Annual checkup via blood tests

Escapees

Bit of a strange one but I came across some folk recently who get blood tests every year as a kind of checkup that they're healthy and eating correctly. Note that these folk wouldn't really be interested in keeping fit - if anything, they would have unhealthy lifestyles. So, it got me thinking - is this the norm now? I.e. do people get blood tests say annually just like going to the dentist annually for a checkup?

I know back in my sporting days, you'd hear now and then of someone getting a blood test if they were not performing well despite the training put in, or because they just felt generally off form for a period of time. But there was always a good reason for the test.

Alf Veedersane

Depends what they're hoping to pick up on.

I go every 12-18 months because I know that they can pick up on markers that could flag the cancer my mother died from because when the symptoms come it's already too late.

And both my siblings have Type 1 diabetes.

But they're specific rather than going in and getting bloods done to see if they throw back anything at all.

Mellor

I needed a blood test for sports around two years ago, which turned up some irregularities. Nothing major s d went away.
But I've had my doctor do a "check up" every year or so.

LuckyLloyd

Once you move towards your mid thirties getting blood pressure and a basic blood panel done every 18 months or so is no harm, and not excessive in anyway.

I duno about every year, but I suppose you would have to establish a regular baseline to know when stuff is wonky looking for you

Wesser

People but a huge amount of faith in the d' bloods.
They could be massively obese and can't walk up the stairs but if the bloods are ok then they think they are ok.
Blood tests only check for very specific problems and most medical illnesses are not diagnosed on the basis of bloods.
However of course as we get older it is good to get a cardiovascular risk panel done.

I have bloods done every year since I turned 40, to keep an eye out for diabetes and or cholesterol, both of which led to early deaths of close family members, after going undiagnosed.

Dingle_berry

Wesser wrote: »

Blood tests only check for very specific problems and most medical illnesses are not diagnosed on the basis of bloods.

The opposite of that is true - at least 70% of clinical decisions are made with laboratory input. Also not all tests are specific, an FBC may tell you there's a red cell deficiency but not what's causing it. A U&E may point to an electrolyte imbalance but not necessarily the cause.

OP it's not the norm yet. Depends on the GP, clinical history and signs/symptoms. Until a patient starts displaying signs or symptoms of a disease there's no need for regular checks.

Wesser

It depends on the setting.
In primary care you would not need bloods to make the vast majority of decisions.

Dingle_berry

Wesser wrote: »

It depends on the setting.
In primary care you would not need bloods to make the vast majority of decisions.

The figure of 70% isn't qualified by any particular setting.

thomas anderson.

Got blood tests done last week for the first time in years.

I keep passing out

Escapees

Dingle_berry wrote: »

OP it's not the norm yet. Depends on the GP, clinical history and signs/symptoms. Until a patient starts displaying signs or symptoms of a disease there's no need for regular checks.

That's reassuring - I guess if you feel fine then generally you are fine, assuming a healthy lifestyle and no genetic predisposition to anything particular. It's luckily been donkeys years since I've been to a doctor!

BrokenArrows

Id be curious to know how many people find something important from a blood test every year or two and if finding it early helped vs waiting for symptoms.

Would it be feasible to have a government run scheme that makes blood checkups mandatory and affordable and the frequency based on age (< 25 every three years, 26-35 every two years, 35+ every year)?

Would the number of early diagnosis' actually save money in the long run by fixing problems before they become expensive and time consuming to diagnose and fix?

How much does it cost for a lab to actually check a sample of blood and how long does it take?

Dingle_berry

Escapees, there is of course, no garuntees with that. You may win the negative lotto (get a spontaneous, insidious disease). Also a good dose of common sense is mandatory. No ignoring symptoms like weight loss or a bleeding mole that's doubled in size...

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Id be curious to know how many people find something important from a blood test every year or two and if finding it early helped vs waiting for symptoms.

Would it be feasible to have a government run scheme that makes blood checkups mandatory and affordable and the frequency based on age (< 25 every three years, 26-35 every two years, 35+ every year)?

Would the number of early diagnosis' actually save money in the long run by fixing problems before they become expensive and time consuming to diagnose and fix?

How much does it cost for a lab to actually check a sample of blood and how long does it take?

All reasonable questions that I've nothing to quote off the top of my head about. Though more suited to a thread in the health sciences forum than this thread?

The HSE pays for the testing of GP samples in public hospital labs (eg st James or Limerick regional). The cost of each test varies enormously depending on the test.

Wesser

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Id be curious to know how many people find something important from a blood test every year or two and if finding it early helped vs waiting for symptoms.


Would it be feasible to have a government run scheme that makes blood checkups mandatory and affordable and the frequency based on age (< 25 every three years, 26-35 every two years, 35+ every year)?

Would the number of early diagnosis' actually save money in the long run by fixing problems before they become expensive and time consuming to diagnose and fix?

How much does it cost for a lab to actually check a sample of blood and how long does it take?

I have done research on this which has been Published in the Irish medical
Journal.

I am not able to answer all your questions but I can I tell you that a routine panel of bloods including blood count kidney liver thyroid diabetes cholesterol iron and b12 costs in the region of e 300.

My research showed that most patients and doctors vastly underestimate the cost of blood tests.

The turn around time forest bloods is 24 hours but some bloods need to go to specialised labs that can take a few weeks.

I have tried to attach a link to our national guidelines on routine cardiovascular blood testing as you can see it indicates that women age greater that 50 and men age greater than 40 should have routine checks, as you can see there is also other listed indications.

I do not think that mandatory blood tests should be imposed on anyone as this is an affront to personal freedom and liberty.

http://www.icgp.ie/speck/properties/asset/asset.cfm?type=LibraryAsset&id=346C14F3-B955-45B7-C145372C23B5F53F&property=asset&revision=tip&disposition=attachment&app=icgp&filename=Cardiovascular_Disease.pdf

_Tombstone_

I've a family member that had a heart attack and was advised to go to GP every 6 months to keep a check on it. So he went for his bloods/ecg etc, fast forward a little bit and the day after one of his checkups he had a massive heart attack, clinically dead for a few mins.

Check ups showed nothing.

Cardiologist actually asked him whose idea it was for the 6 months checkup as it was a load of b@llox. Didn't have much to say about 12 months either.

So unless your 12/18 month check up includes an angiogram/stress test you're wasting your time cardiovascular wise getting any checks done.

Other specific tests? Who knows.

The specific ones, blood ones, are they reliable? Or are they gonna pick up something thats not there?

Didn't one of the national Screens for some cancer have hundreds coming in for follows up and nothing wrong aswell? Freaking 100s out?

LuckyLloyd

People are overcomplicating this.

Getting your blood pressure checked regularly as you move past your mid thirties is prudent. Getting cholesterol, blood count values and mineral levels checked might catch something. Just because these checks won't catch every possible problem doesn't make them meaningless. It's also no harm to have a relationship with a GP and for them to have basic data on you should something else occur.

You don't feel bad blood pressure or blood values, they will often be asymptomatic until it's too late. Nor does a clear result to such checks give you a free pass if you're miles overweight / out of breath after mild exertion / unable to sleep properly / suffering chronic pain, etc.

Common sense.

Mellor

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

I've a family member that had a heart attack and was advised to go to GP every 6 months to keep a check on it. So he went for his bloods/ecg etc, fast forward a little bit and the day after one of his checkups he had a massive heart attack, clinically dead for a few mins.

Check ups showed nothing.

Cardiologist actually asked him whose idea it was for the 6 months checkup as it was a load of b@llox. Didn't have much to say about 12 months either.

So unless your 12/18 month check up includes an angiogram/stress test you're wasting your time cardiovascular wise getting any checks done.

Other specific tests? Who knows.

The specific ones, blood ones, are they reliable? Or are they gonna pick up something thats not there?

Didn't one of the national Screens for some cancer have hundreds coming in for follows up and nothing wrong aswell? Freaking 100s out?

The fact they couldn't predict a heart attack coming, it that case, means nothing tbh. That's literal 1 of hundreds of things that things go wrong. A checkup won't catch or prevent everything. It's naive to think thats the benchmark.

There are lots of conditions where checks up routinely detect issues arising.