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

Re: [E-Chir] Re: Updated guidelines

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
       
      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 2 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , Dec 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment


           

          --- 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 4 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 9 , Dec 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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.