Rank: Forum user
|
We have recently placed defibrillators at all of our sites and have trained all of our First Aiders to use them.
Whilst our policy so far has been to restrict use of the machines to trained first aiders only, we are considering whether to allow use by untrained persons if no first aiders are immediately available.
Whilst we would expect that the number of first aiders trained to use them should mean that the use by untrained persons would be very unlikely, we nevertheless have to consider it.
Your thoughts and comments would be welcomed.
Thank you.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I understood that modern defibrillators were deigned to be used by just about anybody.
i.e they can sense when it is safe to provide the required shock to the heart or not if the heart isn't ready for a shock.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As with Nici, but you may find that people just want their fears covered with a training session. I find that there are those who fear the kit may actually do harm when it is used if the heart rhythm is OK, but the modern defib's will only shock when the pads are on correctly and it senses an irregular heart, so modern ones are pretty fool proof...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The Resuscitation Council position is in this paper.
https://www.resus.org.uk/pages/AEDsecst.htm
Basically, time is critical, and it is better that an untrained person has a go if there is no first aider immediately available.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi all,
Believe it or not, that has just been discussed at our Community Council AGM and the exact same points as here were raised.
Nici, the point that you made was raised and the only codicil that was brought in, by a female council member, trained in the use of AEDs, was the risk of burn damage to a female who was wearing an underwired bra or people with piercings.
Unsure obviously of the percentages involved, but something that people need to be aware of.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the defibrillator delivers a shock, then a shock was necessary.
I have read that, without the shock, the casualty will certainly die. I would rate the risk of burns as a minor irritation in comparison!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I quite agree with Jane.
Some people just don't put things into persepctive.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hitting the heart 'reset' button....when no bystander CPR is being given you have around 6 mins to carry this out and have a 60% chance of ROSC or restarting it...it then drops 10% for every minute after that...
Just because under PUWER you need to train staff doesn't mean you should restrict lifesaving equipment at work...there are simple rules but it talks you through that..!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ciaran Delaney wrote:Hi all,
Believe it or not, that has just been discussed at our Community Council AGM and the exact same points as here were raised.
Nici, the point that you made was raised and the only codicil that was brought in, by a female council member, trained in the use of AEDs, was the risk of burn damage to a female who was wearing an underwired bra or people with piercings.
Unsure obviously of the percentages involved, but something that people need to be aware of.
Checking for piercings, patches and pacemakers should be all part of basic AED training.
Underwired bras should be cut through the centre removing the risk of arcing.
All AEDs should have a pouch containing tuff cut shears, a razor, gloves, mini towel, and pocket face mask.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have just been reading this post and a thought occurred to me about cutting off an underwire bra. How many males untrained or trained in the use of AEDs would be willing to cut off a bra for fear of being accused of inappropriate action. Especially if a shock is not required after fitting the AED to the casualty.
I know from my time as a Red Cross first aider that some females are uncomfortable being treated by a male if they have to remove clothing.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If we were to listen to the comments on here we would not be placing public access defibs across the country........
It is a successful program and I would probably have to say that restricting the use to trained staff only could result in some tough questions being asked of the company by the coroner.....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would love to see evidence supporting the above, it's vital that we remove any barriers with regards 'staying alive' and to eliminate barriers to save a life must be welcomed
David
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Recent decided case in California appeal court has concluded there is no common law duty to provide AEDs in that state.... Reasonably sure the same decision would be made if such a case were to brought in the UK... Once again it would appear a lot of people are jumping on a bandwagon built by the manufacturers and suppliers of the latest thing since sliced bread (D&A testing anyone?). I didn't buy a Betamax (or an eight track) - and I haven't yet been persuaded that buying an AED is the best use of limited health and safety resources for most businesses.
How do you measure the 'success' of the program? If it is by the number of AEDs purchased then yes its been a great (monumental) success... If you try to measure by the number of lives extended or the years added to life... then I have yet to see any objective numbers...
Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thomas26098,
ROI evidence, Previously out of hospital cardiac arrest had 1% survival rate. With the widespread introduction of Dfib and training this has risen to 5%. Based on 5000 cardiac arrests per annum- source: Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council (PHECC)
Mike52,
A person who is unconscious is unable to give consent and likewise they are unable to object to treatment so therefore this should not be a barrier to providing treatment. It is up to the first aider or responder to take charge of an emergency situation and interference from bystander's is commonplace but must be dealt with by the responder. They are the trained person. If the requirement of using the AED is to remove a bra with a metal underwire then this is what is needed. By the time the AED arrives the chest should be bare as this is a basic requirement of providing chest compressions.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
mike52 wrote:I have just been reading this post and a thought occurred to me about cutting off an underwire bra. How many males untrained or trained in the use of AEDs would be willing to cut off a bra for fear of being accused of inappropriate action. Especially if a shock is not required after fitting the AED to the casualty.
I know from my time as a Red Cross first aider that some females are uncomfortable being treated by a male if they have to remove clothing.
Mike
Females in cardiac arrest or suspected cardiac arrest are unresponsive and will not feel uncomfortable at any time.
Patients in cardiac arrest will die if not defibrillated. This is not up for debate. The only reversal for cardiac arrest is the application of a defibrillator ( preferably within a couple of minutes of the event ) the only way that this is possible on some occasions is for a public access defib to be available, as we the ambulance service cannot always get there within the 8 minutes of the event by the time cardiac arrest has been identified, and a member of the public calling it in.
If they're not also doing bystander CPR to keep the patient in a shockable rythmn, it's not going to be a good outcome even with a defib. But you DO need a defib. CPR is just a holding pattern.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It really is quite simple....if you have a Defib on site it should be for the use of all...and you may wish to consider offering that up as a PAD (Public Access Defib) especially if you are in a remote/difficult access area..
|
|
|
|
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.