 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Administrators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 23/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 21,770
Points: 65,322
Location: United Kingdom
Thanks: 1 times
|
My take on the guidelines is that they want us to teach drowning as a special case when someone has a specific duty of care e.g. lifeguards.
My question is why there is no mention of a casualty overcome by fumes (or other such scenarios), as in my opinion this casualty would also benefit from additional rescue breaths prior to starting CPR.
Posted by bobbyhall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Administrators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 23/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 21,770
Points: 65,322
Location: United Kingdom
Thanks: 1 times
|
There may be a slight benefit in reoxygenation from performing rescue breaths before the first compression cycle, but it would be only a matter of 20 seconds difference, and you must consider that the first aider has to protect themselves against inhaling the same gas during rescue breaths. Chest compressions will assist in partially emptying the lungs, and so would reduce the potential for a first aider to inhale the expired air of the casualty. Certainly the need to increase ppO2 is critical for plain old anoxia (suffocation by a 'safe' gas such as CO2) but if they've breathed in cyanide it's a different scale of problem!
~D~
Posted by LOAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Administrators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 23/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 21,770
Points: 65,322
Location: United Kingdom
Thanks: 1 times
|
Besides the whole point of the new protocols is to make things simple and get a wide range of people up to a basic lay skill. If the resus council thought that such a first aider could reliably diagnose things like trauma, intocication, inhalation of gases etc. they would not have changed the guidlines. Now these people only have to alter treatment for those casualties who are kids or have drown (pretty obvious in both cases. I'm not saying they are right necessarily but if the emphasis is now on simplification then there has to be a line drawn somewhere regarding understanding mechanism of injury and appropriate change in treatment. Besides the only likely way a lay first aider could confidently recognise fumes/dangerous gases is with witness accounts or blatently damged cylinders/pipes etc. In which case I'd expect them to stand off and call for help.
Posted by rus
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Newbie Groups:
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 0
Points: 0
|
Does anyone have a definative answer as to why the updated VAS manual advocates the 1 minute of resuc modifier for a drowning victim (for the lay person,) where as the resuc guidelines states that the modifier should only be taught to those with a "specific dity of care to drowning victims, e.g. lifeguards"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.