CPR cert.

[616kayak]

At my school in health students may become certified in CPR.
Sounds good right?

Well there have been some updates to CPR over the past few years.

The teacher doing these certifications is certifying based on the version right before pulse check was removed. This occurred a few years ago. There has been one update since that I am aware of. The last update is said to have greatly improved CPR.

The teacher is aware that these changes have occurred. I feel this teacher want to spend class time showing a CPR video and choose the version of CPR to match the video.

Can people be certified on outdated tests?

[deweylure]

Our troop is certified in CPR and the AED automatic difffibulator. We had two trainers come out on a Sat. for 4 hours. The new course I heard cuts the time to abot 2 hours.


dewey

[Chief J]

I am not sure about the validity of a teacher conducting their class under the old methods, but I can tell you that even an older method of CPR can help if delivered quickly.

We our fortunate that our Troop has a City Paramedic Instructor come in every two years and teach and certify our Troop in CPR and AED.

Chief J

[riverwalk]

One can't go wrong with any CPR method. Probably it's technically correct to say, that your Cert be whatever your group (or Agency) requires it be. But as to which method would save another, any method has a chance to do that. It's when no effort is given, that the Patient has no chance.

In one of our classes, a fellow instructor summed it up (don't say this to pass your test, haha). When students raised questions they wouldn't recall all the ratio details, in the heat of the moment....instructor said that if they blew here, and pushed here, would be better than not doing anything, haha.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[616kayak]

I am aware that all methods of cpr are better than no cpr.

The changes have been made for a reason. They save more lives. I feel that first aid training is a continuing process. When the experts find new information that saves more lives it should be used.

[riverwalk]

And that's a good plan. One of the ideas I submitted to Council for the National meeting, was the mass trainings. So maybe others can consider that as well.

[deweylure]

I dont know if you saw thenews about a month ago . They stated the best people to give CPR was para medics ,nurses then doctors. Not to insult the doctors. The reason being most paramedics and nurses are first responders in the case of initializing CPR. Just a thought

Dewey

[Mad Dog]

I attnded a training class on the job two months ago and the older requirements were taught. I checked with an instructor I know. He said that the training materials for the revised CPR course are still being developed and should be available this summer. Most of the written materials were already completed but the training tapes were still in progress. That is why the instructors are still teaching the older requirements. He has offered to do a course for our troop for the cost of materials in the fall. Instructors are required to teach a certain number of courses per year using the current criteria to themselves remain certified.

[scoutaholic]

There are at least two different agencies that provide CPR certifications. There is Red Cross, and American Heart Association.

I have a neighbor friend who is a certifier for AHA. She said they update the video and tests almost every year. The video she used 3 years ago was already updated to not check for pulse. Recently, she has not been able to bring home the video to show it to our troop, so I haven't seen the newest one.

[Mad Dog]

The American Heart Association no longer recommends pulse checks when CPR is performed by a layperson. The feeling is by simplifying the process more bystanders who know CPR are more likely to get involved saving more lives. The Red Cross still teaches the pulse check. The biggest change (November 2005) is that the number of chest compression per two breaths has been increased to 30 from 15 increasing the amount of blood that is circulating.

[riverwalk]

And it's a great point to be made...regarding the "layperson". What I like to call it is a witnessed arrest. In other words, if the bystander gets involved prior to my arrival (EMS), there are better odds for Patients (generally speaking). If people don't initiate treatment because they're afraid of doing it wrong, then help may be delayed.

There are many aspects all concerned could make about these important issues. I wouldn't want to differ with anyone...but also hope nobody tells one trained years ago, not to initiate what they were taught. That would be a tragic event. One can think it would be ideal to retrain people, but that is an impossibility. Best to focus on training anyone we can get trained....newbies or the reruns, IMHO.

[FrankJ]

Trainers are required to teach current requirements. They cannot teach the revisions until they are retrained or the updates actually reaches them.

[PPC_NYLT]

I am an EMT and have gone through the new standards. The new standards of 30:2 instead of 15:2 released by the AHA this winter's journal Circulation are meant to simplify CPR for the lay rescuer (anybody who is not a lifeguard, EMT or anything higher). The old standards aren't wrong, just more complicated and there is more room for error. Most instructors been trained in the new standards, but those who aren't must go by the old ones. As I said before, they're not worng, just more complicated. Any training in CPR will help extend the time for ACLS (Advanced Cardio-vascular Life Support) to be effective. I wouldn't rush to get the new standards, until your current certification is expired, but the sooner everybody is on the same page the better. Remember, any standard of CPR is helpful, its just a matter of which one is the most efficient and effective. It is also good to keep in mind almost of the AED's on the market are programmed to the old standards.

[momma_bee]

My Red Cross trainer said 'no pulse check' this summer.

The reasoning was someone could THINK they felt a pulse and stop giving CPR prematurely.

If the trainers are using old materials, I don't think the Red Cross would help with a good samaritian defense if you were sued. I don't know that for sure and am clueless about AHA.

[FrankJ]

At the end of the class you take a test. The test is based on the standard the trainer is certified on. The "right" answer is based on that standard. Anything else would be "wrong" for that certification. The new standard was published shortly before my last CPR class. The intructor was aware of the new standard, but taught what he was certified on & passed out red cross cards at the end of the class. Doing it is more important than any exact ratio.

AEDs are great things and becoming more and more plentifull. They can do more than just chest compressions. They are very easy to use and tell you what to do. If I was working on some one I really cared about I would use one regardless of when my last certification was. Obviously this is my opinion and not an official recomendation.

I am strong proponent of every one getting of much of this kind of training as they can.

[riverwalk]

There are standards, Standard of Care, Negligence, Duty to Act, ABC's, CPR tests and certifications. The alphabet soup is seemingly complex sometimes.

Bottom line for any would be rescuers, ACT INSTEAD OF WATCHING only! The Good Samaritan concept is that a well meaning person should not delay help, due to any fears of retribution. If anyone got the idea that they should hesitate because their Cert isn't current....well, I would hate to defend myself on that one.

Just like saving Units, keep the starfish story in mind, and save someone when you are given such a wonderful opportunity. I rescued a baby at a Post Office before the PTC trip. I was meant to be there when that child needed someone, and that's what I think!