So - went with dd to get her some jabs just now, and I had to sit on the couch as there was only one chair - so when the nurse scrolled through dd's records to check what she'd had and when, I saw clearly an entry from 1997/98.
I had collected her from nursery that day and they'd said she'd been 'off' all day, and she was unusually... well... mimsy and cry-y and not herself. Felt hot to me, but perhaps not. I probably was being a bit PFB, in retrospect.
Being a young mum and anxious not to get it wrong, and on the say-so of nursery, and in the context of all the meningitits hype at the time, I rang the surgery that afternoon and they unwillingly gave me an appointment. I remember little about it other than the doctor being rather patronizing and off-hand, and leaving feeling very stupid. never mind all that 'no good doctor would think less of you for getting the baby checked out if you're at all worried' - oh no. Felt properly scorned and dim.
So today I suddenly catch sight of 'infant had been at nursery all day. Infant appeared pink and healthy. Mum would not be reassured and was surly and irritable'.
I suppose I should write it off, it's a long time ago. But presumably every time I've taken her in for anything from chicken pox to verrucas since, the gp has read that before they see us. Which is upsetting, rather. Also I think that the HVs and nurses who saw us when she was small wouold have said I was a good mother, and not a stupid anxious surly unpleasant woman. So it seems unfair that this has gone down as the True Fact.
Also 'surly' is a thing you can be to teachers, or your parents - for a doctor to use that word, to me, implies completely the wrong sort of relationship with patients.
Could I, should I, do anything? And, of course, AIBU?