specialties, the comments from the pilot informing the final questionnaire that was sent out to the whole sample described above (see Additional file 1). Subjects who did not have any role in the management of HCV infection were asked to provide the name of the lead clinician who fulfilled this role for their catchment area, and a question- naire was then sent on to these individuals. Those who did not respond were contacted once by telephone in order to improve the response rate. Respondents were asked to classify their service according to the three following descriptors: "providing diagnostic and investigative services but not treatment (diagnostic investigative provider – DIP)"; "providing diagnostic test- ing, investigations, treatment and follow-up of patients (comprehensive service provider-CSP)"; and "no role in the management of hepatitis C infection". Several ques- tions asked for a response in terms of the percentage of patients; these used groupings 0–4%, 5–9%, 10–24%, 25–49%, 50–74%, 75+%. All consultant/equivalent grade members of the British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) were deemed to be "hepatologists" by virtue of expressing a particular interest in liver medicine. The information derived from returned questionnaires was analysed using SPSS statistical package (SPSS for Win- dows 11). Standard statistics for comparing groups were used. A list of Infectious Disease Units in the UK was provided and a consultant Infectious Disease (ID) Physician from each hospital was invited to participate. Results Response rate The response rate for the initial survey was 71% (203/ 287). A further 57 clinicians were identified as providers of a comprehensive service by respondents who did not Page 2 of 9 (page number not for citation purposes)