Does anyone feel like when you see a GP their job is to disprove anything is wrong rather than investigate what is happening? I just wonder if this is the case in other health services?

[Whyjustwhy123]

I’ve not had to see a GP for years, but in the last couple of months has to see them twice. The first time for an injury and the second time for a reaction to medication that was given for the first visit.

Both times I’ve given my symptoms and rather than any tests to investigate what may be causing the issues or blood tests to check something I was just offered strong painkillers.

It very much feels like rather than my symptoms dictating what conversation we had but the GP very early on in the appointment haven decided what the issue is. Then followed up at both appointments, but if this changes go to A&E or call 999. And I’m thinking surely it would make sense to treat me properly at this point and avoid a trip to A&E.

Im not wanting to ‘bash’ GPs and I suspect my experience is the result of the pressures on them. But both times I came away feeling like I had been mistaken in having to see them. And despite this neither issue has been resolved!

Well the cause of one is the injury and the cause of the other is a reaction to the medication given at the first appointment. It's not really clear what investigation they could possibly conduct into the causes other than your telling the GP what happened?

That’s not an experience I’ve ever had at my surgery, nor DH tbh.

That's my experience op, i have a complaint that could either be heart or digestive, after much chasing i got the cardiology appt, but I'm having to do so much chasing. If they'd told me they think it's not heart i would have been, perhaps mistakenly, relieved, but they didn't. I am dismayed at having to do so the chasing.

My GP practice are very thorough so it isn't my experience.

But you had an injury? Why would they do further tests?

Those saying about investing an injury - scans or X-rays are common surely in response to identifying injuries a treatment plans?

Also the reaction to the medication is not definite so I would expect (quite serious) symptoms to be investigated and other things to be ruled out?

Is no one suspicious that on other counties with more functioning health care systems that when seeing GPS you might just get a better service than we’re getting?!

Scans and X-rays aren’t common investigations for minor injuries - depends what you’d done, how, and the severity of it.

We wouldn’t necessarily refer for imaging if it wasn’t going to change the outcome of the management.

For most injuries a history and examination is all that's needed. Xrays only if suspected fracture, USS occasionally. Good history and ref physio

Yes and they pay for private healthcare.

It's certainly not my experience. What was your injury, OP?
Re the painkillers, the GP will be aware the signs and symptoms of a negative reaction so if that's what you presented with their conclusion was probably fairly accurate. What did you expect them to do?

I've got the opposite problem at the moment, they keep finding more and more wrong with me every time they look.

Not my experience either but I’m sorry that you feel like that. Is it worth raising it with the practice manager?

Mine are great, really on it both for physical and mental health.

Without knowing the injury or reaction to the medication you had, it is not clear as to whether the GP should have done anything differently.
If an injury is minor to the point you have gone to the GP rather than minor injuries of A+E then it is unlikely imaging is required- but like I say this needs more context.
The same with the reaction to medication- very much depends on the reaction.

There are good GPs and bad ones. The bad certainly do this.

I once went through a phase of getting a boil (horrible things) every few months. On my leg,back,forehead etc. Then one time I got one on my jaw. By this point, I knew that medication was the only way of getting rid of them quickly, so I went to the gp with a massive swelling on my cheek. She took one look at me, from a distance walking through her consulting room door and said "you have a tooth absess, go to the dentist".

I had to refuse to leave and ask her 3 times to take a look because the pain was in my cheek not my mouth at all.

Isn't there a saying something like, when you hear hooves, think horses not zebras. If you have a straightforward injury that just needs treatment at home and painkillers - which the majority are - why would you need scans and X-rays? Likewise, you had a reaction after taking some medication. It could be a coincidence but doctors will treat for the most likely solution first.

Depends on what the injury is surely? When I broke my ribs I was told they don't X ray because you can't do anything apart from rest and painkillers. And when I injured my knee, they knew the issue from the description of the problem.

I've had a few reactions to medication - only once did they investigate because it was either a side effect or a much more serious medical condition that needed treatment. It was thankfully a side effect and nothing serious.

Those saying about investigatng an injury - scans or X-rays are common surely in response to identifying injuries a treatment plans?

depends on the injury; cuts may need stitches not xrays. xrays only help with diagnosing (or not) broken bones. If the injury is something else, xray is more harm than help. Most soft tissue injuries heal themselves, a scan won't hurry it up.

Also the reaction to the medication is not definite so I would expect (quite serious) symptoms to be investigated and other things to be ruled out?

GPs go for the most likely diagnosis until (time proves) it was wrong or right. GPs over-ride that rule to refer you for urgent investigations if there are qualifying symptoms (red flags) that could indicate something where treatment sooner is very important to getting a best outcome, or if their treatment programme to date hasn't helped & they have run out of most likely conditions to assume it must be. Something like 90% of presentations are 5% of possible diagnoses, so the GP strategy is the very fastest route to effective treatment for the majority of patients, with the safety adjustments for red flag symptoms that merit fast track other investigations. Most red flag symptoms = nothing dangerous at all.

I mean the first way to investigate anything scientifically is to disprove certain conditions… if you can rule them out it then reduces the list of possible causes

No, scans or X-rays aren’t usual unless you’ve hit a suspected broken limb. What was the injury?

You're describing private healthcare. You don't get that on the NHS. You get painkillers or antidepressants (for everything) and told to return if you appear to be obviously dying.

Sadly, the default GP response these days is to fob you off.

It took OH's GP surgery over 2 years to diagnose his cancer after multiple appointments with numerous different GPs. It wasn't a notoriously difficult Cancer to diagnose either - when he was finally diagnosed and we looked up the symptoms, it was so obvious and a clear "tick box" exercise.

Same with Son and his ingrown toe nail. I've had them myself in the past, both times requiring the removal of the toe, so I've "been there, got the T shirt" with the way GPs try to fob you off rather than refer you. Exactly the same with our son - it was months of appointments with the GPs and nurses before they finally relented after all their "quack" remedies failed, such as anti-septic cream, salt baths, etc etc., and it finally became infected (I told them it would as it was getting worse). Between the GP finally doing the referral to podiatry and it being removed was only 3 weeks - that was after six months of increasing pain and immobility under the "care" of the GP!

Our surgery wouldn't see you with an injury. Nor would our previous surgery, which we left in 2009, so I reckon you were lucky to be seen at all.

Those saying about investing an injury - scans or X-rays are common surely in response to identifying injuries a treatment plans?

There are some injuries where the treatment will not change based on an x-ray so why would anyone bother with an x-ray ?

Broken ribs, broken toes or broken fingers will not be treated differently to the same which have suffered painful, trauma damaged injury but don't happen to be broken.

Why subject you to x-rays if the results don't change anything?

OK seems I am wrong!