Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Such logic, espoused by Danny. He actually sees the big picture. You are now an official apprentice contrarian with all of the associated slings and arrows. Congratulations! _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:23 PM To: Subject: RE: CPR for Dummies ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Such logic, espoused by Danny. He actually sees the big picture. You are now an official apprentice contrarian with all of the associated slings and arrows. Congratulations! _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:23 PM To: Subject: RE: CPR for Dummies ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Such logic, espoused by Danny. He actually sees the big picture. You are now an official apprentice contrarian with all of the associated slings and arrows. Congratulations! _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:23 PM To: Subject: RE: CPR for Dummies ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Danny, I agree with you 100% that we need to do whatever is best to improve survival rates. If that means a 20 minute lay-person course, then so be it. My point was that we need not discount this simply because we don’t believe it will work based on hearsay and speculation. There has been a study done and it appears to point toward success. We need to look at this study and determine if its conclusions are valid. If they are, it appears we’re in for a change in our educational tactics. If they aren’t we can continue doing it the way we’ve always done it. I just walked in from a training class on multi-company fire operations. We discussed the fact that in the past it was done “that way”, but now we’re going to do it “this way’; because the science indicates it’s a better choice. We have new science on CPR, let’s analyze it, and make a judgment based on the facts. Tater Danny wrote: ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Danny, I agree with you 100% that we need to do whatever is best to improve survival rates. If that means a 20 minute lay-person course, then so be it. My point was that we need not discount this simply because we don’t believe it will work based on hearsay and speculation. There has been a study done and it appears to point toward success. We need to look at this study and determine if its conclusions are valid. If they are, it appears we’re in for a change in our educational tactics. If they aren’t we can continue doing it the way we’ve always done it. I just walked in from a training class on multi-company fire operations. We discussed the fact that in the past it was done “that way”, but now we’re going to do it “this way’; because the science indicates it’s a better choice. We have new science on CPR, let’s analyze it, and make a judgment based on the facts. Tater Danny wrote: ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Danny, I agree with you 100% that we need to do whatever is best to improve survival rates. If that means a 20 minute lay-person course, then so be it. My point was that we need not discount this simply because we don’t believe it will work based on hearsay and speculation. There has been a study done and it appears to point toward success. We need to look at this study and determine if its conclusions are valid. If they are, it appears we’re in for a change in our educational tactics. If they aren’t we can continue doing it the way we’ve always done it. I just walked in from a training class on multi-company fire operations. We discussed the fact that in the past it was done “that way”, but now we’re going to do it “this way’; because the science indicates it’s a better choice. We have new science on CPR, let’s analyze it, and make a judgment based on the facts. Tater Danny wrote: ; I am all for having more persons know CPR so that maybe we can see a better outcome in the field. I do not see this as a " training " whether it is informal or not. Credentialed has nothing to do with it either. If we are talking about increasing the survival rate then lets increase the survival rate. If we are talking about having people feel better about their loved ones' passing then this might be a good course. I mean, there are several people who feel worse about a situation because they do not possess the skills to attempt a correction. Dead is dead. That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. We talk about " simple " skills. In all the classes I have taught simple is not simple when I have the students actually do CPR for 1 minute at the compression rate of 100 bpm. At that point simple turns into hard and complicated. Simple turns into actual hard work. With a course of this type are we actually perceiving a change in survival or are we just wanting to have people not feel so helpless? " E. Tate " wrote: Danny, I have been on a few calls where dispatch was giving PIA's and the family was doing a fairly decent job. This is especially interesting given the fact that they had never been in an actual class nor seen a professionally prepared demonstration. I find that very few (if any) people doing CPR when we arrive is “proper”, even those that have had formal training in CPR. There is a HUGE difference in putting a simple skill (CPR) on a DVD and using that to educate the masses and providing the proper education to master the basic elements necessary to become a paramedic in 2 weeks. I never have, and never will believe in the “quickie medic” courses. There is simply too much information to absorb and digest in 90 days. I do believe that CPR can be addressed in a DVD self study manner. Also, keep in mind that this is not a “credentialed” course. This course will be used by Mr. & Mrs. that really want to learn CPR “just in case”. They probably would not take a course from the local provider because they are not interested in going to a class and swapping slobber on a mannequin with total strangers. I never said there was “fluff” in EMS Education; I said there was in CPR. CPR Course have added information that is great to know, but is not necessary for the course. I agree that the 20-minute course seems a bit short, but I’m inclined to agree with a scientific study that I am with conjecture and hearsay. The reason we’re “still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR” is because the patient is DEAD when CPR is begun. The patient became dead for a reason, most of which are not going to be corrected by CPR. I guess this (lifestyle issues) is part of the “fluff” part of the CPR course, but I’m still not sold that it is a necessary part of the course. We might see some increase in survivability when we see a decrease in average time to defibrillation, accompanied with a decrease in EMS response time (I’m not holding my breath on this last one). CPR save ratios have always, and will always be low. Dead is dead, that’s a fact. Tater Danny wrote: I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA’s can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can’t a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He’s renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we’ve had before and we’ll have in the future; just because, “we’ve always done it this way”, doesn’t make it right. Let’s look over the study before we decide “it’s not gonna work”. Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2005 Report Share Posted November 17, 2005 I have to respectfully agree with on some of these points. There shouldn't be any doubt that an intelligent adult or older child can learn at least adult CPR in 20 minutes. And be proficient. Of course they can. If you want them to know every aspect of CPR, be proficient at each mode, and have ample understanding of the principles then 20 minutes won't even begin to get it done. The beauty of this is that maybe many, many more people will attend training sessions if they do not have to spend 3-4 hours doing it. And it's even longer depending on which agency is doing it and how long-winded an instructor wants to be. I also hate to agree, but do, with the JAMA articles (and others) pointing out the lack of CPR proficiency in the medical field including the emergency medical field. Folks are getting into habits that are not compliant with current standards and get very rusty at many steps (especially child-infant). In light of that I'd think we are little less concerned about the lay public being insufficiently trained. I wish thousands of them would take a 20 minute adult CPR class as opposed to nothing. Don Elbert Tyler And as usual - these are the opinions of the author and may not be that of yours or any organization, employer, governmental agency, risk manager, rescue squad, corporation, civic group, cub scout group, softball team, bridge club, etc. >>> petsardlj@... 11/16/05 9:51 AM >>> I have to respectfully disagree. Dispatchers may be able to " tell " someone about CPR but I have yet to actually see anyone doing proper CPR upon arrival at a scene. The people were doing something but that was all. This physician may well be very learned, but 20 minutes to perform a medically necessary technique? Why not put all of our training on DVD that way you become a Paramedic in less than two weeks? But seriously, just because CPR has been around for a while does not mean it becomes any less a skill to be taught than any other. You mention " FLUFF " what are you considering that to be? What fluff is put into normal EMS classes? This may sound totally absurd but if it is that simple why are we still having such a difficult save ratio when it comes to doing CPR? CPR and Defibrilation Saves Lives. If it were only that simple we would see more patients walking than we do. " E. Tate " wrote: Kaye, Even though you and Danny agree that 20 minutes is not long enough, the scientific evidence seems to prove otherwise. I would be very interested to see the actual study and go over it to see what the backgrounds of the students were, etc. Dispatchers using PIA's can provide effective CPR in seconds, why can't a 20 minute properly designed course work? I have been in EMS for a LONG time, and teaching CPR just as long. I see absolutely no reason to have a 4 hour CPR course for lay people (or even for HCP's to be quite honest). The course is 90% - 95% fluff, and 5% - 10% CPR education (or about 20 minutes). How many times have you looked across a classroom full of CPR students only to see about half of them nodding off? From what I know about him, Dr. Ahamed Idris is not some fly by night physician that decided to write something to get his 15 seconds of fame. He's renowned for his CPR research and is considered one of the foremost experts in the field. Given that, the fact that a real study was done, and the results, why do you stand in opposition? This is related to threads we've had before and we'll have in the future; just because, " we've always done it this way " , doesn't make it right. Let's look over the study before we decide " it's not gonna work " . Tater Kaye Brock wrote: I have read and reread the article and I have to agree with Danny on this one, 20 minutes is not long enough to effectively teach a group of people (all with different learning cognitives) to do effective CPR and use an AED. If companies are having problems turning thier employees loose for 4 hours then it is the company who is loosing out. I am a certified CPR instructor and I am willing to work with companies who seem to not have the time to allow thier employees to be trained effectively. 4 hours is not that long if you really think about and it also depends on the instructor and how the class is taught as to how well the information is retained. I personally would not want someone who had only 20 minutes of training trying to-do CPR and use an AED on me, not only for my safety but for the safety of others around us. For instance, say I am need immediate CPR and a bystander saw me begin to have problems in the midst of the chaos they panic and forget how to do CPR properly or to use the AED properly? That could cause problems not only for me but other bystanders as well. I hope you understand mypoint and where I am coming from. Kaye Brock, EMT, PALS, BTLS and BLS Instructor " Ozenberger, A. " wrote: I think we need to look at this article a little closer. The people that took the short course did better than those that took the standard course. This might be the course you teach in the future. Anything that will help the public to do more to help save lives, I want to see made available. A. Ozenberger BS,LP,CHT Training Specialist III Education Laboratory UTMB - Galveston (409)747-2146 www.utmb.edu/edlab _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:17 PM To: Subject: Re: CPR for Dummies I have problems with this. The students that were taught this 20 minute course, were they first time students? How many times before had they been instructed in CPR? As a possible refresher course I can see this happening. The students I have taught were not afraid of retaining the knowledge they were afraid of doing it period. " E. Tate " wrote: CPR FOR DUMMIES ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/13/2005 DALLAS (AP) - Too busy to take a four-hour CPR course? New research shows the lifesaving procedure can be effectively taught in a little more than 20 minutes. The finding, presented Sunday at an American Heart Association meeting in Dallas, could broadly expand the number of Americans who can perform CPR. " It's brilliant, " said Dr. Lance Becker, director of the Emergency Resuscitation Center at the University of Chicago. " I think it's going to make our ability to train people much, much easier. " The study, led by Dr. Ahamed Idris, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, found that just five minutes of training on defibrillator use and 20 minutes of instruction in CPR was as effective as the standard four-hour course. Idris said it makes sense that the shorter course was just as memorable: " The more you have to remember, the more likely you are to forget, " he said. The study used American Airlines employees and compared standard training to a short course taught by DVD. Participants were tested by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a computerized mannequin that took data on chest compression and ventilation. Their performance was also reviewed and graded by instructors. The 150 people who took the short course did as well or better than the 118 who received standard training. More importantly, retention rates of knowledge remained similar six months later. People suffering cardiac arrest can die in minutes unless they get effective CPR and sometimes a shock to the heart from a defibrillator, which restores a normal heart rhythm. Defibrillators are becoming more common in schools, airports and other public places, but the key is having people nearby who are trained to use them. Having a short course should help meet the heart association's goal to double in the next five years the number of Americans trained annually in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - currently about 8 million. The time commitment for a four-hour course seemed to be a stumbling block in getting people trained, officials said. " It's very difficult for a company to release their employees for four hours to take a CPR course, " Idris said. The study was funded by Laerdal Medical, maker of the training DVD, the heart association, and device maker Philips Medical. What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? http://www.TexasEMSAT.org E. Tate, LP Whitehouse, Texas http://www.EMStock.com http://www.TEMSF.org --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.