{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03125, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022321428571428572, 'mean_word_length': 5.092391304347826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A retrospective audit of the management and complications of pelvic inflammatory disease

Summary Our objective was to examine the management of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in Southend Hospital against the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV guidelines. In addition, we reviewed the Genito-Urinary (GU) Medicine and Gynaecology notes for patients who failed treatment for PID in GU medicine. This was to reveal their complications and subsequent management. Thirty of 249 patients diagnosed with PID failed treatment. Chlamydia was found in 30% of these patients, gonorrhoea in 10%, with the rest being categorized into presumed anaerobic/other aetiology. Appropriate antibiotic regimens were used in 96.6% of patients and the 66.7% of contacts who were traced and treated. Eighteen of the 30 patients had a laparoscopy. Findings were: confirmed PID in 5.6%; endometriosis in 27.8%, adhesions with no evidence of PID in 27.8%; and 38% had no abnormalities found. Laparoscopy has an important role in excluding other pathology in patients who have failed to respond to appropriate conservative management.