A little conflicting info regarding first aid treatment, but the issue is genuine it think.

RR708 from HSE (also written 2009, just checked)

Chris

The advice for basic first aid treatment did indeed change with the new RR from HSE.
However, advanced medical treatment remains unchanged.
It depends how strong your clinical governance is for your organisation.

Phil

HSE do seem a bit vague on this. All I could find was :-

http://webcommunities.hs...ight/view?objectId=11763

At one point I didn't think they were actually going to answer the question, but they did towards the end.

There is no date on this web page, to gauge if this info is out of date. The seemed to imply it was considered genuine at the time, but as Walker states actual evidence seems a bit thin on the ground.

I think If I were still in that sort of business I would still take it into consideration when doing the emergency planning.

Chris

I wrote my BSc dissertation on this topic in 2004 and at the time there was considerable research into orthostatic shock. I have lost my copy though in a hard drive error :(!

Hi billstrak

This is the misconception. It doesn't effect conscious casualties.
As they can be encouraged to move their legs etc to prevent the venous pooling, and build up of toxins etc. ST straps were a lovely piece of marketing. You get exactly the same results with a 32p length of blue draw cord and a blames hitch knot!! LOL.

Many say it doesn't happen, the original research was flawed as it polled every single IRATA member to see if they had ever been effected. OF COURSE THEY HADNT.
They are all skilled in self rescue, always under the supervision of a level 3, and never work alone. So they would never be in a position to experience this alleged phenomenon.
Very interesting subject though, in which I've done lots of research.
But I am a rope rescue nerd though!!

Phil

Guys,
Thanks for the very thoughtful, considered answers. It was from an idle moment staring out of a window that the question came but the answers are very interesting,
Many Thanks,
Jim

Ex Deeps,

I had an article on this published in 2006 by Tenalps publishing, that they picked up from a document I made free to use on the web regarding WAH rescue. The suspension trauma information that everyone was using at the time originally came from America, and as everyone has already stated, there was no published data to back their case up. The HSE had for some time been conducting their own research on suspension syncope, which is much more reliable and relevant. I think the use of language by the USA is a contributing factor in the perception of 'immediacy' when responding to an incident, however with the HSE information this could now be considered to be just 'damned urgent'!!

I think you only have to remember how our cousins from across the pond speak generally i.e. 'Elmer, I have a situation here'. or 'Hi there, would you like me to clean the bugs of the windshield and check under the hood' (translates to 'would you like me to wash your windscreen and check the engine fluid levels under the bonnet').

Simon

Indeed billstrak,

It goes as far back as the 1800's, and some academics even blame Christ's crucifixion death on the "syndrome"!!

1972 was probably one of the most useful years for research, as Flora & Holzl et al, amongst others produced very relevant data in this year.

It's all very interesting!

Phil

...the only thing the HSE guidance reinforced was that you treat the patient not the symptoms...I work a lot in remote/wilderness emergency medicine and have been struggling with the 'hypothetical' situation of harness induced syncope for years...saying that I still teach the theoretical effects...it was discussed as recently as last years Wilderness Medical Society conference at a breakout session I attended...but then that is predominated by Americans and well...they have a certain view of the world that isn't always based on reality...