New CPR guidelines for drowning victims - get those breaths in!

[John Kennett]

CPR protocols have been revised again, and this time there is recognition that drowning is different from a heart attack, making ventilation a the immediate priority not, compressions. It looks like the "rescue breath" is back!

Interesting article about it here:
Drowning is different : ventilations, ventilations, ventilations. – Nile Swimmers

[willk]

That's interesting Boss, thanks for sharing. I will be renewing my STCW95 Basic First Aid in a couple of weeks - I'll report back on where that's at now.

[Poly]

I'm so out of date it had never left!

[jeffstevens763@g]

Could never understand why it changed as the first on the scene and not knowing the circumstances airway blocked ? best get some o2 in there then pump it round for how long it takes.

[jonp]

We were the only country to never stop doing the breaths, though I did recently do a first aid course where the told everyone we didn't have to do them.

Jon

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by jeffstevens763@g

Could never understand why it changed as the first on the scene and not knowing the circumstances airway blocked ? best get some o2 in there then pump it round for how long it takes.

Coz compressing the chest introduces some air anyway. But may not be enough where cause of arrest is hypoxia (i.e. drowning) rather than arrhythmias.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by jonp

though I did recently do a first aid course where the told everyone we didn't have to do them

Better to do compressions without breaths than do nothing. It's the breaths that freak people out.

[rigi36]

The UK guidelines have been like this for a while

[markmullen]

Originally Posted by rigi36

The UK guidelines have been like this for a while

Indeed, for drowning 5 initial breaths followed by the usual 30/2 ratio of compressions to breaths.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by markmullen

Indeed, for drowning 5 initial breaths followed by the usual 30/2 ratio of compressions to breaths.

+1 The current first aid manual, feb2014 states this. I've never understood the point of compressions without breaths, IMHO it was a dumbing down exercise.

[markmullen]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

+1 The current first aid manual, feb2014 states this. I've never understood the point of compressions without breaths, IMHO it was a dumbing down exercise.

I think the general premise was that passers by helping in a first aid situation were more likely to get involved if they thought they didn't have to do mouth-to-mouth. That said disposable mouth shields are pennies and mean a much more pleasant experience for both parties.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by markmullen

. That said disposable mouth shields are pennies and mean a much more pleasant experience for both parties.

The recipient really doesn't care!

[markmullen]

Originally Posted by Poly

The recipient really doesn't care!

There is that

[Pikey Dave]

I've been doing the FAW course since I started work at 16, so 35+ years. In a previous life I used to compete in national First Aid competitions . I've seen a gradual decline in the standard & quality of the training over the years. Not least since it used to be a 5 day course, now it's down to 3. The general approach seems to be, as long as you're doing something, it's ok. The focus now seems to be on fulfilling employers obligations to provide the required number of first aiders, rather than quality. Actually saving lives seems to be a bonus.
All IMHO of course.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Actually saving lives seems to be a bonus.
All IMHO of course.

Someone on here once said that there was no shortage of spare people...

[Pikey Dave]

Busted😄
But why go through the pretence, it's become yet another box ticking exercise.


.....sh1t happens.......

[Wibs]

Originally Posted by Poly

The recipient really doesn't care!

Apparently they do...!!!



http://youtu.be/QPsn17_a8-g

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Wibs

Apparently they do...!!!



http://youtu.be/QPsn17_a8-g

She's got Nice tieeth.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Busted😄
But why go through the pretence, it's become yet another box ticking exercise.


.....sh1t happens.......

The course and requirements are crazy. No child CPR, choking etc. You could be a restaurant and no need to cover it.

Required to have right ratio of staff, but not necessarily on that shift.

No risk relationship to the job. Yes anyone can have a heart attack. Risk of a compound open fracture in your average call centre must be fairly low and response time fairly fast. Risk on a quarry in the highlands will be +++ higher. But probably very little need for kids stuff.

Only people required to have kids first aid are people who look after kids.

Work in a hospital. Our department is required to have someone certified to the 3 day level for staff numbers even though we can have an entire resus team there in about 90seconds. Our risk level is relatively low.

If you are trained the guidelines state 30:2. If you are not trained (a) its easier to encourage people to try without face shield etc (b) if a telephone operator is talking through it its much easier to talk through compressions than both. Pinch nose ... Where (not like a nose bleed). Tilt head back. Lift jaw. Seal. Breath. Repeat. Do all that in 10seconds.

Or compress the chest and it will get some air in it.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Wibs

Apparently they do...!!!

http://youtu.be/QPsn17_a8-g

That's gotta be a joke. If its not I hope it goes all the way to court and the judge rips her to little pieces.

Under UK law, if you are acting in an emergency, doing what is likely to be what someone would have wanted if they were able to consent but are not able to no consent is needed. #SueMe!