I am pleased to announce that I don't have gonorrhoea or chlamydia..... (consent issue)

[vipersnest1]

Especially as I didn't know I was being tested for it.
I saw a PA at my GP surgery this week as I've been having a problem with a previously sore and now painful vulva, with a few other symptoms thrown in.
She said she was going to take a couple of swabs, one for infection and one for (she paused here), 'other things'.
All I wanted was a diagnosis and some treatment so didn't question at the time. She asked me if I was sexually active and I laughed and said not for years (because it's true).
I don't know whether or not to be annoyed about this?
I didn't give consent and at the very least it was a waste of NHS money.
(I still don't have any other definitive results by the way.)
What do you think?

Well did you not think to query "other things"?

But yes, she should have been cleared.

CLEARER

Do you normally give consent to individual infections they are testing for? Strep throat? Tonsillitis? Different UTI strains?

You wanted a diagnosis? Surely you just accept that that's testing for all possibilities? Why specific consent just because they are sexually transmitted?

She probably could have been clearer rather than beinv vague about "other things" but likely they test for lots of possibilities. Both of those conditions can be low level and asymptomatic for years but you were displaying symptoms that made it necessary to rule them out. I'm not sure why you're annoyed unless you are also annoyed they didn't give you a list of each strain of bacteria they were testing for too.

She's doing her job thoroughly. You should have mentioned it at the time.

But gonorrhoea and chlamydia are literally infections. They are not 'other things'.
What infections of your vulva did you think you'd be tested for? If you wanted to know which infections I guess you could ask. These are not inappropriate tests.

Well no she isn’t. She didnt say what she was testing for.

OP should have asked since the PA didn’t day- but she also shouldn’t have had to. Ie she should have been clearly told what was being tested for.

Gonorrhoea and chlamydia are both bacterial infections, so when she said she was doing a swab to check for infection, she wasn't exactly lying, when you take a swab you have no idea which bacteria it will or won't grow. I think I'd be more concerned if they missed an infection that was present.

You can have an STI for years without symptoms. And she told you she was testing for infection, not entirely sure why you thought you needed to consent to this? By consenting to a swab, you're consenting to all tests they deem appropriate. If they hadn't done those tests and it turns out to be one of them, you'd be on here complaining that the NHS messed up!!!

You consented to a swab to test for infections, and that's what happened. I suppose she could have listed the infections, but I guess it's like having a blood test - they rarely list every single thing they're going to check your blood for (iron levels, white blood cells, other stuff I don't know), but would if you asked.

Having tested positive years back for a bacteria that commonly affects deer and cattle following surgery, I can appreciate that tests can reveal something that a patient might not have expected.
However as I previously stated, this test was wholly unnecessary.
My DSis is a nurse and told me that it is not uncommon for patients to lie, but even so I was unaware of what the second swab was for. At the very least I should have been told about what the swab was for and that the PA wanted to exclude it, surely?

Op why do you care that's she tested for stds? It's a standard test when presenting with genital symptoms. What's the point in seeking a diagnosis if you don't actually want the testing done to rule out other conditions?

She should've been clear.

She wasn't, so you should've asked.

Meh 🤷‍♂️

When I had problems with my cervix they ran STI checks even though I said I had been single for a year and had already had clear swabs.

Guess some people lie so what’s the harm in double checking again to rule out something simple? It’s probably one of the most inexpensive tests to get the ball rolling before further testing is needed.

Given your symptoms it surely would have been weirder if they DIDN'T test for sti's and stds? And unless you had been abstinent for several months, tested clear and haven't had sex since then a vague 'it's been years' isn't a guarantee you didn't have something that you didn't know about.
I imagine they probably did a pregnancy test too?

You had symptoms consistent with an STI. She told you she was testing for infections. She tested for infections. I don't know what the issue is. She's not implying anything about you. She wouldn't be doing her job properly if she'd not checked for obvious causes