Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Updated guidelines

Expand Messages
  • Streonwold Wulfesbana (mka Steve Benetti)
    ... That s exactly what you re supposed to do. In my world, (Ski Patrol) we re proud that our training is only somewhat short of EMT. We ALWAYS check for
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
      --- In E-Chir@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff MaGee" <commie_smurf@...> wrote:

      > With all this updating going on and whatnot, unless it would breach
      > any insurance coverage I'll continue to treat individuals as I've
      > been trained to.

      That's exactly what you're supposed to do.

      In my world, (Ski Patrol) we're proud that our training is only
      somewhat short of EMT. We ALWAYS check for pulse at carotid and
      radial. We ALWAYS take and record pulse rate and condition twice,
      minimum - before and after treatment. In fact that applies to all
      vital signs. As we monitor before during and after transport, we
      continue to observe all the vitals and record any changes.

      What "the world" is teaching "lay" responders doesn't affect me at the
      hill. At the hill I'm the first link in the chain of 911 response.

      Away from the hill, as a Chirurgeon, I guess I should respond as a
      "lay" responder, but I am no more capable of dumbing down my
      responsiveness than would be an MD, a nurse or an EMT. My treatments,
      however are a different story. Firstly, I don't usually have
      backboards, O2, etc. avilable for my use. Secondly, I'm required to
      render basic first aid - only, so I don't bring my own O2, backboard,
      etc, to the party.

      I do what I'm trained to do - identify life threats, try and prevent
      death, attempt resuscitation if indicated (using the new CPR
      protocol), call 911 when necessary (essentially what I do on the hill).

      I don't see any problems.
    • MaryCatharine
      Well said! MariaKatharina/MaryCatharine .... Of course he has a knife. He always has knives. We all have knives. It s 1183 and we re all barbarians.
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
         
        Well said!
         
         MariaKatharina/MaryCatharine
        ...."Of course he has a knife. He always has knives.
        We all have knives.  It's 1183 and we're all barbarians."

        Katharine Hepburn (1907 - 2003) As: Eleanor of  Aquitaine.
        The Lion in Winter. 1968
        -------Original Message-------
         
        Date: 12/7/2006 6:36:36 AM
        Subject: [E-Chir] Re: Updated guidelines
         

        Well.....

        With all this updating going on and whatnot, unless it would breach any
        insurance coverage I'll continue to treat individuals as I've been trained
        to. *shrug* Call me crazy if you want, but the minute I'm dealing with
        anything - regardless of severity - I immediately snap to my instincts... ..

        Am I a 'by the book' individual? Hell no. I won't lie about it.

        As a first aider it's your job to asses, record and give initial (and basic
        compared to the standards of paramedics and hospitals) treatment. Some of
        us are more experienced, and thus are capable of better assessing and
        treating a patient before needing to resort to paramedics, but never allow
        yourself to get in over your head. A little cut on the finger isn't worthy
        of a 911 call....a missing one definitely is. Yes, that's an exaggeration,
        but I'm sure you all get the point!

        - Lorcan Lotharsonne (m.k.a. Jeff MaGee)

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        Download now! Visit http://www.telusmob ility.com/ msnxbox/ to enter and see
        how cool it is to get Messenger with you on your cell phone.
        http://www.telusmob ility.com/ msnxbox/

         
      • Kim
        Actually, Society guidelines allow up to Advanced first aid. The is no barrier to using advanced first aid equipment if you have it available, the barrier is
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
          Actually, Society guidelines allow up to Advanced first aid. The is no
          barrier to using advanced first aid equipment if you have it available, the
          barrier is to the Society or any subgroup thereof *owning* them.

          Kaellyn




          >
          > Away from the hill, as a Chirurgeon, I guess I should respond as a
          > "lay" responder, but I am no more capable of dumbing down my
          > responsiveness than would be an MD, a nurse or an EMT. My treatments,
          > however are a different story. Firstly, I don't usually have
          > backboards, O2, etc. avilable for my use. Secondly, I'm required to
          > render basic first aid - only, so I don't bring my own O2, backboard,
          > etc, to the party.
          >
        • S. Rabinovitch
          ... [S. Rabinovitch] And Streonwold replied: That s exactly what you re supposed to do. ... I do what I m trained to do - identify life threats, try and
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006


             

            --- In E-Chir@yahoogroups. com, "Jeff MaGee" <commie_smurf@ ...> wrote:

            > With all this updating going on and whatnot, unless it would breach
            > any insurance coverage I'll continue to treat individuals as I've
            > been trained to.

            [S. Rabinovitch] And Streonwold replied: 
            That's exactly what you're supposed to do. 

             ... I do what I'm trained to do - identify life threats, try and prevent
            death, attempt resuscitation if indicated (using the new CPR
            protocol), call 911 when necessary (essentially what I do on the hill).

            I don't see any problems.
            [S. Rabinovitch] NEITHER DO I.

            <Signed, your Kingdom boss-lady>  <GRIN>

            .

          • Bethoc (Lesley)
            Greetings all! The CPR guidelines get reviewed (and modified) every 5 years. This year is a grandfathering year as many people will have been certified by
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
              Greetings all!
               
              The CPR guidelines get reviewed (and modified) every 5 years. This year is a "grandfathering" year as many people will have been certified by old standards because their instructors were not given the new information until late in 2005. There is always a delay in roll-out.
               
              *snip*

              "Streonwold Wulfesbana (mka Steve Benetti)" <streonwold@...> wrote:
              What "the world" is teaching "lay" responders doesn't affect me at the
              hill. At the hill I'm the first link in the chain of 911 response.

              Away from the hill, as a Chirurgeon, I guess I should respond as a
              "lay" responder, but I am no more capable of dumbing down my
              responsiveness than would be an MD, a nurse or an EMT. My treatments,
              .

               
               
              *return to diatribe*
               
              The changes in the CPR guidelines are not just "dumbing down" of information, and it's not just being taught to lay-people. Keep in mind that this isn't being done to "take away" knowledge from the trained provider. A responder can take pulses to their heart's delight on every other patient (wherever she/he likes to stick look for a pulse *smirk*). And it is certainly an important skill to have.
               
              The changes are based on scientific study that is been researched and reviewed by major world-wide organisations. In the end of it all, the changes are to better the outcome for the individual (not to enhance the experience for the responder!). Of course, in five years time, they will re-evaluate and see if these changes are helpful (don't you like being guinea pigs?)
               
              The rationale is all about getting blood oxygenated and circulated *quickly*.
               
              Consider :
              In cardiac arrest, the heart is quivering and/or not moving and therefore not able to pump out blood. Regardless if the collapse is witnessed or not, if the airway is open and there is no breathing it is logical to assume that an immense cardiac event could be a causative factor. It takes a least 20-30 seconds to get to the "pulse check point" from the discovery of the casualty, checking and securing the scene, calling for help, assessing responsiveness, sending for help, look, listen, feel, and ventilate x 2. So why wait to check a pulse? Even with the fastest 10 second carotid pulse check, this now approaches 30-45 seconds less that the casualty/patient's heart is getting oxygenated blood from the beginning of the event (not considering the the seconds to minutes that the person's heart malfunctioned enough to cause the collapse!). We were taught to be scared of doing damage to the heart during CPR if it was beating. I think that's why we sill want to do the pulse check. Well it looks like the damage it may cause is overshadowed by the benefit of circulating oxygenated blood. Besides, if breating has stopped because of cardiac arrest, what little heartbeat there is will soon stop.
               
              Consider:
              The ratio of compressions to ventilations has changed to facilitate teaching and retention, yes. However, the ratio also provides for improved circulation of oxygenated blood. What's the point of oxygenating blood if it doesn't get circulated properly? We now perform 100 compressions/minute of hard and fast CPR with full compression recoil (i.e. come all the way up after you compress to let the heart fill). Since it takes 4 minutes for brain damage, you're not doing any harm to the person to circulate oxygenated blood for 1 minute between breaths (ie 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio) especially to the coronary (heart) muscles which need it the most at that moment. Even in ACLS and ER treatment, which includes drugs and electric shock delivery, we now employ two minutes of CPR to let the drugs circulate between electric shocks. This is a big change for acute care providers!
               
              Consider:
              You attend to someone whose family member happens to know the latest CPR guidelines... and understands there is rationale behind them (even if that person doesn't know what or why, a lawyer can find out for them!)... who can then bring into question the scientific logic behind a responder being "old school". I'd be concerned about legal issues then! It's hard to throw off your teaching, I know... believe me in ACLS the idea of not shocking a person three times in a row to start with (which we used to do) is a mental jump for many of my colleagues and I. But I'd suggest that a responder would have to be careful to perform as she/he were certified to with the new guidelines in order to protect her/hiself... besides, this information is also released as "best practise" and it is the best we have to go on right now.
              Personally, I perform my acute emergency response with the latest guidelines (even if I can do CPR compressions for longer than the recommended two minutes, I don't want someone to accuse me of peforming poorly and causing harm... so the switch off, when we can do it, is two minutes. simple)
               
              and if five years time...who knows how things will change then???
               
              stay warm!
              Beth{o'}c
               


              solis sacerdotibus. Ave atque vale.


              Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos

            • Streonwold Wulfesbana (mka Steve Benetti)
              ... good stuff about resuscitation, below my own comments Bethoc, I think you just made my point. You see, MariaKatharina had said, With the new modalities,
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
                --- In E-Chir@yahoogroups.com, "Bethoc \(Lesley\)" > wrote: A lot of
                good stuff about resuscitation, below my own comments

                Bethoc, I think you just made my point.

                You see, MariaKatharina had said, "With the new modalities, we no
                longer teach the "lay person" to take a "pulse", anywhere, period...
                We are to only teaching/recerting EMS to "take pulses "..."

                And then Seonag asked, "Who is "we" ... " and, separately, "So, what
                about the first aid side (St. Johns and Red Cross) do they not teach
                that any more either?"

                And then MariaKatharina responded, "That was the whole point...
                The "we" IS everyone...
                It is not the "new Heart and Stroke guidelines".
                It is the new guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and
                first aid were released recently by ILCOR, the International Liaison
                Committee on Resuscitation, in 2006, who are the body that reviews
                CPR and first aid every five years. "

                I was, in my clumsy fashion, trying to point out that not all
                first-aid involves resuscitation. There are many instances when a
                first aider will want to take a pulse, no matter what the protocol for
                resuscitation is.

                When I send a living patient to the hospital, they will have a note
                containing a full assessment of vital signs, a description of the
                mechanism of injury, suspected injuries, treatment rendered, and the
                patient's response to that treatment, as I've been taught.

                When resuscitation is required, the latest modalities that I have been
                taught are what I will use. Period.

                As for the "dumbing down" attitude - if you remove a level of
                assesment and decision from any process, it has been "dumbed down."
                Whatever the rationale. (I won't argue with the rationale - it's not
                my place to set standards for resuscitation.)

                warmly,
                Streonwold

                > Greetings all!
                >
                > The CPR guidelines get reviewed (and modified) every 5 years. This
                year is a "grandfathering" year as many people will have been
                certified by old standards because their instructors were not given
                the new information until late in 2005. There is always a delay in
                roll-out.
                snip
                > *return to diatribe*
                >
                > The changes in the CPR guidelines are not just "dumbing down" of
                information, and it's not just being taught to lay-people. Keep in
                mind that this isn't being done to "take away" knowledge from the
                trained provider. A responder can take pulses to their heart's delight
                on every other patient (wherever she/he likes to stick look for a
                pulse *smirk*). And it is certainly an important skill to have.
                >
                > The changes are based on scientific study that is been researched
                and reviewed by major world-wide organisations. In the end of it all,
                the changes are to better the outcome for the individual (not to
                enhance the experience for the responder!). Of course, in five years
                time, they will re-evaluate and see if these changes are helpful
                (don't you like being guinea pigs?)
                >
                > The rationale is all about getting blood oxygenated and circulated
                *quickly*.
                >
                > Consider :
                > In cardiac arrest, the heart is quivering and/or not moving and
                therefore not able to pump out blood. Regardless if the collapse is
                witnessed or not, if the airway is open and there is no breathing it
                is logical to assume that an immense cardiac event could be a
                causative factor. It takes a least 20-30 seconds to get to the "pulse
                check point" from the discovery of the casualty, checking and securing
                the scene, calling for help, assessing responsiveness, sending for
                help, look, listen, feel, and ventilate x 2. So why wait to check a
                pulse? Even with the fastest 10 second carotid pulse check, this now
                approaches 30-45 seconds less that the casualty/patient's heart is
                getting oxygenated blood from the beginning of the event (not
                considering the the seconds to minutes that the person's heart
                malfunctioned enough to cause the collapse!). We were taught to be
                scared of doing damage to the heart during CPR if it was beating. I
                think that's why we sill want to do the pulse check.
                > Well it looks like the damage it may cause is overshadowed by the
                benefit of circulating oxygenated blood. Besides, if breating has
                stopped because of cardiac arrest, what little heartbeat there is will
                soon stop.
                >
                > Consider:
                > The ratio of compressions to ventilations has changed to
                facilitate teaching and retention, yes. However, the ratio also
                provides for improved circulation of oxygenated blood. What's the
                point of oxygenating blood if it doesn't get circulated properly? We
                now perform 100 compressions/minute of hard and fast CPR with full
                compression recoil (i.e. come all the way up after you compress to let
                the heart fill). Since it takes 4 minutes for brain damage, you're not
                doing any harm to the person to circulate oxygenated blood for 1
                minute between breaths (ie 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio)
                especially to the coronary (heart) muscles which need it the most at
                that moment. Even in ACLS and ER treatment, which includes drugs and
                electric shock delivery, we now employ two minutes of CPR to let the
                drugs circulate between electric shocks. This is a big change for
                acute care providers!
                >
                > Consider:
                > You attend to someone whose family member happens to know the
                latest CPR guidelines... and understands there is rationale behind
                them (even if that person doesn't know what or why, a lawyer can find
                out for them!)... who can then bring into question the scientific
                logic behind a responder being "old school". I'd be concerned about
                legal issues then! It's hard to throw off your teaching, I know...
                believe me in ACLS the idea of not shocking a person three times in a
                row to start with (which we used to do) is a mental jump for many of
                my colleagues and I. But I'd suggest that a responder would have to be
                careful to perform as she/he were certified to with the new guidelines
                in order to protect her/hiself... besides, this information is also
                released as "best practise" and it is the best we have to go on right now.
                >
                > Personally, I perform my acute emergency response with the latest
                guidelines (even if I can do CPR compressions for longer than the
                recommended two minutes, I don't want someone to accuse me of
                peforming poorly and causing harm... so the switch off, when we can do
                it, is two minutes. simple)
                >
                > and if five years time...who knows how things will change then???
                >
                > stay warm!
                > Beth{o'}c
                >
                >
                >
                > solis sacerdotibus. Ave atque vale.
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
                >
              • Bethoc (Lesley)
                this made me smile... Streonwold wrote: When I send a living patient to the hospital, they will have a note containing a full assessment of vital signs, a
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
                  this made me smile...

                  Streonwold wrote:
                  When I send a living patient to the hospital, they will have a note
                  containing a full assessment of vital signs, a description of the
                  mechanism of injury, suspected injuries, treatment rendered, and the
                  patient's response to that treatment, as I've been taught.

                  .

                   
                  because quite often, I get "half" reports from medics arriving in the emergency (often they may have a "scoop and go" patient... but sometimes it's ... well... can't be bothered. I ask allergies? and they turn to the patient and say "do you have any allergies"). Whereas many first aiders I know are respectably trained to get a full history and give a *good* report!
                  what would the world do without us?
                   
                  equally warmly,
                  Beth{o'}c (the tongue twisted)


                  solis sacerdotibus. Ave atque vale.


                  Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.