So interesting to read all the responses. GBS testing is the one that I always do -- in my mind, it is purely "defensive medicine", so that in the event of a transfer I can prove negative status or that we have followed accepted protocol. My decision is totally based on my subjective personal experience rather than data, etc.
When my brother was born (in the early 90's), my mom was GBS+, but the protocol then did not call for routine treatment with antibiotics during labor. Healthy, full-term baby born with no apparent risk-factors, a couple of days later, he "missed a feeding", and my mom called his Dr. to be cautious (based on discharge instructions)... and boom, my brother was admitted to the regional hospital. My mom had to fight all sorts of battles to be able to stay with him, keep breastfeeding, etc. They almost did a spinal tap and did plenty of other invasive testing while he was hospitalized. The culture takes 3 days to come back (positive or negative) -- so until then, he wasn't going anywhere. In the end... he was totally fine, never had GBS, all that stress and treatment was done to prevent... nothing. The Dr. had recently lost an already sick preemie to GBS and was overly sensitive to the possibility of losing another patient. Having witnessed this as a young teen, I just don't want to go through this with my baby. Thankfully, I've never been GBS+, so I've never had to make the decision about antibiotics.
I'm interested in the taking baby's temp thing... I've always been given instructions to take baby and my temp. after birth every 4 hours, for the first 48 hours (I think...) so I'm surprised to see that this is not "standard practice" with even other HB MWs.
My MW has done some updating of her GBS protocol since I last had a baby with her (only 19 months ago) and will now offer a hibiclens rinse to mamas who are likely to give birth before 4 hours have passed, since the antibiotics would not be effective on such a short time scale.