Would you consider 98.7 temp a fever? NFT

firemansflame

nft

AutumnBride929

I don't think so.

howa0155

You or LO?

firemansflame

LO - he's been sleeping a ton today (which I know could just be a growth spurt) but when I picked him up to feed him I thought he felt warm so I took his temp.

water-fairy

I wouldn't

dmogmo

No

MrsPreK

No for both you and LO.

jonsdeedee

no

amber_tynan

nope!

wwsurf81

Seriously? You think this might be a fever?  It's ONE TENTH of a degree above normal.  I don't know about older babies but my pediatrician said don't call unless it's 100.4 or above.  I think your safe.

SoonToBeTabor

a "fever" for a baby is 100.4 or higher

98.7 is just about perfect

easyBreezie

no

NY-allie

No.  For an baby under 6 months its not a fever until its 101

ruthie oct3

How did you take the temperature? Was it rectal... if it was rectal than its 100.4.

Ear, oral, Underarm and the ones on the forehead are not as accurate and usually you have to add a degree or 2.?

on the back of my rectal thermometer it has a fever chart and the fever chart states:

Rectal - 100.4

ear and oral - 99.6?

underarm - ?98.6

Hope that helps!?

shortyran

no- technically, a temp is 100.4 or higher. Remember to add a degree if you're doing an axillary (under-arm) temp.

borc0080

Not at all.  When DD was in the NICU, anything between 97.9 and 98.9 seemed to be just fine with the nurses.

GeneGoddess

ruthie*oct3:

Ear, oral, Underarm and the ones on the forehead are not as accurate and usually you have to add a degree or 2. 

on the back of my rectal thermometer it has a fever chart and the fever chart states:

Rectal - 100.4

ear and oral - 99.6 

underarm -  98.6

 

Completely wrong and very outdated info.  Axillary temps are highly variable (are you wearing short sleeves? long sleeves and bundled? naked?) .  Oral temps are not accurate unless held UNDER the tongue (which infants cannot do) and ear temps require a straight ear canal to get a read on the ear drum (which is almost impossible in infants).  Unless there is a MEDICAL reason not to do so, TAKE A RECTAL TEMP.

I have to admit, it is hard for me not to roll my eyes when a family comes screaming into my ER for a "fever" of 99F in an infant (with no other symptoms) or if they tell me that their baby's temp was 101F but that was with "adding two degrees 'cause it was underarm".  

An infant (under 1 month of age) who has a fever (which is 100.4F or higher RECTAL) will be admitted to the hospital for two days of antibiotics after having blood drawn, urine collected with a catheter, and a spinal tap!  And if you take the temp any other way than rectal (meaning inaccurate) and it was over 100.4F (which it can be if a baby is in long sleeves and bundled or just drank warm formula) even if the rectal temp is normal, the baby will get the blood, urine, and spinal cultures and admitted to the hospital.

Please, just take a rectal temp!  (Vent over)

BeeLove

no.

ellie2004

No... We were actually in the hospital on Friday after getting a rectal temp of 101.7 at home. They ended up doing blood work and a catheter for urine sample and sent us home 5 hours later. Luckily, they think it was just mild viral infection. Our LO had no other symptoms. I've been told the 100.4 is considered a fever in a newborn.