Refused appt to diagnose rash (might be chickenpox) is this right?

[springintheair]

I tried to make an appt for dd1 today but the practice manager said as her spots could potentially be chickenpox she couldn't come in. I was offered a health visitor appt instead (bizarrely the contagion thing didn't apply in this case because dd1 could be isolated apparently). When I said I was entitled to see a GP I was told I wasn't allowed to and this was nationaly policy. Is this right? Has anyone else been refused an appointment. Even when I said that I wasn't in a position to diagnose which is why I wanted to see a doctor and the spots could be anything including meningitis I was still refused. Told health visitors experienced and able to diagnose but I want to see a doctor about this and other things (dd2 has excema and 4 or 5 weird skin tags).

This is not the 1st time I've had probs with this practice. I have tried to make doctor appts several times before and been given a time to come down only to find this wasn't a doctor appt at all instead I had to wait in a queue to see a health visitor. The health visitor is nice and I'm sure highly competent and trained but as a health visitor not a doctor. Aren't I entitled to see a doctor if that's what I ask for? When I asked the health visitor to be referred to an alergy clinic for dd2 she said she would find out if this was possible, try to refer me to a dietiician and phone in a week to tell me about these things and check if hydrocortisione cream was working for dd2's excema. She never called back. Again is this just one of those things or should I be angry?

Advice please.

I do understand that surgeries feel they need to screen out the runny nose patients Countess but every 49 patients who have jsut got a cold if even 1 of those has pneumonia and been refused an appt then that's 1 too many. The fact that patients are visiting the GP unncecssariyl points to the need for more and better education and more GPs. Many of us know of someone who has been refused attention or treatment and then became seriously ill because of this.

\link{http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1379.htm\molluscum pic} as a comparison to \link{http://www.well-net.com/childrenshealth/chickenpox2.gif\chicken pox}

Yes looks like dd2 may have molluscum whatever. She has about 4 or 5 of those bumps of differnt sizes in a line on her lower arm. They stick out and are annoying cos they catch on her sleeve and other things. Dds's spots look more like pox.

Another though I had is that a GP friend of mine told me about a huge no. of particulary men who are reluctant to see doctor's unless ab nec. When they do come in they have a long line of minor probs and he knows that they are building up to the last prob which is inevitably the most serious/embarrassing. Wondering how this sort of people would deal with the screenign process. I can see why it would seriously put you off.

DD1's spots aren't even itchy though. Could that be cp?

Could be too early to be itchy - dd didn't really itch at all but think it can be worse when the blisters form.

Spring: I have just got back from the GP, he has said that the rash was too new to be certain if it was CP. He said that it's 50/50, but he would put money on CP. Ds's spots look just like the early lesions in the link that LIZS put on on CP. He said within another 24 hours I should know for sure if it is CP.

Thanks Heartmum. Dd1 has had her spots without much change for about 3 days. No fluid, no itching.

They don't have to be itchy - my children didn't complain of itchiness. But if they aren't fluid filled by now, then maybe it isn't CP.

I had an appointment with the gp when my dd2 has suspected cp, we were asked to wait in the corridor away from the other patients.

FWIW, we were told it was CP as she'd been exposed to it about 10 days before, (and apparently passed it to the girl next door who came out with it 2 weeks later) - but she never came out in blisters and it wasn't itchy.

Orinoco, I'm glad to hear you mention the blisters, as ds has spots, but they aren't blistering. Wasn't sure what to think. I guess tomorrow will give me a better idea as the spots only appeared today.

spring, in our last practice we were always 'screened' and more often than not were seen by a practice nurse. I didn't mind this, and don't feel that I would have been angry if not offered a doctor. Times have changed, and practice nurses and health visitors are trained to diagnose and prescribe. Obviously they are not doctors, but for the routine chilhood illnesses it seems a sensible system. Our nurse, if ever concerned or NOT dealing with the routine, would go off there and then and get advice from a doctor. So I felt that the system was fine and I understood it took the pressure of the doctor's time. However you are within the surgery and can get advice from a doctor if the healthcare professional dealing with you thinks necessary. TBH I think they want to put the decision about whether you need a doctor or not, out of your hands - what do you know, you're just the patient!! I admit this seems a bit 'off' but have to say it worked very well in our case!

DD was 5 months when she had a bad case of chicken pox and the doctor wouldn't see her. Not that I needed a diagnosis because she caught it off her brother. But I wanted advice about giving her neurofen because of being under 6 mths. And some reassurance really.

our doc's have a open surgery every morning and you can go with whatever ailment, if you have a rash they ask you to mention it at reception and you will then be seated in a private room. you can also make an appointment for an afternoon to and usually only have to wait a day or two