Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

To have not taken DD to A&E?

121 replies

fadingfast · 05/08/2015 22:19

We've just returned from a week of camping at a small local campsite.

There were lots of children there, and my ds and dd spent many happy hours exploring and playing with them. So far so good, and we actually had a lovely time apart from some truly shocking weather.

One evening, dd (7) found a plastic syphon tube in the woods at the edge of the site and was dared by some other children to drink what turned out to be residual diesel from the tube. She said she spat it out straight away but a small amount went down her throat. She rinsed out her mouth lots of times and we gave her plenty of water to drink. We were in a bit of a panic about what to do, but once we'd all calmed down we thought it would be best to keep a close eye on her and see how she was over the next 1-2 hours.

I kept asking her if she had a sore throat or tummy or felt ill at all, but she seemed absolutely fine (apart from obviously being upset about the whole incident). She slept well and was fine the next day.

Several parents have since said that they would have taken their child straight to A&E if it had happened to them. It's starting to make me think we were negligent parents for not rushing her to hospital.

What would you have done in this situation? We were approx 40 miles from the nearest A&E.

OP posts:

toffeeboffin · 06/08/2015 15:24

I would have done what you did.

DS recently had Hand, Foot and Mouth and we didn't take him to the docs.

Brother took his son (same age as ours) to doc's as he had HFM too. Different strokes.

Theycallmemellowjello · 06/08/2015 16:15

Yes, I'd have gone to A&E. Going in on the grounds that it is better safe than sorry is absolutely not using up hospital time unnecessarily, and it is not trips like this which waste NHS resources.

ArendelleQueen · 06/08/2015 16:24

"Going in on the grounds that it is better safe than sorry is absolutely not using up hospital time unnecessarily."

The NHS would implode if everyone thought like this. What if everyone went to A&E with a stomach pain because 'better safe than sorry'?

UrethraFranklin1 · 06/08/2015 19:23

Going in on the grounds that it is better safe than sorry is absolutely not using up hospital time unnecessarily, and it is not trips like this which waste NHS resources.

It absolutely is wasting time. Last time I was in paeds a&e (with my very ill dc) there were a ridiculous number of time wasters and they were almost all in the better safe that sorry camp. There were the bang on the head kids but not even hard enough to raise a bump. There was the cut finger that, better safe than sorry, they thought might need stitches but actually barely warranted a plaster. There was the sore throat and a also a threw-up-a-bit-and-we-thought-it-might-appendicitis-even-though-no-abdo-pain or-fever-or-anything-better-safe-than-sorry.

Better logic than sorry. Better use some common sense than sorry. How about that for a change.

SomethingFunny · 06/08/2015 19:32

In cases of potential poisoning, as opposed to cut-to-the-finger/sore-throat/stubbed-toe it can be better to be safe than sorry. With internal things, you don't know what happening to your insides.

If you found your child had been drinking some Calpol or had eaten wild "mushrooms" for example, then you should take them to A&E a not just wait and see if they were ill.

Not everyone would know if a small amount of diesal being swallowed is dangerous or not, so it it definately best to get checked out in this case. It is completely different to taking your child to A&E because they had a small cut on their finger.

UrethraFranklin1 · 06/08/2015 19:35

Not everyone would know if a small amount of diesal being swallowed is dangerous or not, so it it definately best to get checked out in this case

Thats what google is for

Floggingmolly · 06/08/2015 19:45

It's not what Google is for. There's more dangerous shite on the Internet than the average sewage tank.

UrethraFranklin1 · 06/08/2015 19:48

So google combined with a couple of braincells. Plenty of sensible information out there too, not my problem if people are too stupid to tell the difference. Call poisons control if you are. Call the GP. Ask someone. Don't turn up to a&e every single time anything happens to your kid.

Buttercup27 · 06/08/2015 19:48

Milk is much better than water and was what a&e gave to ds when he had a mouth full of bleach and we were unsure if he swallowed any.

SusanMichelson · 06/08/2015 19:49

If a child swallows bleach - ALWAYS get them straight to A&E.

SusanMichelson · 06/08/2015 19:50

There was a little boy I saw once who had swallowed some and had to have his ooesophagus removed.

SusanMichelson · 06/08/2015 19:50

sorry ds is helping me type

SomethingFunny · 06/08/2015 20:05

Dr Google delivers this as its first result:

www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002753.htm

Which says to seek medical attention...

Summerwood1 · 06/08/2015 20:34

I would of gone straight to A&E like a shot.

Mrscog · 06/08/2015 20:39

swomethingfunny that's a US site and given their private medical system you'll find the advice for ANYTHING is to seek medical attention - it equals ££££ to them.

Buttercup27 · 06/08/2015 21:13

We did go straight to a&e, was there within 10min as lives very close. He didn't swallow any, he put it in his mouth and spat it straight out. The nhs were fantast we were seen in 2 hospitals (walk in centre and a&e ) and we're leaving the second hospital within and hour and a half (took half an hour to drive between hospitals)
The nurse at a&e looked in his mouth and checked his throat and said everything was fine and they advised us to give him lots of I'll to drink.

StitchingMoss · 06/08/2015 21:32

Why Summer??? No one has yet explained what they think A&E would actually DO with a symptomless child???

addictedtosugar · 07/08/2015 08:09

Urethra totally agree with your sentiments, but just a comment that no visible bump to the head doesn't always mean no damage.
OK, he had lots of other signs of concussion (vomiting and fading out of consciousness) but the external bump to his head was none existant. We ended up in A&E, and a night on the ward.

I would say this isn't what Dr Google is for, but is what 111 is for when they get it right

UrethraFranklin1 · 07/08/2015 11:40

No, but there are then plenty of other symptoms. No bump, no bruise and a perfectly happy playing child was the kind of thing we see in a&e. Unfortunately I have had to spend lots of time in there and have seen it many many times, in fact I'd say half the kids in a&e probably shouldn't be there. And that affects the care that is available to those of us with children who really do need it.

addictedtosugar · 07/08/2015 11:54

Totally agree, Urethra. I was just suprised at the lack of egg. I guess it was inside swelling.
If you'd seen us on the ward, 2 of the three boys in the room didn't "look" like they needed to be there. Damage isn't always visible.
Sorry to hear your kids have been ill, and hope you don't have too many more visits to A&E.

Rjae · 08/08/2015 09:33

FYI. The poisons control centre will not talk to non professionals. 111 should have phone access though.

As an ex a&e nurse the first question you ask is what will it change? Taking a well child to a&e would result in nothing more than observation, which you could do at home with the correct advice. We don't make children vomit any more. There is rarely need for an antidote for medication, stomach washouts are rarer than hens teeth, so it's just observation.

I understand the need for information and reassurance though, but this is obtained from 111.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5