I had one and it did give a breakdown. I'm wondering now how reliable it was.
I've just read the link above.
Well reading that BBC link its seems we might not need to fast at all .That would save us fasting for about 14 hours and getting really narky every six months !!
Well reading that BBC link its seems we might not need to fast at all .That would save us fasting for about 14 hours and getting really narky every six months !!
The article was dated 2009.
So either findings have been discredited, or the mesage hasn't got through to GPs.
My GP still asks me to fast for a cholesterol / lipid blood test.
I am sorry to say you and your mum will have to wait for her appointment to get the results, I can say with some curtenty that the results have shown there is something to tell her. I'd tell your mum to try not to worry because finding out there is something isn't necessarily serious, with me it was that one of the enzimes my liver makes isn't quite right sometimes. I didn't even need tablets.
Not necessarily. I have had a number of tests over the years, including fasting blood glucose tests to check for diabetes, and the surgery has had no consistent way of dealing with the results. Sometimes I'm told at the time of the test to make another appointment in x days to get the result, sometimes I'm phoned to be told the result is negative / positive, sometimes I'm phoned, told the results are in and asked to make an appointment.
The first time I had tests for something that could've been sinister a message was left on a Friday afternoon with my flatmate asking me to phone the surgery. I didn't get it til after hours, and spent the days until I could get an appointment fretting that something serious was wrong. When I eventually saw the doctor I pointed this out and he said that if something were seriously amiss they would've made sure that they spoke to me when the results came in.
On that basis, I would hope that while they may have found something in your mother's results, it's not too concerning.
Comments
I had one and it did give a breakdown. I'm wondering now how reliable it was.
I've just read the link above.
Well reading that BBC link its seems we might not need to fast at all .That would save us fasting for about 14 hours and getting really narky every six months !!
The article was dated 2009.
So either findings have been discredited, or the mesage hasn't got through to GPs.
My GP still asks me to fast for a cholesterol / lipid blood test.
I have no idea why FMs even ask medical questions with so little information. My first reaction to medical problems is seek advice from my doctor.
Not necessarily. I have had a number of tests over the years, including fasting blood glucose tests to check for diabetes, and the surgery has had no consistent way of dealing with the results. Sometimes I'm told at the time of the test to make another appointment in x days to get the result, sometimes I'm phoned to be told the result is negative / positive, sometimes I'm phoned, told the results are in and asked to make an appointment.
The first time I had tests for something that could've been sinister a message was left on a Friday afternoon with my flatmate asking me to phone the surgery. I didn't get it til after hours, and spent the days until I could get an appointment fretting that something serious was wrong. When I eventually saw the doctor I pointed this out and he said that if something were seriously amiss they would've made sure that they spoke to me when the results came in.
On that basis, I would hope that while they may have found something in your mother's results, it's not too concerning.