In article <[log in to unmask]>, Mary Hawking
<[log in to unmask]> writes
> we do
>>pregnancy tests at the drop of a hat
>Doesn't this depend on the *relevance* of the investigation?
>If the patient *doesn't want* a termination, then the only reason for
>doing a test would be the need to treat with something which might be
>detrimental to the foetus...
I was thinking of an ordinary happy to be pregnant lady who presents
with "I think I am pregnant" and places a urine spec on your desk.
For termination counselling I do no test.
I would test if there was a need to treat with something, but I don't
think it has happened often.
>>we send MSUs at the first sign of so called *cystitis*.
>
>Do you consider that the future management will be changed by knowing
>both the presence or absence of the organism (if there is one), and/or
>the drug sensitivities?
>E.g. Do you refer paediatric patients with *documented* bacterial UTIs?
Yes. All children with suspected UTI I would do a urine test.
Young sexually active women I think often get *sore* with a touch of
dysuria which neither needs an MSU or antibiotics.
>>If presented with these same symptoms in the middle of the Antarctic or
>>somewhere equally rural (Wales?) we would have to use time and intuition
>>and clinical expertise alone.
>
>as we may have to do after 1.1.2000!...
I think the potential imposition of clinical guidelines worries me more
than Y2K.
--
Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|