LAUSR

Introduction The mismanagement of acute epididymo-orchitis (EO) can have significant sequelae. Guidelines exist for the management of EO and we audited practice across two departments (Urology and Genito-Urinary Medicine [GUM]) within a District General Hospital. Methods Case notes of patients attending with acute EO between June 2015 – June 2016 were analysed retrospectively. Results 152 men were seen; 85 by Urology, 67 by GUM. Mean age at presentation was 49 years (range 17–89). A full sexual history was documented in 15.3% of Urology patients, compared with 100% of those seen by GUM. Conversely, a full urological history was documented in 25.9% of Urology patients, compared with 2% of GUM patients. The differences in investigations requested are shown in Table 1. Of the urine samples sent for culture by Urology, 36.4% were positive, and 50% had antibiotic resistance. As well as failing to test for STIs, none of the patients seen by Urology were given advice regarding sexual abstinence and contact tracing. These recommendations were made by the GUM team in 93% and 88% cases, respectively. In GUM 94% of patients were prescribed recommended first or second line antibiotic therapy, compared with 11% in Urology who had a wide variation of antibiotic use.Abstract O36 Table 1 Urology v GUM Investigation Urology (%) of patients tested GUM (%) of patients tested Urine dipstick 29.4 57.6 Mid-stream urine 51.8 28.4 Chlamydia/gonorrhoea -NAAT 0.0 97.0 Test for urethritis 0.0 36.0 Inflammatory markers 72.0 0.0 Serology for Blood-borne viruses 0.0 90.6 Discussion All patients in this audit were treated by teams with expertise in the management of EO. Our data shows despite well published guidelines being available, investigation and management could be improved. A combined clinical pathway for patients with acute EO could facilitate inter-speciality working and improve patient outcomes.