As part of retaining my first aid qualification, I attended a refresher day with St John’s Ambulance yesterday. It occurred to me that such private training establishments can have huge influence not just on its members and clients but also in changing national statistics. In this case my inference relates to the reactive outcome for those who successfully receive the “right” treatment from the outset of injury or in other words, the qualitative outcome rather than the better known quantitative measures.
It has been 2 years since my last training session and I was surprised at how much had changed and how quickly. For example, the term “shock” has been dropped from the official course literature due to what is seen as a misinterpretation of the word by first aiders particularly when communicating to the medical profession. This change in focus includes communicating the symptoms of the patient as opposed to prescribing and communicating the diagnosis which was invariably wrong in many circumstances. This change is further demonstrated with more of a focus given to placing a patient on their side instead of demonstrating the well known “recovery position” which is no longer taught.
Paramedics say the changes are more about getting on with the treatment rather than spending time taking a pulse or considering whether to apply breaths before compressions in CPR (which was the case for children but not adults).
There is no testimony to the changes, beyond stating there was not any previous medical evidence for supporting these practices, however, I can’t help but feel the approach has changed in an attempt to improve patient recovery. Training first aiders with less basic information does appear to be an approach being adopted to improve on quality of outcomes albeit at the expense of a reduction of knowledge to the first-aider.

I'm confused as to your titile about 'New Zealand update' yet you appear to be based in the the UK????

I've not retaken my quals for years (and should really) but I'd be suprised if the recovery postion has changed? Personally I'll still be singing 'nelly the elephant' in my head if I have to do compressions too. Works for me!!

The only minor change to the recovery position was that the nearside arm is no longer placed in the 'how' position, it is simply laid out in an approximate straight line.

The rest was the same.

I'm glad you said that, because I did my latest refresher six months ago and it was all still in it then - I was surprised to hear claims it had changed that much in six months. Having said which, it does get simpler every time I do a refresher (I've been FAW first aider for nearly 20 years).

Ah - all is clear. The New Zealand syllabus appears to be even more simplified. There is a danger of over simplification.

Ron says we should focus on the primary purpose - to preserve life until professional help arrives, and I agree wholeheartedly with that.

However, some basic diagnostic skills are essential if First Aiders are to do that. Recognising shock (and there is more than one kind of shock) is important, since it is life threatening.

Having a basic understanding of the body machinery and recognising the signs of impending failure, and what kind of failure you are dealing with is extremely important. For instance, asthma can be a real killer - we are taught to recognise the signs that this might be happening.

Equally, the first aider needs to know when NOT to call for professional help. A known epileptic, who is having seizures to their normal pattern without complication would not be pleased if the first aiders called an ambulance every time. We are taught what deviations from the normal pattern indicate something more serious.

We are also taught how to give the right message when making the 999 call, including coded messages if the casualty is able to hear us. (OMG I think he's dying of a heart attack does not go down too well with the casualty).

"The casualty has serious chest pain" = get here quick and send the rapid response vehicle NOW, I think (s)he's having a heart attack.

"unresponsive" = unconscious

Very helpful, thank you Jane!

Useful information from TDS1984. If St John Ambulance provide the ambulance service in New Zealand, is it possible that some confusion has arisen somewhere between first aid training and paramedic training?

This topic was probably confusing for many forum users until NZJim explained at #8 that he was in New Zealand. This prompts a tongue-in-cheek question for TDS1984: Though the info below your pseudonym includes Yorkshire, you seem well acquainted with New Zealand, so how do we know that you aren't in New Zealand as well?!!!

p.s. For the record, the organisation involved is St John Ambulance. Some of their people get tired of others referring to the organisation as St John's Ambulance. In a similar way, some IOSH people are sensitive about others who think that IOSH is an institute when there's copious evidence that the letter I stands for Institution.

TDS1984 - Good to know you're in Yorkshire - a grand county methinks even though some others on t' west side of t'Pennines might beg to differ. Also, apologies to you and NZJim if some elements of my previous response seemed a trifle tetchy. A slight headache and being in an open plan office which is hot and stuffy despite open windows might be to blame.

At the end of the day it's about sticking to the basics, after all first aid is not designed to be rocket science and about doing what is necessary until the professionals arrive.

Too many scare stories that put off general folk from learning the basics and looking over their shoulder in case the layers are prowling!