First Aid whilst reffing

[Davet]

Phil E

Thanks for the update - maybe I should take a refresher, bit of a shock after being a first aid instructor during my Army days - admittedly that was early 80s.

I do know that what I learned works, and have used 1st aid in practice on several occasions.

50% of doctors/nurses probably can's find a pulse - they have machines to do that for them these days.

However, the guidance does seem to change more or less every year - maybe they need people to keep paying to take refreshers...

I hope the implication is not that unless you are bang upto date you should watch someone choke to death.

St John's still call it CPR, and don't recommend compression only. I deliberately avoided the old technique I was taught of using a clenched fist side on to bang above the heart to stop it before commencing cardiac compressions. The defibrillator does that now. The compressions will only pump existing oxygen into the brain and eslewhere, if you want to get air into the victim then mouth to mouth is the only way unless you have specialist equipment.

Not too sure why folks would be unwilling to do that - unless there is blood present. Most of us will happily kiss others say on New Year's eve.

 

[SimonSmith]

Just to repeat what I wrote earleir, you can't be sued for giving 1st aid.

It isn't quite that black and white.

Here in the USA you certainly can, and the Samaritan Protection is not absolute.

I would bet that similar legal standards would apply in the UK. There are few absolute circumstances in which legal cannot be taken

 

[Phil E]

Phil E
However, the guidance does seem to change more or less every year - maybe they need people to keep paying to take refreshers...

I do first aid at work and we have to have a 1 day refresher every year, with a longer course every 3 years.

The compressions will only pump existing oxygen into the brain and elsewhere, if you want to get air into the victim then mouth to mouth is the only way unless you have specialist equipment.

What they found was that a lot of people who had been trained were unwilling to step forward in an emergency because they didn't want to give mouth to mouth. Since there is an (I think) 80% chance that if you have to give compressions and rescue breaths, it will be to a family member, this wont usually be an issue. But they have made it so that you don't have to give rescue breaths if you don't want to since it is better to give compressions only, rather than do nothing. There is a large chance that a person will vomit, (as well as defecate or piss themselves) when they stop breathing or become unconscious. Add in that it might be a person with bad personal hygiene, might have been drinking, might have mouth ulcers, etc, etc. All these things have stopped people giving mouth to mouth in the past and with it, chest compressions. Now they are explicitly told they can do one without the other. Remember its the timely arrival of a defibrillator that will ultimately save your life, not giving rescue breaths.

It isn't quite that black and white.

Here in the USA you certainly can, and the Samaritan Protection is not absolute.

I would bet that similar legal standards would apply in the UK. There are few absolute circumstances in which legal cannot be taken

Simon, I should have stated that I was only talking about the UK, (I always forget we have so many Johnny Foreigners on here), however I was told categorically (on every course and as the very first thing they tell you), that you cannot get sued for giving first aid under any circumstances. Obviously you can't go doing a DIY tracheotomy! But then that wouldn't be first aid as taught.

 

[dave_clark]

(as well as defecate or piss themselves)

nice combination of correct terminology and slang :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

Obviously you can't go doing a DIY tracheotomy! But then that wouldn't be first aid as taught.

Although as part of our battlefield 1st aid we did get taught about it... also to pee on a burn if that's the only water available to cool it with... again not recommended in civvie life:nono:

I'm not sure I approve of a society in which halitosis can result in a death penalty - folks are really too damn prissy these days. To those who go "Ugh! but he smells" I would simply say "And if it was you down there dying and him in your position would you prefer that he avoided breathing on you?"

As far as being sued is concerned - I really cannot see it happening, and frankly wouldn't care anyway; I need to live with myself afterwards. And anyway, the 1st rule is that there's no point in suing someone with no money.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not sure I approve of a society in which halitosis can result in a death penalty - folks are really too damn prissy these days. To those who go "Ugh! but he smells" I would simply say "And if it was you down there dying and him in your position would you prefer that he avoided breathing on you?"

Not saying it's right, just saying it's a fact; and has resulted in a change of policy as a result. Paramedic gave us an example. He came across a tramp witha huge beard. The beard appeared to be moving and on closer inspection was found to be full of live maggots. Would you give mouth to mouth under those circumstances? Or would you just go "sorry never done first aid training". There is a morally correct answer and the actual answer.

nice combination of correct terminology and slang :biggrin:

LOL, couldn't think of the word "urinate" at the time.

 

[Adam]

Phil E

Thanks for the update - maybe I should take a refresher, bit of a shock after being a first aid instructor during my Army days - admittedly that was early 80s.

I do know that what I learned works, and have used 1st aid in practice on several occasions.

50% of doctors/nurses probably can's find a pulse - they have machines to do that for them these days.

However, the guidance does seem to change more or less every year - maybe they need people to keep paying to take refreshers...

I hope the implication is not that unless you are bang upto date you should watch someone choke to death.

St John's still call it CPR, and don't recommend compression only. I deliberately avoided the old technique I was taught of using a clenched fist side on to bang above the heart to stop it before commencing cardiac compressions. The defibrillator does that now. The compressions will only pump existing oxygen into the brain and eslewhere, if you want to get air into the victim then mouth to mouth is the only way unless you have specialist equipment.

Not too sure why folks would be unwilling to do that - unless there is blood present. Most of us will happily kiss others say on New Year's eve.

When I said start compressions, I meant 30:2, 30 chest compressions to 2 breaths. This is still the official guidance, but I've been told that it's likely to change during the next year or so.

I suppose the thinking about them potentially getting rid of the 2 breaths in between cycles in the future is that those two breaths probably aren't doing a lot when in a 30:2 cycle, and the effort is probably better used doing chest compressions. I'm sure that if they do decide to change it they'll keep the 2 rescue breaths when working as part of a team.

I don't know whether it has changed yet, all I know is that it hasn't changed for NPLQ lifeguards.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

There is a large chance that a person will vomit, (as well as defecate or piss themselves) when they stop breathing or become unconscious. Add in that it might be a person with bad personal hygiene, might have been drinking, might have mouth ulcers, etc, etc.

At the moment I am sorely tempted to make some reference to the West Midlands and its populace however I will resist the temptation.:biggrin:

I have FAAW certificate and am always struck by when I go for a refresher invariably the CPR stuff with the dummy is usually preceded by "the last time you did this it was probably 2 rescue breaths and 17 compressions well now it's 4.5 rescue breaths and 23 compressions and next year it'll be....etc etc - all a bit confusing to be honest.

 

[Adam]

What they found was that a lot of people who had been trained were unwilling to step forward in an emergency because they didn't want to give mouth to mouth. Since there is an (I think) 80% chance that if you have to give compressions and rescue breaths, it will be to a family member, this wont usually be an issue. But they have made it so that you don't have to give rescue breaths if you don't want to since it is better to give compressions only, rather than do nothing. There is a large chance that a person will vomit, (as well as defecate or piss themselves) when they stop breathing or become unconscious. Add in that it might be a person with bad personal hygiene, might have been drinking, might have mouth ulcers, etc, etc. All these things have stopped people giving mouth to mouth in the past and with it, chest compressions. Now they are explicitly told they can do one without the other. Remember its the timely arrival of a defibrillator that will ultimately save your life, not giving rescue breaths.

And this is why we are issued with face shields and masks are available at work.

Simon, I should have stated that I was only talking about the UK, (I always forget we have so many Johnny Foreigners on here), however I was told categorically (on every course and as the very first thing they tell you), that you cannot get sued for giving first aid under any circumstances. Obviously you can't go doing a DIY tracheotomy! But then that wouldn't be first aid as taught.

You won't get sued if you do First Aid correctly, but if you make a mistake they can sue you.

 

[nealed]

90% of heart attacks in this country are fatal? sounds like my mate who survived two was a one in a hundred shot...

no its 90% of cardiac arrests which are not the same

imho if someone is not breathing and pulseless on a rugby field you are not going to resuscitate them.

 

[nealed]

Phil E

Thanks for the update - maybe I should take a refresher, bit of a shock after being a first aid instructor during my Army days - admittedly that was early 80s.

I do know that what I learned works, and have used 1st aid in practice on several occasions.

50% of doctors/nurses probably can's find a pulse - they have machines to do that for them these days.

However, the guidance does seem to change more or less every year - maybe they need people to keep paying to take refreshers...

I hope the implication is not that unless you are bang upto date you should watch someone choke to death.

St John's still call it CPR, and don't recommend compression only. I deliberately avoided the old technique I was taught of using a clenched fist side on to bang above the heart to stop it before commencing cardiac compressions. The defibrillator does that now. The compressions will only pump existing oxygen into the brain and eslewhere, if you want to get air into the victim then mouth to mouth is the only way unless you have specialist equipment.

Not too sure why folks would be unwilling to do that - unless there is blood present. Most of us will happily kiss others say on New Year's eve.

davet they are always changing things and then changing them back
you wouldn't do much harm doing things your way
best do do the least required
keep the guy warm with loads of jackets and get an ambulance
very simple

 

[Phil E]

I suppose the thinking about them potentially getting rid of the 2 breaths

I didn't say they had been got rid of, I said you are now told that if you are not comfortable putting your gob around another persons, you dont have to.

 

[Adam]

I think Seattle (might have got the city wrong) is the best place in the world to have a heart attack because every public premises has to have a defibrillator by law. 70% chance of surviving, as opposed to less than 10% in the UK

Either in Seattle, or at a sports venue as they all have invested in them now.

 

[SimonSmith]

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm

I stand by my statement - even in the UK.
A legal claim CAN be brought. There may be an open question as to the chances of the claimant winning, but claims can be brought.

Blanket immunity does not exist.

 

[Phil E]

Blanket immunity does not exist.

Your talking (and so does the article) about theoreticaly being sued.

The reality is different, those who have tried it have always failed.

Although there have been a few cases in the United Kingdom where a claim has been brought against a “rescuer”, there have been no reported cases at all where a casualty has successfully sued someone who came to his aid in an emergency.

 

[stuart3826]

Aaaaaarrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SimonSmith]

there have been no reported cases at all where a casualty has successfully sued someone who came to his aid in an emergency.

You and I are agreeing, eventually. You said you can't be sued; I disagreed, and said that you can - but the chances of the case being successful is a different discussion. Your post validates that point.

If you are sued, and if the case actually gets to court, then someone, somewhere is racking up legal fees, and time and energy into the defence. That's why companies often settle lawsuits - not because they are actually liable, but because it's cheaper and better for the business to simply settle in some cases.

As I said - you can be sued. I doubt you'll lose, unless you do something stupid. But you absolutely can be sued.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Anyone see Mark Lawrence in the Maori v Ireland match?

One of the players had a contact lens come out, and was unable to get it back in. Mark Lawrence (a qualified optician) put it back in for him.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Anyone see Mark Lawrence in the Maori v Ireland match?

One of the players had a contact lens come out, and was unable to get it back in. Mark Lawrence (a qualified optician) put it back in for him.

That was handy. Lucky he wasn't a qualified proctologist.

 

[FlipFlop]

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm

I stand by my statement - even in the UK.
A legal claim CAN be brought. There may be an open question as to the chances of the claimant winning, but claims can be brought.

Blanket immunity does not exist.

Whereas over here (and in lots of the world) you can be sued for NOT getting involved.

You are protected in law if you do get involved (unless you are criminally negligent)