VictoriaGreen
Active Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Hi there,
I was wondering if I could pick your collective experienced brains...?
About 4 years ago I underwent a lot of investigative stuff for what they thought was a mass in my uterus. I have an ultrasound scan, MRI scan and a CT scan and a couple of appointments with consultants at the hospital.
To cut a long story short, on the last appointment after the different scans, i saw a different consultant who said to me "Oh, it's just cysts afterall, don't worry, most people have them in some form, it's alright. Oh, and by the way, you have a fatty liver we picked up on the scan. Try to lost some weight." I skipped away from the hospital glad to have the all clear on the reason I had been there in the first place.
Skip forward 4 years and this week I went to my GP (who I registered with 3 years ago) and when discussing 'womens things' (my reason for the visit) she said that she had absolutely no record whatsoever on either my electronic files or paper files of all this investigative stuff, had no idea what I was talking about and was horrified that I hadn't been offered medication a result. She is investigating what has happened with this diagnoses with the hospital.
I was discussing all this with a non-diabetic friend of mine, and she suggested that if I had had a diagnosis of a fatty liver at that stage, that that should've been reported back to my GP and would've triggered a set of tests including fasting BG to test for diabetes. (I was diagnosed with T2 18 months ago with very high fasting BGs). I know very little about fatty livers and the stuff on the web is very confusing. Does anyone out there know if this is right, and it is an indicator that should've triggered tests for the D? I'm a bit upset to think that because they didn't follow up with any of the notes etc that I could've potentially had 2 1/2 years of earlier warning and been able to minimise these side effects.
Thanks for reading this far! lol!
Victoria
I was wondering if I could pick your collective experienced brains...?
About 4 years ago I underwent a lot of investigative stuff for what they thought was a mass in my uterus. I have an ultrasound scan, MRI scan and a CT scan and a couple of appointments with consultants at the hospital.
To cut a long story short, on the last appointment after the different scans, i saw a different consultant who said to me "Oh, it's just cysts afterall, don't worry, most people have them in some form, it's alright. Oh, and by the way, you have a fatty liver we picked up on the scan. Try to lost some weight." I skipped away from the hospital glad to have the all clear on the reason I had been there in the first place.
Skip forward 4 years and this week I went to my GP (who I registered with 3 years ago) and when discussing 'womens things' (my reason for the visit) she said that she had absolutely no record whatsoever on either my electronic files or paper files of all this investigative stuff, had no idea what I was talking about and was horrified that I hadn't been offered medication a result. She is investigating what has happened with this diagnoses with the hospital.
I was discussing all this with a non-diabetic friend of mine, and she suggested that if I had had a diagnosis of a fatty liver at that stage, that that should've been reported back to my GP and would've triggered a set of tests including fasting BG to test for diabetes. (I was diagnosed with T2 18 months ago with very high fasting BGs). I know very little about fatty livers and the stuff on the web is very confusing. Does anyone out there know if this is right, and it is an indicator that should've triggered tests for the D? I'm a bit upset to think that because they didn't follow up with any of the notes etc that I could've potentially had 2 1/2 years of earlier warning and been able to minimise these side effects.
Thanks for reading this far! lol!
Victoria