My son is supposed to have a TB needle test done today as part of an application to take a teen EMT course this summer. I’ve never done it and don’t know what to expect. I’m wondering if a blood test would be safer. Any thoughts?
That’s a pretty standard test. They prick the skin and later you go back for them to look and see whether a bump of reaction has occurred. You’ve never had this? It’s quite common. Not unlike an allergy skin test. I don’t think there is much risk involved. The most dangerous thing about it is probably driving back to the doctor to have the test read.
My daughter has had one each year for the last three years as a requirement to volunteer at a zoo. (In order to work with the animals, she has to have the TB test.)
The nurse injected a small amount of liquid just under the skin on the inside of the forearm. My daughter says it doesn’t hurt. The nurse circled the injection site with pen so it was easy to find for the reading. We went back 48 hours later to have the test read. My daughter has never had any kind of adverse reaction to the test.
I would think having blood drawn would be worse.
don’t sweat this at all. And kudos to your son, a summer EMT course is not just a wonderful learning experience for him, but it is also an opportunity to make a real difference, maybe even help save someone’s life.
The CDC has patient information resources for the blood test and the Mantoux tuberculin skin test:
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/testing/tb_factsheet.pdf
More info here:
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/testing/
If it were I (and I’ve had this done several times), I’d just have the skin test. The worst part about the skin test is that you usually have to go back and have the skin looked at by the doctor, although that’s not always the case.
I am an NP and I have had them, done them and ordered them. It is purified protein derivative–no TB is introduced into your system. It is designed to protect both the health care provider and the patients. There is a blood test, but it is very expensive. We do them for some employers because the person doesn’t have to go back for the reading, and if they forget they have to wait a week to repeat.
Honestly, I think as an EMT he will be exposed to a lot more risky things than this test. Something to consider with a medical career.
These are very standard. Both Mr R and I have to get them yearly because of where we each work. I wouldn’t worry.
Thanks, all. In the interim I did a little reading and discovered that many of us are walking around with latent TB. So now I’m thinking perhaps hubby and I should have this test done, too!
There is nothing dangerous about it. The TB skin test consists of injecting a minor amount of fluid under the skin of the inner forearm to make a wheal. It tests for exposure to the TB virus, the antibodies. It you have been exposed, there is a red mark above a certain size that shows past exposure, and means nothing about disease itself. When I’ve been to certain parts of Asia or Latin America, my job makes me get one, though we used to test yearly. I have given many skin tests, and had many. No big deal, aside from the necessity of returning to whomever gave the test 48 to 72 hours post test for reading.
It is protective for your son. Should he have a possible exposure on the job, he would be tested again and having a negative test beforehand protects his rights.
In many states (NJ is one), you have to have a clean TB test to work with children (so all teachers, coaches, etc. need them)
At least one of my daughters had to have a TB test before starting college.
Just don’t forget to have him go back at the proper time. DD forgot last summer and had to pay to have it done again.
My daughter’s entire HS graduating class had to have one because one of their classmates contracted TB while visiting his family in Africa. It was no big deal. No one else had it, and the classmate who was ill is healthy now.
It was kind of funny at the time, though. She’d requested a waiver from her college because she wasn’t at risk for TB, and then got a notice from her school nurse, that she might have been exposed, so had to go for the test anyway.
It’s almost an archaic test from times gone by–needed it years ago to get my first teaching license. Seems it would be more important to know if I had hepatitis or HIV, as opposed to “consumption” as TB used to be called back in the day.
@MADad That would be true if hepatitis and HIV were transmittable from coughing and sneezing which, thankfully, they’re not.
No… just no…
First of all, TB is MUCH easier to get than either Hep or HIV for what should be obvious reasons.
Second, there are still thousands of people with active (let alone latent, though of course latent is not infectious) TB in the US. One of the reasons that we are down to only a few thousand is because we’ve been so vigilant about TB monitoring.
And what does it matter what TB was called well over a century ago?
Unless you’re going to be regularly exchanging blood with your kids, there’s no reason for your Hep or HIV status to be known.
ETA: Sorry, x-posted with usualhopeful. Had the tab open for a while before posting.
That should be patients, not kids. I had schools on the brain.
This test was a routine part of my sons’ physical exam back when they were little guys. When S2 was three years old, his skin test was positive. This meant he had the TB germs in his system, although he certainly didn’t have active TB. He was required to take Isoniaizid (a liquid, since he was just a tot) for nine months. It was three teaspoons of the liquid every day for nine months. I mean, really. We used to call it his “one-two-three medicine.” Talk about a PITA . . . .
We were also told that he would always test positive for TB so that there is no point in his having the test ever again. However, in that case I don’t know how they determine if he’s been exposed again.
VH, they will do a chest xray if he presents with symptoms of active disease.
Your son should include this info about past medical history whenever he sees a new provider. Although TB is best known as a respiratory presentation (and respiratory transmission), the bacteria can affect other organs in rare instances.