• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

3.9mml/L

L

leyland

Member
Messages
10
Hi all,

I'm trying to fill out a medical questionnaire for something. Its asking whether i've epxerienced a 'hypo' in the last 12 months. Fortunately I very rarely suffer from low blood sugar. The lowest I've ever been is 3.9. Does anyone know if that is that considered by the medical profession to be a hypo?? I get conflicting information everywhere I look. Some literature suggests that anything below 3.9 is the start of a mild hypo. I've emailed my Consultant with no reply as yet, and these forms have a deadline!!

Granted its a reading which needs attention, etc, etc, but I'm not sure if its a definitive 'hypo'. Can anybody offer advice.
 
Personally I wouldn't call that a hypo. For the sake of 0.1mml/L I wouldn't say its worth it.
 
Leyland

It really depends what the medical questionnaire is for!

If it's for your driving licence they it's a no as yes it's below their 4mmol/l driving limit but I assume at 3.9 you didn't need 3rd party intervention...

I would contact who ever given you the medical questionnaire and ask what context they are using the term 'hypo' as it could well mean where a 3rd party intervention was required to treat the hypo, such as a paramedic, somebody ensuring/helping you to treat it and if they hadn't intervened you would have landed yourself with a medical emergency!
 
Bear in mind the accuracy of your meter..... you may not have been 3.9 but 4.0....thus not hypo at all.

I think a lot of these questions are geared towards needing to take quick action and not being able to do what you should be doing workwise etc.

If the levels you were at were tested by a hospital on calibrated equipment then they would be far more accurate.
Just my thoughts
Angie
 
Well with the caveat that it depends on how important the form is...

I think asking a T1 if 'you've ever had a hypo'? is like asking someone if they've ever had a headache. Well, yes they probably have but what does that tell you? As the others have said, I'd probably tick 'no' and if asked, say you interpreted it as a moderate or worse hypo. Is there space to write 'only have very mild hypos and have never needed assistance'?
 
Its actually a DVLA medical questionnaire form. It asks, 'have you ever had a hypo in the last twelve months'...... then a few questions later, it asks, 'when your blood sugar falls and you are awake, do you have warning signs....if yes please give all episodes'. They've got you either way!!

For the licence I'm applying for, you need not to have had severe hypos within the last twelve yet when you have then, they need to be sure you still have full awareness. 3.9 is the lowest I've been in the last twelve months anyhow - have to present a meter to prove. I know it doesn't come under the heading 'severe' but still, I just don't know whether its actually a hypo. Obviously I'd rather be clear of any and write 'no'. Some info. suggests that anything below 3.9 is the start of a mild/moderate hypo.
 
I've never had a problem re: admitting hypos and getting a driving licence - I think it's only an issue if you've needed someone else's intervention (and probably on a number of occasions)

To me, 3.9 isn't technically hypo, so I would admit that in a questionnaire. I'd personally treat that with a biscuit or something, rather than Lucozade or Dextrosol. But if I was really busy, it was 3.9 and I knew it was only going to go down further, I'd eat both.
 
angieG said:
Bear in mind the accuracy of your meter..... you may not have been 3.9 but 4.0....thus not hypo at all.

I think a lot of these questions are geared towards needing to take quick action and not being able to do what you should be doing workwise etc.

If the levels you were at were tested by a hospital on calibrated equipment then they would be far more accurate.
Just my thoughts
Angie
Click to expand...

+1 on this, the meters that we use every day aren't accurate enough for 0.1 to be a problem. I'd say no.
 
Don't forget that the (in)accuracy of the meter works both ways. With a 10% margin of error, 3.9 could be anything from 3.5 to 4.3. 3.5 should be a hypo in anyone's book.

Knowing that it's for a DVLA form, I'd personally be cautious and say yes. I'm pretty sure I did and it was okay. Most people do use 3.9 as the start of hypo territory.
 
leyland,

You could always answer yes to the question and put the figure 3.9 in brackets and let them decide if this is defined as a hypo, personally I treat anything 4 and below as a hypo.

Nigel
 
The definition of hypo is massively contested. I wouldn't admit to any more hypos than strictly necessary on the DVLA form - and certainly wouldn't include 3.9.
If you need biomedical backup you could quote DAFNE guidelines, which don't count a hypo until you are below 3.5.
 
Hi all,

Thanks for replies. Just had it confirmed by Consultant that 3.5 is considered by the medical profession as an actual 'hypo' .... so record on the form as a 'No'.
 
DAFNE guidelines state that 3.5 is a hypo, so you could use that as a level. As others have said your meter could be out by enough to cover that. Personally if it were only the once I wouldn't mention it.
 
Personally if it were only the once I wouldn't mention it.
Click to expand...
Bad idea since since she "[has] to present a meter to prove"

To clarify: I think that the policy is not very smart; it might to lead to more accidents since you're not going to test if you think it might be low if low readings might lead to the application being rejected, there's no way to account for erroneously low readings and it's trivial to beat (get a 2nd meter, and correct if necessary before taking an official reading) apart from the glaringly obvious that you can't prove a negative [i.e. low readings prove that you had a hypo, but absence of low readings doesn't prove that you didn't have a hypo]
 
Back
Top