To think Strep B tests should be offered to all pregnant women?

[plinkyplonks]

Hadn't even heard of Strep B if it hadn't been for Bumpfest.

My midwife says Strep B tests are not offered as standard on NHS!

Please, please, please consider signing this petition if you think this is a test that should be offered to all pregnant women:

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/60515

carol is it the IV insertion that's the problem then? Sorry if this has been explained but I can't follow half of this thread as I don't have a medical degree! I thought you could have an iv for any number of reasons not just for ab's, I'm supposed to be getting iv induction hormones, they'll be using the same thing for abs's for my gbs as the two won't be needed at the same time. I wasn't aware an iv line was considered dangerous?

Roland -- the point of testing at 35-37 weeks and then prophylactic ABs by IV for the mother is that it is a better approach than either identifying possible carriers by the UK's risk-based approach and also better than testing all babies and trying to treat babies with intravenous ABs. It is a proven method with a long track record that has reduced by 80% infection rates in babies elsewhere. The only better approach is to treat everyone. There really is no equipoise here. It's a no-brainer as Dr Steer says.

Sn00p4d Sorry, I was not trying to suggest Iv lines are dangerous, they are generally pretty safe and, normally, the benefit hugely outweighs the cost.
I was pointing out that certain tests/treatments for rare events can cause a disbenefit to many for a relatively small benefit to a few. If enough people are worse off, then overall there may be net bad news for what sounds like a sensible idea.
One of the reasons universal screening is rarely recommended in medicine is the downside to a huge number often outways the benefit to a few.

For example, there are many who believe that the current NHS breast screening policy causes more problems than it solves.

Many women will also not sign up to the pain is good philosophy and will have an iv so they can get an epidural.

GBS infection is the leading cause of illness in babies under one week and the leading killer of babies under one week. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that routine testing would only result in 'a relatively small benefit to a few' and that the risk to women outweighs the benefit.

Furthermore, it is a 100% departure from all the evidence to suggest that people could end up 'worse off' as a result of testing or that the end result could be 'net bad news'.

It has been proven over many years of practice in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Kenya and Argentina that it is a really good idea for babies and carries infinitesimally tiny risks for mothers.

math which bit of my maths do you disapprove of?

Haven't read the whole thread but wanted to comment that we discussed this with medic friends about 1yr ago. They both said they had tested at 37wks as had almost all the Drs, nurses and MWs they knew.

"Having everyone test at 35-37 weeks for GBS and those testing positive going on to have an IV inserted to deliver penicillin > any babies dying from GBS infection"

where > = 'is worse than' is the maths that I can't understand.

All my NCT group tested for second and subsequent babies after one of us almost lost her first.
But look at the prevaner vaccine that is routinely given to all babies now. It was not on the programme when my now 11yr old was a baby but we knew someone who lost her son due to the strain of men that the vaccine prevents. I enquired and was told by every Dr and health prof that I spoke to that it was rare and not needed. Low and behold, 2yrs later ds2 comes along and whatdoyouknow?? They've added it onto the schedule. And now we are told that it's a vital vaccine that saves many lives. it was perfectly safe and tested back in jan 2004 when I asked about it. Other countries gave it as routine. It was all about the cost. Likewise this.

If your figures are correct carol then you've made the case for screening.

The mortality associated with ivs is most certainly below 1:28,000. That'd be insanely.high. if it's 10 times less i'd be surprised.

My son contracted this from me during his birth and very nearly died. However, I don't think testing would have made a difference as I could have been tested and it be clear but between the test and birth have then become a carrier... I can genuinely see both arguments from my own experience. For me better training for midwives/nurses/ect would be beneficial. My son became so ill be all the signs were missed.... Thankful I don't take no for an answer or my son wouldn't be with me