Posts Tagged ‘ilcor’

2010 CPR Guidelines Released

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

The new 2010 CPR Guidelines are out. These guidelines really aren’t a substantial change from the past as far as CPR is concerned. Interestingly enough, the American Heart Association has chosen to change some of the steps of CPR. Personally, I think it is a grave mistake. I will explain briefly.

The ILCOR 2005 Guidelines call for CPR in a methodical 3 step process designed purely for simplification. The 3 steps are: 1. Airway; 2. Breathing and; 3. Circulation (Compressions). Seems relatively easy to remember, right? In simple terminology, you want to open the Airway, give some Breaths and then start Compressions; hence the acronym ABC. I think this makes it so easy to remember. And I’m sure thousands of others agree as well.

Now, the American Heart Association has chosen to make a change to their curriculum which has not been based on conclusive scientific evidence. The new guidelines call for Compressions prior to Airway and Breathing. So the new acronym is CAB. I think this is a horrible idea and will result in less retention because it is not nearly as easy to remember as ABC. I hope I am wrong, but my hypothesis is that it will result in less lives being saved because of the complication of terminology. Additionally, there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the change. As stated, “There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the combination of chest compressions plus airway opening and oxygen inflation (compared with conventional CPR) by professional rescuers during the first few minutes of resuscitation from cardiac arrest.” – ILCOR ERC 2010 Paper. p. e6.

Hopefully, the American Heart Association will change their guidelines to fall in line with previous ILCOR guidelines and work harder towards international consensus and sharing of scientific data which yields positive results. For this reason, I would advocate continuing to use the ABCs instead of changing.

Is Online CPR Valid or Accepted?

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

I have been searching all over the internet for information on this and have heard many different opinions on the subject. Many people believe that online CPR should be accepted, while others do not. The question really depends on what people are looking for.

The facts are that it is as valid as you, your employer or regulatory agency want it to be. Fact is that there is no primary US regulatory mechanism for the administration of CPR programs in general. So the same could be said for any CPR program — whether it is done in person or not is immaterial… Many people feel that the American Heart Association (AHA) or American Red Cross (ARC) approve programs and are accrediting bodies for CPR. This is not the case. The AHA is, however, a member of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) which helps to establish regulatory guidelines for CPR, but the committee is also composed of many other agencies such as the European and Australian Resuscitation Councils.

Opinions on the subject vary. I think it depends on what works for you, your business/industry and/or regulatory agency(ies).

Online programs are generally NOT a scam, but I would say that any program which allows you to gain certification in anything without a written test is not as valid as one that does. What you get out of the class is VERY important. Do you think you could perform CPR after completing the program? What do others that have taken the course have to say about the program offering training? I would use these measures as well as reputation, credentials of those offering the program, and customer service to determine if a program will work. This is the same for both online and in-person CPR certification.

The Problem with Compressions In the EMS Field

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

So as a previous Paramedic and EMS Supervisor, I would like to explain my thoughts on poor CPR in the field. I think it is quite unexcusable. Many times I have witnessed Paramedics attempting to intubate (stick a tube in someone’s mouth to breathe) and forget about chest compressions altogether. It’s amazing to see this on the provider level. So the general public has come to the rescue… Some medics could learn a lot!

Right now there is a big debate about the use of Continuous Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (continuous chest compressions) and using this as a standard for CPR. The thought behind the science is that there is enough residual oxygen in the body to circulate the heart and help to pump it effectively. In my personal opinion, I think it’s great because I can tell you from experience, that people are VERY reluctant to do CPR on anyone who is not their family member.

Finally, people are uncertain of when to breathe in someone’s mouth and when to compress the chest. Therefore, the continuous chest compressions makes teaching CPR a breeze. You can expect to see more about this when the 2010 ILCOR guidelines come out. You can read more about Ilcor, by following this link: ILCOR