Why do people take their kids to the ER for a fever?

[melissad2]

Not a newborn (because that is a good reason to go to the ER) but normal children without other health issues? I know someone who posts on fb every so often about taking her child to the ER with fevers in the 102-103 range. :confused: I'm a nurse and I would never take my kid to the ER for a fever like that...in fact my general rule is you must have uncontrolled bleeding, broken bones, need stitches etc to warrant a trip to the ER!

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm with you on this. I'm suspecting that it is because there might not be access to urgent care or an on-call pediatrician available to them. I could see going to the doctor (but not the ER) for a fever that has gone on for many days without responding to OTC drugs or with other symptoms like a bad phlegmy cough etc. but not just for a run-of-the-mill virus. Otherwise, I welcome fevers as a way to kill viruses that are attacking the body.

[SKL]

I don't even medicate fevers at all, unless they get scary bad or I need the fever down for practical reasons. Never been to the doctor regarding a fever.

 

However, some kids have conditions that would warrant a different reaction.

[Jennifer in MI]

I took my son at 7 months when his fever hit 106.3 after seven days of a fever and it would NOT go down. It ended up being a virus, and to this day, this ds (now 16) runs high fevers (105 - 106!) when sick.

 

Since then, I've had two children have fever seizures with high fevers. SCARY!!!

 

If I hadn't had this history with fevers, I don't think I would take a child in with just a fever. But, I do understand the fear of a high fever.

[Mandamom]

It might be their insurance. My kids' plan doesn't cover an urgent care only the ER or ped for routine visits.

[mycalling]

The last place I'd take my somewhat sick child is a germ-covered ER.

 

We took a feverish child in once. He also had a red chest, headache, and neck stiffness. We treated him like he was highly infectious with the plague for others' protection just in case he did have something major. Thankfully it only systemic poison oak with coincidental headache/neck pain.

[Elizabeth in MN]

It might be their insurance. My kids' plan doesn't cover an urgent care only the ER or ped for routine visits.

 

:iagree:

[shanvan]

Well, I did it once b/c Ds's doctor told me to. We were on vacation far from home and she (his doctor) was concerned about Lyme disease or other diseases transmitted by insects. His fever was very high and was not responding to meds. I don't remember the number, it was probably over 104 for me to even consider calling our Dr. Of course, his fever had gone down by the time we got to the ER (at 1:30 in the morning in rural Maine). :glare:

 

Oh, and on a side note, the doctor said he just knew we weren't from the area. To this day I'm trying to figure out what he meant. He also said he was relieved to treat a child who was a normal weight. Um, okay.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I took my son at 7 months when his fever hit 106.3 after seven days of a fever and it would NOT go down. It ended up being a virus, and to this day, this ds (now 16) runs high fevers (105 - 106!) when sick.

 

Since then, I've had two children have fever seizures with high fevers. SCARY!!!

 

If I hadn't had this history with fevers, I don't think I would take a child in with just a fever. But, I do understand the fear of a high fever.

 

These fevers are scary high. I think she's talking about much lower ones.

[Scarlett]

I had this situation with ds12 this past week. He had a stomach bug....vomiting and diarrhea and fever got as high as 101. My XH was frantic for me to seek medical care.

 

:confused: If it had gone on for days and he became dehydrated or the fever got high (more than 101 for sure!) then yes. As it was, ds12 was sick for 12 hours...felt icky for 12 more and is back to normal.

 

ANd it isn't even about medical insurance or money. It is about 1)no need 2)taking him to a germ ridden urgent care or ER for no reason 3) making him travel when he is sick.

[Momof3littles]

I think the medical community has not done a good job of educating parents on the role of fever, and what symptoms coinciding with a fever are a problem vs. a standard virus.

 

There have been papers written on "fever phobia" among parents, etc. and I can say that many parents I know think their child will sustain brain damage due to a fever of 104 or higher (not induced by heat related illness). That school of thought is out there; I know my parents always believed that. I have a background in healthcare, and feel comfortable riding out most fevers with my kids. We very rarely medicate for a fever. My eldest usually ran 104 degree temps any time he had a fever. He would nurse a ton, had lots of wet dipes so dehydration wasn't a concern, and it usually passed within 24 hrs.

 

Our first ped gave us handouts about letting a fever run its course if the child was otherwise doing well; the handouts included reassurances that children do not end up with brain damage from a fever not related to heat illness, that febrile seizures while scary are usually harmless and are more closely related to how rapidly the temp climbs vs. the actual #. That's the only time we received that type of info proactively, but our docs have been comfortable with our approach. I think it would be beneficial for more docs to go over that info with their parents when they start at the practice.

 

I honestly think the school of thought that fevers must be medicated, etc. is still out there and quite prevalent. There was a thread not long ago about the topic. I'll see if I can dig it up. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=379324 (click at top to see full thread in normal format, otherwise quotes aren't formatted so you can tell what the response is vs. what someone was quoting)

 

eta: I do think insurance is an issue, and some people do not have PCPs these days.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Momof3littles

[GSOchristie]

Piper had a high fever in January (104.7) and my mom insisted that I take her to the ER. I called her ped and they told me if she was eating/drinking/peeing/pooping not to take her in unless it got above 105. So even though that sounds really high, I guess it is not harmful to that point.

[Jen in PA]

When I taught Headstart I had lots of families bypass family practitioners/pediatricians and go straight to the ER for every little thing. It never made sense to me, but I figured it must fit in with the benefit structure of whatever plan they were on.

[oldskool]

It might be their insurance. My kids' plan doesn't cover an urgent care only the ER or ped for routine visits.

 

:iagree: Unfortunately true under many insurance plans.

[jennynd]

DS had fever of 104.6 when he was 6 months old. We went to ER.

DS just had fever over 102 -103 for a week. The urgent care told us take him to ER if temp get worse or new symptom. Luckily, the fever went down and we were able to control that.

[Murphy101]

I have no idea. I wouldn't even take them to the pediatrician for that.

[Cera]

I have twice.

 

The first was when I knew my child had been exposed to Influenza A. There is a limited time period during which they can prescribe antivirals and our doctor at the time wouldn't call in a script. The only other options under our insurance plan were go to the ER or wait until Monday and deal with full blown flu.

 

The second was my older child. She doesn't get fevers. Anything over 102 is very high for her. I took her in at 103 when she began acting very odd (she was given 2 liters of fluid and kept until they could get her temp down...I wouldn't take my younger in for a fever under 105 as fevers are fairly normal for her).

[Twilight Woods]

I ask myself this every time at work and 95% of our patients are cold symptoms.... heaven forbid we get a STEMI or trauma and they have to wait too......

 

:glare:

[Momofeat]

Well, I did it once b/c Ds's doctor told me to. We were on vacation far from home and she (his doctor) was concerned about Lyme disease or other diseases transmitted by insects. His fever was very high and was not responding to meds. I don't remember the number, it was probably over 104 for me to even consider calling our Dr. Of course, his fever had gone down by the time we got to the ER (at 1:30 in the morning in rural Maine). :glare:

 

Oh, and on a side note, the doctor said he just knew we weren't from the area. To this day I'm trying to figure out what he meant. He also said he was relieved to treat a child who was a normal weight. Um, okay.

 

Out of my 3 dc, we've only made 2 trips to the ER, and both cases were similar to this. The first time, my mother had our oldest dd (age 6) out of town while we were still in the hospital after ds's birth. She began running a high fever, and there was no urgent care. She had strep throat. The second time, we were on vacation when my middle dd (age 3) began running a high fever. We decided to end our vacation a few hours early and make a dash home. I still remember her screaming in the car. We thought we could give her Advil and she would sleep on the way home, but I guess the Advil wasn't enough. It was late at night, and the doctor told us to take her to the ER.

 

So there you go, the only two times we made ER trips were for fevers, and we most likely wouldn't have made them at all if we had been home when they started.

[LizzyBee]

I don't know. I wouldn't go to the ER unless a child's fever was @ 105 and I couldn't get it down with a tepid bath and keep it down with medication. It's not unusual for a kid to run a 105 fever with a virus, but at 104-105, I keep a very close eye on them.

 

I took two of my kids to the pediatrician once with fevers over 105, and she and a nurse stayed late that evening working on getting them down. If she couldn't get them below 105, she would have hospitalized them. Iirc, that was when they both had viral pneumonia.

 

I know that hitting 106 is dangerous, but I'm not sure whether you go to the ER first or do a tepid bath then go to the ER. (Anyone know?) My youngest is 11, so hopefully we're past the age of high fevers. I can't remember any of my kids having a fever over 103.5 or so in several years.

[Momof3littles]

I know that hitting 106 is dangerous, but I'm not sure whether you go to the ER first or do a tepid bath then go to the ER. (Anyone know?) My youngest is 11, so hopefully we're past the age of high fevers. I can't remember any of my kids having a fever over 103.5 or so in several years.

Unless it is heat-related illness (being outside in too hot of weather/overheating), it will be self limiting and not cause brain damage. This is documented in numerous medical sources.

 

That doesn't mean a temp that high couldn't co-exist with concerning symptoms, so obviously you'd need to be watching for alertness, dehydration, stiff neck, respiratory issues, etc. in addition to the temp, and be in touch with your doc.

 

The thread I linked to upthread has a lot of links about fevers and whether they are dangerous in and of themselves.

[Jennifer in MI]

:iagree: Every since my oldest had that fever, I have not had a thermometer in the house. I've decided to go on my kids' other symptoms. My dd ran a fever a couple weeks ago. I KNOW it was very, very high. She does that when sick. Still very, very scary. But, she was acting quite normal during the day. So, I tried very hard not to be worried. She recovered quickly.

 

But, if I'd seen her actual temps, I'd have been very scared. (We were visiting my sister at the time. She took her temp. After dd recovered, my sis told me her fever was at 105.5. I'm glad I didn't know at the time . . . )

[NotSoObvious]

Hmm. I had a little girl in my class who had a fever and headaches for a few days. Turns out she had some sort of internal abscess at the base of her skull and it could have killed her.

 

I think a lot of parents just feel like it's better to be safe than sorry.

And then, some are just hypochondriacs.

[Mimm]

Not a newborn (because that is a good reason to go to the ER) but normal children without other health issues? I know someone who posts on fb every so often about taking her child to the ER with fevers in the 102-103 range. :confused: I'm a nurse and I would never take my kid to the ER for a fever like that...in fact my general rule is you must have uncontrolled bleeding, broken bones, need stitches etc to warrant a trip to the ER!

 

And sometimes not even then. :) I have called my pediatrician on my way to the ER on two occasions and had them tell me to come into the office instead. They handled my daughter's broken wrist this summer completely at the office. It was a minor break and the bone didn't need setting and she could wear a splint instead of a traditional cast. A couple years ago, they did stitches in the office as well. Saves me the long wait and the more expensive copay.

[melissad2]

These fevers are scary high. I think she's talking about much lower ones.

 

Yes! I'm talking about regular old run of the mill fevers like 101-104 range.

[BigMamaBird]

Not a newborn (because that is a good reason to go to the ER) but normal children without other health issues? I know someone who posts on fb every so often about taking her child to the ER with fevers in the 102-103 range. :confused: I'm a nurse and I would never take my kid to the ER for a fever like that...in fact my general rule is you must have uncontrolled bleeding, broken bones, need stitches etc to warrant a trip to the ER!

 

My cousin does this too, then complains about having to wait in an overcrowded ER for 4-8 hours with a one year old.

 

With her personally, I know it's because she's a very young, immature Mom who has no support system or common sense whatsoever. So while one of us would call a wise older Mom or know to try some other remedies first, she just ups the anty and goes full out with an ER visit. I believe it was 5 or 6 visits last winter alone, and for moderately low fevers with no complications.

[SKL]

When my kids were babies, I had a nanny who did not like my old-fashioned ways. I told her when my kid had a fever to lighten up on the clothes, cool her off with a damp rag, give tepid baths, etc. Well, instead, she sat the baby on the counter and took her temperature every few minutes so she could log how it kept increasing. Well, duh. She wanted me to give her permission to drug the baby. I said no. I'm pretty sure she would have been ecstatic if I'd decided to call the doctor. :glare:

 

So like the poster above, I mysteriously lost the thermometer after that.

 

Do I really need a pokey stick thing to tell me my kid's temperature is higher than normal?

[Lisbeth]

I wish hospitals were a little more stern abt vetting. If they should be at a fam doc, send them on their way.

[Sara in AZ]

I understand the reaction people have to fever, especially if the child is acting really sick. My ped gives out a guide for parents and I have read that thing over and over, especially the section about fever which explains the function of fever in your body and gives warning signs for when to call or take a child in (if fever doesn't go down with meds, if it exceeds 105, etc.)

 

My third child had many unexplained fevers during the first couple of years, and they would always get high, often 104. I reread that section in the booklet over and over, "Children can tolerate high fevers much better than adults" and resisted the urge to take her in to the doctor. But I can understand why people worry. It can be scary, especially for those whose children have experienced febrile seizures.

[Donna]

Two winters ago, I took my dd to the ER with a 105.3 fever that would not come down an hour after I had given her Motrin and a bath (after I had already given her Tylenol before that...I was piggybacking both because she'd been running a fever for a couple days and had diagnosed pneumonia).

 

Two of mine regularly run temps over 104 and it doesn't bother me but that was the first over 105. My oldest went to the ER with a 104 fever and a bad headache...poor kid had a spinal tap to r/o bacterial meningitis that time. The next year with the same symptoms, a different pediatrician suggested a Strep test and that's what it ended up being.

[phathui5]

Because they don't know not to?

[Joanne]

Because they don't have funds to pay for routine medical treatment.

 

Because, even if they have insurance, sometimes they can't pay the $15, $25, or $50 co pay.

 

If you go to an ER, they *must* treat you without up front payment.

 

It's not the fever itself that makes the parent go to the ER. It's about getting care for a sick child. If they had other options that still included getting care for their child, they would do that.

 

Trust me, it is not about those parents overreacting. It's a budget issue.

[melissad2]

And sometimes not even then. :) I have called my pediatrician on my way to the ER on two occasions and had them tell me to come into the office instead. They handled my daughter's broken wrist this summer completely at the office. It was a minor break and the bone didn't need setting and she could wear a splint instead of a traditional cast. A couple years ago, they did stitches in the office as well. Saves me the long wait and the more expensive copay.

 

This is true for me also. My son fell out of a chair in a restaurant and cracked his head on a tile floor. I was in the car on my way to the ER and the nurse called and said "oh, don't go there! Bring him here and we will check him out." The ONLY time that I have been to the ER with one of my kids was when my middle son chewed up one of my uncles blood pressure pills and it was too early in the morning to call the Dr's office. My pediatrician always tells us to treat the kid not the fever :)

[melissad2]

Because they don't have funds to pay for routine medical treatment.

 

Because, even if they have insurance, sometimes they can't pay the $15, $25, or $50 co pay.

 

If you go to an ER, they *must* treat you without up front payment.

 

It's not the fever itself that makes the parent go to the ER. It's about getting care for a sick child. If they had other options that still included getting care for their child, they would do that.

 

Trust me, it is not about those parents overreacting. It's a budget issue.

Yes, I understand that point. However most of the time without other concerning symptoms the fever is in fact just a virus and needs no treatment.

[Murphy101]

I don't understand why insurance matters on this one. I wouldn't take my kid anywhere just for a fever and general cold symptoms regardless. There isn't any cure for that. Like a pp, I don't even take temps. If they are sick, then I treat them accordingly. It's not like if they puke but don't have a fever I decide they must not be very sick.

 

Acting lethargic or "off" is my red flag. Fever or other symptoms don't mean anything to me. But that gets my attention and a kid hauled into the dr pronto. Then I understand how insurance would make a factor.

 

But fevers and colds don't *normally* need anything more than the 3 Ss: soup, sleep, and steam. Yes?

[Joanne]

Yes, I understand that point. However most of the time without other concerning symptoms the fever is in fact just a virus and needs no treatment.

 

That is also true of parents who take their children to the doctor with a fever. So, is the question why do parents take their children for medical care with a fever, or why they take them to the ER?

 

Because my answer answers the question in the ER.

[blondeviolin]

I treat high fevers if kid is uncomfortable. The only kid that I've taken to te PEDIATRICIAN with a fever as the only sign is my youngest...because he's prone to recurrent ear infections. (And on each of those instances he DID have an infection :glare:)

[Murphy101]

That is also true of parents who take their children to the doctor with a fever. So, is the question why do parents take their children for medical care with a fever, or why they take them to the ER?

 

Because my answer answers the question in the ER.

 

Not really?

 

I guess her real question seems to be why do people not know that fevers and colds are not *usually* in need of medical treatment?

[melmichigan]

I've been in the ER four times for fevers with two of my DC, but always related to underlying conditions that led to lengthy hospitalizations.

 

For just run of the mill fevers with no other symptoms I think you are looking at a variety of things: lack of information, lack of primary care, and lack of insurance coverage being the most prominent in my mind. I think pediatricians need to better educate their patients.

[Joanne]

I don't understand why insurance matters on this one. I wouldn't take my kid anywhere just for a fever and general cold symptoms regardless. There isn't any cure for that. Like a pp, I don't even take temps. If they are sick, then I treat them accordingly. It's not like if they puke but don't have a fever I decide they must not be very sick.

 

Acting lethargic or "off" is my red flag. Fever or other symptoms don't mean anything to me. But that gets my attention and a kid hauled into the dr pronto. Then I understand how insurance would make a factor.

 

But fevers and colds don't *normally* need anything more than the 3 Ss: soup, sleep, and steam. Yes?

 

Oh, I agree about fevers. *I* never took my kids in for them.

 

But many, many thousands of people do and those who use the ER do so because of the reasons I posted.

[jennynd]

I don't understand why insurance matters on this one. I wouldn't take my kid anywhere just for a fever and general cold symptoms regardless. There isn't any cure for that. Like a pp, I don't even take temps. If they are sick, then I treat them accordingly. It's not like if they puke but don't have a fever I decide they must not be very sick.

 

Acting lethargic or "off" is my red flag. Fever or other symptoms don't mean anything to me. But that gets my attention and a kid hauled into the dr pronto. Then I understand how insurance would make a factor.

 

But fevers and colds don't *normally* need anything more than the 3 Ss: soup, sleep, and steam. Yes?

That is a Mama with a lot experience :D

I admit I took DS to ER for fever of 104.6. He was 6 months old and my first and only. I freaked out and took him to ER.

DS just had a whole week fever over 103. I took him to urgent care on day 4 because I can't get the temp down. The dr there did told us to take him to ER if the temp go higher or can't control again.

[Joker]

I'm one who is concerned over any fever. Dds rarely get a fever, even low grade. When they do get a fever, its always required meds and intervention. Younger dd would get horrible ear infections that required Rocephin (sp?) injections, but her only symptom was a low grade fever. The first time I waited and she became very ill. Ever since, I would take her in right away and if the office was closed we went to the ER (per dr's instuctions). She's since had her tonsils removed and hasn't had a recurrence. My girls just don't get fevers often, even when obviously ill with colds and such, but when they do its always been worrisome.

[melissad2]

Not really?

 

I guess her real question seems to be why do people not know that fevers and colds are not *usually* in need of medical treatment?

 

Well said. I just don't understand why people take their kid who obviously has cold symptoms to the ER to sit for hours around other sick people just to be told they have a cold and there is nothing to be done. I think that some people just like going to the ER for whatever reason. :001_huh: The ER at the hospital I work at is constantly filled with miscellaneous nonsense.

[Pamela H in Texas]

The only time I took a kid to the hospital for a fever was my daughter.

It was over 105 and she was seeing things. She was 2½.

 

ETA: I lost this once, but...

 

Medicaid sent me a brochure about when to go and not go to the ER after I recently took Monkey to the ER three times (3rd time she was admitted). I think they were wrong. First off, MOST of the time, maybe you don't need to take a kid for X, but if you have been fighting X for three days and it is Saturday and kid is lethargic or getting worse? I'd rather see you in the ER than with a kid that doesn't make it through the weekend (and btw, my kid was admitted Saturday for that!). Second, I think they are asking the parent to sometimes make judgment calls they shouldn't be making. *I* am experienced, well-educated, and above average in intelligence and *I* wouldn't feel comfortable deciding for my child certain things (like a possible broken bone).

 

Anyway, some more inbetween options would be nice. The local ER and next one closest both have "sub-ERs" for less serious situations (things that people are in the ER with only because it is Saturday or they went to the ER inappropriately). Sliding scale clinics would be another option that may work.

Edited September 24, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[Joanne]

Well said. I just don't understand why people take their kid who obviously has cold symptoms to the ER to sit for hours around other sick people just to be told they have a cold and there is nothing to be done. I think that some people just like going to the ER for whatever reason. :001_huh: The ER at the hospital I work at is constantly filled with miscellaneous nonsense.

 

:banghead::banghead:

 

These parents take children to seek medical care for the same reason many thousands of other parents take their kids to other medical settings for the same reasons:

 

1. To be responsible parents

2. To seek advice for the illness

3. Because not everyone has the same information about colds, fever, etc.

 

A large percentage of the parents who take their kids go to the ER because of 1-3 above AND because they can't afford access to care any other way.

 

I understand that they don't "need" the care at all. But it is the reason, which is what you asked.

[Farrar]

The one time we did this, the fever was extremely high, had not come down with medicine and the child had become completely unresponsive. As in, he was awake, and looking around at us like he didn't know us, unable to say anything coherent. It was kinda scary. The fever came down while they were in the half hour wait for the ER, so dh brought him home without being seen. Turned out it was salmonella. Oh, I did take him another time - it was clearly Lyme disease, but our ped said he had to go to Children's for treatment - they couldn't give it, so we did the ER.

 

I guess I just assume, like everyone is saying, that either it's an unusual fever/situation or that it is due to poor insurance.

[beaners]

Not really?

 

I guess her real question seems to be why do people not know that fevers and colds are not *usually* in need of medical treatment?

 

 

And yet, it seems like I am always "in trouble" with the doctor if I make a call after a cold or fever has lasted longer than expected. I wouldn't personally go to the ER, and I luckily haven't experienced this with my children. But every time I happen to not call the doctor for a case of the sniffles, I get the "and you're only coming in now?" if it turns into something more a few days later. I could easily see a parent with my same experiences but less confidence decide that every cold or fever needed some sort of immediate documentation.

[misidawnrn]

I am a nurse too and I just took my DD-3 to the ER for a temp of 105 WITH motrin on board already. I am good with 102 and even 103 but 105 is beyond my comfort zone. My son and my niece have seizures and I don't want to deal with that. 105 is in the seizure zone. That is why I took my child to the ER with a fever.

[Impish]

Well, in this area, if you don't have a GP, you HAVE to go to the ER.

 

I've taken both Tazzie and Boo in w/high fevers, and w/Tazzie, I *knew* he had an ear infection...a kid screaming his ear hurts is a good tip.

 

Boo, I suspected it. And yup.

[TravelingChris]

There is only one time when any of my kids had a high fever and I did not bring the kid in. That was my middle kid and I thought she had WEst Nile Fever and just gave her medications. We were travelling and not near a hospital and she got her fever reduced and pain reduced by the medication.

 

All the other times, my kids always had other symptoms that were concerning- ear pain, throat pain, breathing issues, something. I would go into the ped with them but if it was a weekend, we would go to the miltary ER dept. That was what we were supposed to do. The one time I had someone tell me it was a virus, and she kept getting sicker, so I kept bringing her in, on the third visit, they finally did a chest xray and found that she had mycoplasmic pneumonia. Unfortuntately, by this time, everyone else in the family got it too. All five of us with pneumonia. It was a miserable time.

 

So in those days, I would bring a child in and it would be an ear infection or a strep throat or a pneumonia. With my youngest, it would often be bronchitis that needed, at a minimum, prednisone and breathing treatments.

 

Now my youngest did develop three types of less common viruses, each of which had fever as a major component, but again, some other symptoms too. Each occurred when we lived in VA, always in the summer, and a different one each summer. She was living there from age 12-14 and for two of the diseases, it was not the typical age for them- fifth disease and hand, foot and mouth disease. The third was more typical of her age, mono. None of my others ever had these. I also didn't take her to the ER but rather to her pediatrician.

 

I am very happy I was so pro-active in my kids' health. I never let any of them have a sore throat and a fever without it being checked. Yes, it was a virus often but each has had at least three bouts with strep too. My oldest had many, many bouts with strep. I was very happy that I did this when my middle's cardiologist explained why we had to do an expensive test. It seems that he sees a lot of kids who ended up having minor heart issues complicated because they had untreated strep in the past. She did not have that problem because I always made sure whether a sore throat was strep or not, and if it was strep, she had antibiotics.