Required STD testing?

blackbettieberrie

I was reading about the choice we have of getting our babies treated with eye ointment right after birth. The article mentioned that is the law to get tested for STDs in the third trimester. I had never heard of this before, so I started doing some research. I guess women normally get tested at their first prenatal appointment and if you are positive or at high risk you get tested again in your third trimester or right after birth. The thing is, I don't remember getting tested for STDs or being told I was getting tested. Is this all true? Does it maybe vary by state?

I live in CA by the way.

oscarkat

In Ontario, Canada they always do a round of bloodwork for HIV (not sure what else is included with it). It's the standard here too. I haven't heard about third trimester testing though.

NoelMarieFrey

I got one done when I was first pregnant at my first appointment, and I am having a repeat done tomorrow with my glucose test.  Its mandatory with my OB.  But I am still in my second Tri.  I didn't ask if he will test me in my third, but its just a precaution with my OB. 

sdlaura

I live in CA, and am pretty sure that I was tested in the first big prenatal blood draw.  Regarding the eye ointment, we decided to delay it for an hour after birth for bonding purposes.  We also declined the Hep B shot at birth.  DD got it later, but I saw no reason for her to have it on the day she was born, since I know that I don't have Hep B.

TessyMessy

I got a full STD panel including HIV in the first tri. It remember having to sign a waiver for the HIV test specifically. I just got another test with my glucose bloodwork. I think it was for syphillis. I live in PA.

 

blackbettieberrie

Thanks everyone. I have an appointment tomorrow. I'll be sure to bring it up. I can't believe I had never heard of this before.

orchid8301

I was tested. I actually looked over the lab results and it appears I was tested for all sorts of stuff. It wasnt a big deal to me though. 

RedSoxGirl10

It is standard at my doctor too. I actually had one as part of my RE appointment when I was not getting a regular period. Since mine was in May, they said I don't need another one in pregnancy- it has to be within a year of the birth, they told me. 

dunvilles

I also had the testing done. I had to sign a waiver for the HIV test stating that results may come back with a false positive and that I couldn't hold the lab responsible if I was discriminated against because of someone finding out my results...

I actually hesitated to sign it bc I was like seriously WTF!!!! It was pretty crazy reading it.

RondackHiker

Siouxsie KeeYoo said:

Thanks everyone. I have an appointment tomorrow. I'll be sure to bring it up. I can't believe I had never heard of this before.

Heard of what? Std testing during pregnancy?

orchid8301

broccoli's_girl said:

It's pretty standard for std testing to be included in the initial blood draw early on. I think in my state verbal consent is enough, and by consenting to bloodwork, you're kind of giving blanket consent. Although, I seem to remember them saying specifically that HIV was included. It's pretty universally done because 1) those diseases are well documented by each state, and 2) any of them can have a pretty big impact on the health of a mother or her unborn child.

I would also want to know this if I was the doctor treating the patient. 

karich

broccoli's_girl said:

CrisM022 said:

broccoli's_girl said:

It's pretty standard for std testing to be included in the initial blood draw early on. I think in my state verbal consent is enough, and by consenting to bloodwork, you're kind of giving blanket consent. Although, I seem to remember them saying specifically that HIV was included. It's pretty universally done because 1) those diseases are well documented by each state, and 2) any of them can have a pretty big impact on the health of a mother or her unborn child.

I would also want to know this if I was the doctor treating the patient. 

That's very true. I hadn't thought of that. HIV at least would make them use different protocols for anything to do with bodily fluids, even as simple as a urine sample, I'm guessing.


This is off topic...but HIV requires no special precautions in treating patients. Everyone is treated using "standard precautions", meaning we basically treat everyone as if they have something we can catch. Gloves, hand washing etc. HIV and other blood borne diseases require no special handling.

orchid8301

karich said:

CrisM022 said:

broccoli's_girl said:

It's pretty standard for std testing to be included in the initial blood draw early on. I think in my state verbal consent is enough, and by consenting to bloodwork, you're kind of giving blanket consent. Although, I seem to remember them saying specifically that HIV was included. It's pretty universally done because 1) those diseases are well documented by each state, and 2) any of them can have a pretty big impact on the health of a mother or her unborn child.

I would also want to know this if I was the doctor treating the patient. 

That's very true. I hadn't thought of that. HIV at least would make them use different protocols for anything to do with bodily fluids, even as simple as a urine sample, I'm guessing.

This is off topic...but HIV requires no special precautions in treating patients. Everyone is treated using "standard precautions", meaning we basically treat everyone as if they have something we can catch. Gloves, hand washing etc. HIV and other blood borne diseases require no special handling.

I wouldn't think that it would, but it is still something that I would want to know. I think it would be my right to know as the treating physician. 

NoelMarieFrey

CrisM022 said:

karich said:

CrisM022 said:

broccoli's_girl said:

It's pretty standard for std testing to be included in the initial blood draw early on. I think in my state verbal consent is enough, and by consenting to bloodwork, you're kind of giving blanket consent. Although, I seem to remember them saying specifically that HIV was included. It's pretty universally done because 1) those diseases are well documented by each state, and 2) any of them can have a pretty big impact on the health of a mother or her unborn child.

I would also want to know this if I was the doctor treating the patient. 

That's very true. I hadn't thought of that. HIV at least would make them use different protocols for anything to do with bodily fluids, even as simple as a urine sample, I'm guessing.

This is off topic...but HIV requires no special precautions in treating patients. Everyone is treated using "standard precautions", meaning we basically treat everyone as if they have something we can catch. Gloves, hand washing etc. HIV and other blood borne diseases require no special handling.

I wouldn't think that it would, but it is still something that I would want to know. I think it would be my right to know as the treating physician. 

They aren't treated any different, however if you are seeing a doctor and you do not disclose the fact that you are HIV positive, its a serious problem and illegal. I treat all patients the same, some procedures you just have to handle more carefully then others with cleaning the room and etc.

karich

I don't think it is your "right" to know, which is why HIV testing requires special consent.

gfam23

I live in CA too.  They tested me and did not give me a choice.  I did not realize I was tested until after the fact - if they told me, it was mentioned in passing like "a usual screen for chlamydia/gonnorhea" but apparently they tested me for everything.  I don't know if it's the law or not but this makes me think it is.

SuzyQq02

Individuals with HIV are actually not legally bound to tell a HCP their status. Obviously the person who does the testing would know, but legally, the only people "entitled" to the information are spouses/partners and disclosed sexual partners... Thats the only people an HCP can break confidentiality to tell.

NoelMarieFrey

Its actually different in every state whether you have to disclose to a HCP or not.

"State or local laws may also require that your HIV status be reported to health care providers, parole officers, parole officers spouses, or sexual partners."

AndreaG2010

STDs can be passed to the baby when they go through the birth canal. It is standard to test the mother at least at some point of pregnancy to make sure the proper precautions are taken at delivery to keep the baby safe. I have a friend that found out while pregnant that her husband had cheated on her. The only way she found out was from the STD test done during pregnancy, he had given her chlamydia, and she had to be treated before her baby was delivered.

ETA: fat fingers caused some typos.

SuzyQq02

Interesting! In MA, it was never required which is why in the jail I used to work in, I was always on people about UPs. Clients would sometimes disclose to me as their therapist (were HCPs by most state standards) and I couldn't tell anyone, or compel them to tell anyone.

karich

I work in MA and we have no right to know if a patient is or isn't HIV positive.
In fact, when there is a needle stick, we need to get consent to test the patient. The patient can refuse.

blackbettieberrie

RondackHiker said:

Siouxsie KeeYoo said:

Thanks everyone. I have an appointment tomorrow. I'll be sure to bring it up. I can't believe I had never heard of this before.

Heard of what? Std testing during pregnancy?

Yes. Obviously I don't think I have any. I don't care if they test me. But I'm also paranoid/OCD so my over-anxious brain is thinking that maybe I have some STD and nobody knows and something bad is gonna happen. I always think I have whatever it is other people are talking about.

NoelMarieFrey

It differs in every state. Some states it is required to you tell your HCP about HIV, Hep, an etc. Although we are not permitted to share the information with any other people without written consent.

djtippietoes

I know that i got tested during my first trimester, but I don't recall having to signing anything to do have them do it.

Winnieella

In my state you are STD and HIV tested in 1st tru.  You do have to sign a legal paper, but it covers all the STDs and HIV. Also, in my state it is required by law to tell your HCP. I do know that it varies from state to state. 

mdr619

I live in CA and I know they tested for STDs at the initial 6 week appointment. They didn't ask for permission just told me to go to the lab for bloodwork. I am nosy and looked at all SEVEN vials they needed to fill and among the usual cbc, hcg, there were hiv, chlamydia etc.

JackieP1023

I'm pretty sure I signed a consent to testing at my very first appointment (along with 10 tons of other papers), and just assume it was drawn with the initial billion vials they draw. I never thought twice about it, since I know I've never had anything.

ShePersisted

I'm very confused on what this thread is trying to address. Weather STD testing is required or if it's generally repeated in 3rd trimester?

HIV is just one of the STDs that can be harmful to the baby. In fact I don't know of any STD that would not harm the baby. As far as I know it is standard protocol and required that the mother be tested especially initially and again if there is a higher risk. Plus if you have certain symtoms I cannot imagine why the Dr would not run the tests again to double check. So in all as a HCP treating a pregnant woman you would absolutely want to check for STDs and if the patient refuses to get the test each state may have a different law about reporting that.

In NY state I was told HIV is required by the law and I cannot refuse. I did not sign any consent but my OB checked me for everything and not just for legal reasons but to ensure I get the best care if at all I was exposed. It's standard protocol for ensuring a healthy pregnancy so cannot imagine why anyone would not want their HCP to know about it.

karich

megash113 said:

Can someone explain what the eye drops are for? I've never heard of that.

It's usually erythromycin ointment that they put in newborn's eyes to prevent an infection from syphillis or ghonorrhea that the baby MAY have contracted in the birth canal (if the mother is positive). If the mother does not have these diseases, then the risk is obviously 0.

Some will say that it interferes with bonding and breastfeeding. The argument is that It makes already vision impaired newborn have a harder time seeing mom.

blackbettieberrie

Hg45 said:

I'm very confused on what this thread is trying to address. Weather STD testing is required or if it's generally repeated in 3rd trimester?

HIV is just one of the STDs that can be harmful to the baby. In fact I don't know of any STD that would not harm the baby. As far as I know it is standard protocol and required that the mother be tested especially initially and again if there is a higher risk. Plus if you have certain symtoms I cannot imagine why the Dr would not run the tests again to double check. So in all as a HCP treating a pregnant woman you would absolutely want to check for STDs and if the patient refuses to get the test each state may have a different law about reporting that.

In NY state I was told HIV is required by the law and I cannot refuse. I did not sign any consent but my OB checked me for everything and not just for legal reasons but to ensure I get the best care if at all I was exposed. It's standard protocol for ensuring a healthy pregnancy so cannot imagine why anyone would not want their HCP to know about it.

I apologize if I wasn't very clear. I wanted to know if everyone was getting tested. My doctor never mentioned running any of these tests on me, so I was concerned I wasn't getting checked out as thoroughly as I should be. It might be that they just didn't mention it. I have had a lot of blood work done and don't mind getting tested, for anything really. The fact that I read it is the law to test pregnant women only made me more worried that maybe I'm not getting the right care.

calimama2007

My OB told me that if I didn't get tested for HIV, then state law would require that the baby be tested, so I went through with it, eventhough I know I am negative, and was tested with all prior pregnancies.

We are in CA too.