New First aid booklet, possibly?

#5
jack-daniels said:
This has been in for a while, it was changed from 15:2 to 30:2 and you could omit the rescue breaths if you wanted as it appeared that a lot of people weren't happy slapping the lips on someone dying. All decisions in the UK regarding CPR come from here:

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/compCprs.htm
I was told that it was because there should be oxygen in the blood anyway so they weren't needed unless the person had drowned.
 
#6
tothepubandbeyond said:
jack-daniels said:
This has been in for a while, it was changed from 15:2 to 30:2 and you could omit the rescue breaths if you wanted as it appeared that a lot of people weren't happy slapping the lips on someone dying. All decisions in the UK regarding CPR come from here:

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/compCprs.htm
I was told that it was because there should be oxygen in the blood anyway so they weren't needed unless the person had drowned.
It was, but your average Joe Public on the street doesn't know that and they wouldn't do 'mouth to mouth' on a slobering old drunk or whoever plus the fear of catching aids etc. This is why it is now Danger Response Airways Breathing as well because the average person took too long trying to find a pulse so they got rid of the Circulation bit in DRABC.
 
#7
Had been introduced a short while before... what grips my sh*t is the way this changes so bloody often... in the past few years I have been taught so many different ways of doing it I've lost count... and track of what I should be doing.

I wouldnt mind but the cynical part of me (yup, thats a pretty large part!) thinks that it is often change for changes sake (heard that elesewhere?!) or alternativly change for the sake of flogging new books etc (employer's current editions now out of date aren't they!).

This latter point reminds me of the demise of the 'survive to fight' booklet which, by all accounts, was pretty good. I was recently told that they were all taken off blokes because they were 'out of date.' I confess to not knowing exactly in what respect but wonder if 'NBC' needed to be substituted by 'CBRN' or some other arrse that means much the same - surely mildly out of date information is better than none at all?
 
#8
Medical research- pah. If you stay in the business long enough the old ways return, most of the time it's just doctors on panels playing and feeling important with little change in outcome for the patient.
 
#9
Flot_gear said:
Had been introduced a short while before... what grips my sh*t is the way this changes so bloody often... in the past few years I have been taught so many different ways of doing it I've lost count... and track of what I should be doing.

I wouldnt mind but the cynical part of me (yup, thats a pretty large part!) thinks that it is often change for changes sake (heard that elesewhere?!) or alternativly change for the sake of flogging new books etc (employer's current editions now out of date aren't they!).

This latter point reminds me of the demise of the 'survive to fight' booklet which, by all accounts, was pretty good. I was recently told that they were all taken off blokes because they were 'out of date.' I confess to not knowing exactly in what respect but wonder if 'NBC' needed to be substituted by 'CBRN' or some other arrse that means much the same - surely mildly out of date information is better than none at all?
The survive to fight booklet is still being given to TA recruits round these parts
 
#10
suits_U said:
The survive to fight booklet is still being given to TA recruits round these parts
Bet they wonder why you have to cut the smock off to remove it when there's a perfectly good zip there....
 
#11
Flot_gear said:
Had been introduced a short while before... what grips my sh*t is the way this changes so bloody often... in the past few years I have been taught so many different ways of doing it I've lost count... and track of what I should be doing.

I wouldnt mind but the cynical part of me (yup, thats a pretty large part!) thinks that it is often change for changes sake (heard that elesewhere?!) or alternativly change for the sake of flogging new books etc (employer's current editions now out of date aren't they!).

This latter point reminds me of the demise of the 'survive to fight' booklet which, by all accounts, was pretty good. I was recently told that they were all taken off blokes because they were 'out of date.' I confess to not knowing exactly in what respect but wonder if 'NBC' needed to be substituted by 'CBRN' or some other arrse that means much the same - surely mildly out of date information is better than none at all?
With you all the way - the human body ain't changed much (well tabs, pies and booze always make the PFT a bit of a close shave for me) and yet every time I seem to do First Aid or whatever its fcuking called now (BCDT - until next year no doubt), something I was taught last year is suddenly as popular as cot death (is that still fatal?). What is wrong with these people do they like rewriting pams or something?
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#12
I've used CPR (15:2) on a real casualty some years ago (OK, 18....). It worked and the casualty recovered from his injuries. So until it someone proves to me that the old method of CPR DOESN'T work, I'll be prepared to use the same method again in the future.
 
#13
Legs said:
I've used CPR (15:2) on a real casualty some years ago (OK, 18....). It worked and the casualty recovered from his injuries. So until it someone proves to me that the old method of CPR DOESN'T work, I'll be prepared to use the same method again in the future.
Blimey! Out of the 6 times I've performed it, its only worked once! Maybe I'm just shite at it, the last one we gave CPR for an hour. From finding him in a car, to start performing CPR on the roadside and continuing in an ambulance and in the hospital. It was quite gutting after all that for him to die on us.
 
#15
sanchauk said:
This has been in for a while, it was changed from 15:2 to 30:2 and you could omit the rescue breaths if you wanted as it appeared that a lot of people weren't happy slapping the lips on someone dying. All decisions in the UK regarding CPR come from here:

www.resus.org.uk/pages/compCprs.htm
So what has it gone to if it's a team effort? I thinik it used to be 5:1?
Team effort went donkeys ago mate, this is the problem when they change it so often, still 5:1 is better than 0:0.

You continue doing CPR until:

Professional Help Arrives (Paramedic, Dr etc)
The patient recovers (unlikely)
You are too tired to continue (get someone else to take over)
 
#17
Team effort went donkeys ago mate, this is the problem when they change it so often, still 5:1 is better than 0:0.

You continue doing CPR until:

Professional Help Arrives (Paramedic, Dr etc)
The patient recovers (unlikely)
You are too tired to continue (get someone else to take over)
Thanks J_D. Must admit my one and only effort wasn't too successful, but at least you have the knowledge you've done your best.
 
#18
eveyoz said:
Medical research- pah. If you stay in the business long enough the old ways return, most of the time it's just doctors on panels playing and feeling important with little change in outcome for the patient.
Remember when tourniquets where regarded as the devils own invention.
Now you cant move for the makes and variations on the market.
Funny that the Samway type was only recently removed from the packing lists and medical moduals, and they used that pre WW1!!
 
#19
jack-daniels said:
Legs said:
I've used CPR (15:2) on a real casualty some years ago (OK, 18....). It worked and the casualty recovered from his injuries. So until it someone proves to me that the old method of CPR DOESN'T work, I'll be prepared to use the same method again in the future.
Blimey! Out of the 6 times I've performed it, its only worked once! Maybe I'm just shite at it, the last one we gave CPR for an hour. From finding him in a car, to start performing CPR on the roadside and continuing in an ambulance and in the hospital. It was quite gutting after all that for him to die on us.
Generally arrests where the body remains in the upright or head elevated position are a non starter. The blood often drains away from the organs (including brain) reducing the chances of recovery drastically (I'd guess to nil ;-) ).

Good effort though.

When you are doing CPR if someone else can feel a decent radial pulse as you push the chest you are doing a good enough job.
 
#20
Ive done CPR in resus in field hospitals and in the operating theatre, none have survived, but we did constant chest compressions and breaths (using mask and tubing).
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top