HIV symptoms not being diagnosed properly, claims charity
- added July 23, 2008
- 0 responses
-
-
-
-
- LindseyIndigo
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (39210)
- News (21402)
- Earth and Science (12522)
- Tech (7303)
- Health (4075)
- Technology (3315)
- Medicine (678)
- Charity (284)
- HIV (272)
- AIDS (257)
- HIV/AIDS (218)
- Doctors (84)
- NHS (48)
People showing the symptoms of early-stage HIV infection are routinely being misdiagnosed by doctors, according to a report by the National AIDS Trust.
NAT, the UK’s leading independent policy and campaigning charity on HIV and AIDS, has found that in one Brighton study, almost half of those who sought medical advice for what eventually turned out to be HIV symptoms were not diagnosed correctly.
Symptoms of early-stage HIV include sore throat, fever and rash and will show within two to six weeks of infection in 70-90 per cent of cases.
But the study found that GPs and other healthcare professionals were commonly dismissing these symptoms as signs of common viral infections, with comments such as: "Probably glandular fever" or "Come back in two weeks if you’re not feeling better."
NAT argues that while these symptoms may seem innocuous, coupled with recent risky behaviour, they should suggest possible HIV infection and the need for a HIV test.
"Diagnosing HIV at an early stage could have a significant impact on reducing HIV infections in the UK," said NAT Chief Executive Deborah Jack.
"Our advice is simple; if you suspect you may have been infected with HIV seek medical advice immediately. Do not wait."
HIV testing has seen great advances in recent years. The majority of cases can now be diagnosed from 12 days after infection.
However, the figures for HIV infection rates in the UK remain high. Over 80,000 people live with HIV.
A third of people with HIV are not diagnosed, and a third of those that are diagnosed are diagnosed late.
Should patients have to specify if they're potentially high-risk for exposure to HIV on a routine visit to the doctor with something like a sore throat, fever and rash, when they could be perfectly benign symptoms? Is it up to the GP to search out this kind of sensitive information, or is it for the patient to volunteer it? Is it possible to have a trusting and sympathetic relationship with your GP (I've rarely seen the same one twice in my local surgery) or does that not even matter?
NAT, the UK’s leading independent policy and campaigning charity on HIV and AIDS, has found that in one Brighton study, almost half of those who sought medical advice for what eventually turned out to be HIV symptoms were not diagnosed correctly.
Symptoms of early-stage HIV include sore throat, fever and rash and will show within two to six weeks of infection in 70-90 per cent of cases.
But the study found that GPs and other healthcare professionals were commonly dismissing these symptoms as signs of common viral infections, with comments such as: "Probably glandular fever" or "Come back in two weeks if you’re not feeling better."
NAT argues that while these symptoms may seem innocuous, coupled with recent risky behaviour, they should suggest possible HIV infection and the need for a HIV test.
"Diagnosing HIV at an early stage could have a significant impact on reducing HIV infections in the UK," said NAT Chief Executive Deborah Jack.
"Our advice is simple; if you suspect you may have been infected with HIV seek medical advice immediately. Do not wait."
HIV testing has seen great advances in recent years. The majority of cases can now be diagnosed from 12 days after infection.
However, the figures for HIV infection rates in the UK remain high. Over 80,000 people live with HIV.
A third of people with HIV are not diagnosed, and a third of those that are diagnosed are diagnosed late.
Should patients have to specify if they're potentially high-risk for exposure to HIV on a routine visit to the doctor with something like a sore throat, fever and rash, when they could be perfectly benign symptoms? Is it up to the GP to search out this kind of sensitive information, or is it for the patient to volunteer it? Is it possible to have a trusting and sympathetic relationship with your GP (I've rarely seen the same one twice in my local surgery) or does that not even matter?
-
-
-
-
- LindseyIndigo
- 2 months ago
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
