Hammer1964
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 248
- Location
- Northamptonshire
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
- Dislikes
- Meat, meat substitutes and fish
I have finally managed to view my results online from my surgery and I am not a happy bunny!
In May 2016 my HbA1c was 54, the result was listed as satisfactory and the action is - nothing further needed.
If something had been done then would I be registering 11 months later in April with a HbA1c of 79!
Blimey. That is one huge mistake. Were there any earlier blood glucose readings?
Hi @Hammer1964 ..
Your online records should also show who made the May 2016 entry .. and I would want to know why ..
Having said that, since your 3 monthly review is due the most important issue is how you are doing now .. have your BG readings been coming down ?
I had a similar thing happen to me. Makes you mad I know, but the thing is to now move on from where you are and not be too concerned or stressed about what might have been.I wish you the best for the future.
Regards John.
Yes you are right, no point being stressed over something that happened over a year ago that I can't change. Maybe he got fed up with me as I had a cholesterol level of 7.00 and I flatly refused to go on statins.
I have finally managed to view my results online from my surgery and I am not a happy bunny!
In May 2016 my HbA1c was 54, the result was listed as satisfactory and the action is - nothing further needed.
If something had been done then would I be registering 11 months later in April with a HbA1c of 79!
That's because everyone on this forum is singing from a different song sheet to the one used by our GPs. We can't blame them, their hands are tied. It's called NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/1-Recommendations#blood-glucose-management-2
I haven't checked the numbers exactly but I think this document will explain why further action wasn't taken. It's section 1.6.5 Targets. The numbers you quote may not be exactly within the ranges specified but sometimes I think there's an element of allowing for inaccuracies and they might not worry about the odd mmol/mol here or there.
Doctors use the HbA1c as the gold standard, despite it's inaccuracies. I usually have one annually, not 6 months or a year because they know I monitor continuously. I did go through a patch of complacency and got a shock last christmas but while I monitor continuously I don't have to worry too much about the HbA1c and certainly wouldn't rely on it as the only way of measuring my BG. Surely your personal BG monitoring must have warned or indicated an HbA1c that you wouldn't like.
So really between May 2016 and April this year your regular BG monitoring would have shown some issues. A good reason why monitoring is necessary.
1.6.9 looks very interesting.
1.6.4 Investigate unexplained discrepancies between HbA1c and other glucose measurements. Seek advice from a team with specialist expertise in diabetes or clinical biochemistry. [2015]
That's because everyone on this forum is singing from a different song sheet to the one used by our GPs. We can't blame them, their hands are tied. It's called NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/1-Recommendations#blood-glucose-management-2
I haven't checked the numbers exactly but I think this document will explain why further action wasn't taken. It's section 1.6.5 Targets. The numbers you quote may not be exactly within the ranges specified but sometimes I think there's an element of allowing for inaccuracies and they might not worry about the odd mmol/mol here or there.
Doctors use the HbA1c as the gold standard, despite it's inaccuracies. I usually have one annually, not 6 months or a year because they know I monitor continuously. I did go through a patch of complacency and got a shock last christmas but while I monitor continuously I don't have to worry too much about the HbA1c and certainly wouldn't rely on it as the only way of measuring my BG. Surely your personal BG monitoring must have warned or indicated an HbA1c that you wouldn't like.
So really between May 2016 and April this year your regular BG monitoring would have shown some issues. A good reason why monitoring is necessary.
1.6.9 looks very interesting.
I did not know it was a problem.
Not sure if I missed it but, whilst there is a section on controlling Blood Pressure, I can't see anything about controlling cholesterol
Not sure if I missed it but, whilst there is a section on controlling Blood Pressure, I can't see anything about controlling cholesterol
Sorry wasn't specifically aimed at you but just an observation that I couldn't find anything re cholesterol control etc in the document as Drs are always trying to make diabetics take statins whether they need them if not!Daphne917 I have never taken anything for my cholesterol, I keep very active and have not found it to be a problem in my health, I am more worried about my diabetes than my cholesterol.
Sorry wasn't specifically aimed at you but just an observation that I couldn't find anything re cholesterol control etc in the document as Drs are always trying to make diabetics take statins whether they need them if not!
Can anyone please advise how you view your test results online please
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?