All that being said, I think it is a shame that we live in a system where it is so expensive and inconvenient to see a real doctor that people resort to this kind of thing.
Gram stain, because it's very fast (minutes) and can tell you, e.g., that you have Gram positive cocci in clusters (thus, likely staphylococcus species).
Culture, then, to grow the bugs and see what nutritional requirements they have and what biochemical modifications they make. Catalase producing? Likely staph aureus.
Finally, sensitivities: resistant to oxacillin? MRSA.
One could imagine PCR-based tests, too, though at my institution such a test is not in use.
Getting back to my question, how did you successfully self-diagnose MRSA?
So the MRSA diagnosis is hard to swallow, but getting to staph aureus might be doable.
It's still unlikely, though, firstly because PCR is hard, and secondly, because what person willing to go to that much effort wouldn't just go to the doctor?
1. Intense pain that extends beyond the boundaries of the visible irritation. Pain that is much more intense than a normal pimple or ingrown hair.
2. Distinct rash (as far as I understand the rash is caused by the specific toxins MRSA generates)
3. Necrosis of the skin. MRSA will produce blackened dead skin which many people mistake for a scab.
That, and I had MRSA years ago and had it diagnosed by a doctor, so I was already familiar with the condition.
If you have pain way out of proportion and darkening skin (or any rash for that matter), that's not the time to play House. Call your doctor if you have one, or just go directly to the ER.
The primary distinguishing feature of MRSA vs regular staph aureus ("MSSA") is MRSA's resistance to oxacillin/methicillin. While you can find research papers distinguishing MRSA from MSSA on clinical grounds, I'm not familiar with any clinical distinguishing feature that is used in practice (aside from sensitivity analysis or PCR, which are laboratory techniques, not clinical ones).
This is exactly the problem with people self treating. Without a proper workup, which in this case would have likely involved some sort of diagnostic microbiology, people end up over- or mistreating themselves.
I also think it's a pretty good idea to carry emergency medication when traveling abroad. You won't know where medical care will be available, and indeed how to avail yourself of that care. Having a Z-pack and a couple of other things handy can save a lot of trouble. This has been a big boon to me more than once in the past. One one occasion the wife got a UTI, which is easily treatable with the right meds. On another occasion I helped out a fellow traveler, a doctor as it happens, by giving him an Ace bandage for a sprained ankle.
I actually have some fish meds stored in case of emergency, but have never been desperate enough to use them. The extra stuff I have on hand I acquired while traveling abroad, in countries that have looser restrictions on pharmaceuticals (this used to be Mexico, but they recently tightened up their laws).
Some people are imprisoned for the anti anxiety pill in their bllodstream that they took before the flight.
Carrying prescription medications with unclear prescriptions is risky advice unless you're sure about the country you're travelling to.
OMG, where? I need to be sure to never go there, given my random (being treated) phobias and such.
http://wikitravel.org/en/United_Arab_Emirates has some relevant info.
A woman was arrested for some passport/visa irregularity and they then took a urine sample and found Codeine and Temazepam in it, which she had been given by a doctor in the UK. They gave her a four year sentence, but she was eventually acquitted, after two months.
Harsh.
I hope it never gets to the point where I can get in trouble for my motion sickness pills.
Really? Which countries are now demanding blood samples at the border?