Article Text

Download PDFPDF

P141 A service evaluation for and on behalf of the European Clinical Collaborative Group (ECCG) - The management of Gonorrhoea across Europe
  1. Hibak Aadan1,
  2. James Mawdsley1,
  3. Harriet Eatwell1,
  4. Emily Clarke2,
  5. Mikhail Gomberg3,
  6. Vladimir Kovalyk4,
  7. Harold Moi5,
  8. Airi Poder6,
  9. Jonathan Ross7,
  10. Magnus Unemo8,
  11. John White9,
  12. Rajul Patel1,10
  1. 1University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  2. 2Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  3. 3Moscow State University for Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia
  4. 4Clinical Hospital of Federal Medical and Biological Agency, Russia, Russia
  5. 5Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Norway
  6. 6Tartu University Clinics Foundation, Clinic of Dermatovenerology, Estonia
  7. 7University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  8. 8Örebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
  9. 9Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  10. 10Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton, UK


Background/introduction Gonorrhoea (GC) cases appear to be rising as well as increasing problems with resistance to many antibiotic groups. With open boundaries and free movement of populations and doctors, a consistent standard of care is important across Europe. Regular evaluation is crucial in controlling the emergent spread of resistant GC.

Aim(s)/objectives To evaluate current clinical practice amongst sexual health physicians across Europe against the current European guidelines. Also, key areas of controversy will be explored with to help inform further guideline development.

Methods The ECCG is a network of 120 sexual health specialists across 38 countries, who conduct questionnaire-based research across the European region. An expert panel consisting of six ECCG members was established then interviewed to help identify areas of controversy. Subsequently, a clinical scenario based questionnaire was developed then disseminated to all ECCG members.

Results Provisional results demonstrate variation in clinical practice across Europe. This is discernable from the choice of treatment for a patient with a history of anaphylaxis to penicillin and treatment for confirmed pharyngeal infection. In addition, data showed a lack of consensus to guidelines regarding choices of look back period for sexual contacts.

Discussion/conclusion Management of GC varies across Europe and is not always in line with current European guidelines. Although there are minor variations between guidelines, there are vast discrepancies amongst European clinicians regarding clinical practice. There is a need for on-going Europe wide education to ensure that patients are receiving safe evidence based care.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.