Which First Aid?

[mrkstvns]

The first few times I went through training in standard First Aid / CPR, the course was taught by the local Red Cross chapter and we got a card with the Red Cross logo.

Last year I was looking to renew my certification and noticed that our local council had some courses that were identified as ESRI.  (Same for Wilderness First Aid).

Are the ESRI courses somehow different from Red Cross?  Why would one be preferred over the other?

[Eagle94-A1]

Not really. There is an agreement between all the different first aid/cpr agencies to use the same content. American Heart Association is responsible for CPR criteria that everyone else follows. American Red Cross is responsible for the First Aid side of things. They pretty much work together I am told.

[MikeS72]

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

American Heart Association is responsible for CPR criteria that everyone else follows.

As a Red Cross instructor, I can tell you that American Heart Association does have differences with their CPR classes.  For a number of years now, they have emphasized compression only CPR, while Red Cross still teaches the breathing/compression combo model.  There is a short segment during Red Cross training showing compression only method, but the 30/2 compression to breaths is still the preferred method.

As for ESRI, I am not sure who that is, here in Central Florida we either use Red Cross or ECSI, who are the primary providers authorized by BSA to offer WRFA courses.  BSA will also accept a provider who is certified by the American Camp Association.  The ACA does not show ESRI as an accredited provider.

[mrkstvns]

3 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

As for ESRI, I am not sure who that is, here in Central Florida we either use Red Cross or ECSI, who are the primary providers authorized by BSA to offer WRFA courses.  BSA will also accept a provider who is certified by the American Camp Association.  The ACA does not show ESRI as an accredited provider.

Whoops!!  You are right!  I had the acronym wrong....thanks for the correction.

I'm still confused as to what the relative benefits of each organization might be or which kind of training I might want to take:  Red Cross?  Am.Heart Assoc.?  ECSI?  ACA?

Do any of those offer substantially better content than others or a higher bar to get their certification?  Is Red Cross still the "gold standard"???

[MikeS72]

As a long time Red Cross instructor, I would consider our program to be the 'gold standard'.  I have also sat in on ECSI WRFA class, and the material in the Red Cross course is, I think, better suited to what we might encounter within BSA high adventure programs.  A lot has to do with the instructor as well.  I have seen Red Cross instructors who make me shudder, and ECSI instructors who are very good.

[Eagle94-A1]

8 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

As a Red Cross instructor, I can tell you that American Heart Association does have differences with their CPR classes.  For a number of years now, they have emphasized compression only CPR, while Red Cross still teaches the breathing/compression combo model.  There is a short segment during Red Cross training showing compression only method, but the 30/2 compression to breaths is still the preferred method.

Depends upon which AHA class you take.

Friends and Family is the compression only CPR class. It's very basic, and it's purpose is to get folks comfortable doing something in an emergency.

The Heartsaver series (Heartsaver CPR and AED; Heartsaver First Aid, CPR, and AED) is for non-first responders, and does teach one man CPR and AED using 30:2 compression to breaths. It also doesn't teach using an ambu bag since that is for 2man CPR. And it covers adults, children, and infants

Basic Life Support for Health Care Providers teaches both one-man and two man CPR and AED use for adults, infant and children.  Goes over the 30:2 rations for all of one man CPR and 2 man adult CPR as well as the 15:2  Infant child 2 man CPR. Also teaches ambu bags

 

[ItsBrian]

I have my EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) cert, which I forget the name of the organization that I got it from. I also have BLS for Health Care Providers since I’m in a nursing vocational HS, which was done through AHA. I also had regular First Aid/CPR through AHA which recently expired, but doesn’t matter since I have BLS. I plan on starting EMT in the fall if time allows.

I personally enjoy AHA more than RC, but that’s just my opinion.

AHA still does teach 30:2 if you take the First Aid / CPR course and above.

From what I’ve researched previously since I was interested in WFA was that it is somewhat similar to EMR besides the fact it’s mostly wilderness.

Edited May 7, 2019 by ItsBrian

[MikeS72]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Depends upon which AHA class you take.

Good to know.

In addition to teaching First Aid/CPR/AED and Wilderness & Remote First Aid with BSA, I coordinate and teach classes as part of my job with the school system.  Every class, when we get to the CPR portion, someone brings up 'I thought we weren't supposed to do breathing any more'.  I will be sure to let them know now, that AHA is the same as Red Cross in preferring the 30:2 process, but in also recognizing that there are times when compression only is the only option.

[ItsBrian]

Just now, MikeS72 said:

Good to know.

In addition to teaching First Aid/CPR/AED and Wilderness & Remote First Aid with BSA, I coordinate and teach classes as part of my job with the school system.  Every class, when we get to the CPR portion, someone brings up 'I thought we weren't supposed to do breathing any more'.  I will be sure to let them know now, that AHA is the same as Red Cross in preferring the 30:2 process, but in also recognizing that there are times when compression only is the only option.

I think AHA teaches compression only for those who just want a basic knowledge since they may find it too demanding to do 30:2 if they are alone.

[Saltface]

1 hour ago, ItsBrian said:

I think AHA teaches compression only for those who just want a basic knowledge since they may find it too demanding to do 30:2 if they are alone.

I've also heard people are often too squeamish to perform rescue breaths and chest compressions alone are much better than nothing.

[MikeS72]

1 hour ago, Saltface said:

I've also heard people are often too squeamish to perform rescue breaths and chest compressions alone are much better than nothing.

True.  When I am teaching, I demo the 30:2 first, but then tell them that if for any reason they cannot do the breaths, go with compression only.  Sometimes that is due to facial injuries, but other times it is due to looking at the victim and saying 'no way is my mouth going down there'.

[Eagle94-A1]

4 hours ago, ItsBrian said:

I think AHA teaches compression only for those who just want a basic knowledge since they may find it too demanding to do 30:2 if they are alone.

Compression Only is Friends and Family. Although it is mentioned in Basic Life Support. Sorry it's been a while since I taught Heartsaver so I need to review if they practice it or it's just mentioned.

 

1 hour ago, MikeS72 said:

...Sometimes that is due to facial injuries, but other times it is due to looking at the victim and saying 'no way is my mouth going down there'.

Just remember, if it is a infant or child,  YOU MUST DO RESCUE BREATHS! ( MAJOR EMPHASIS). Compression only CPR is not effective with kids because the problem is most likely to be respiratory and not cardiac. Had a discussion about this with another instructor about it and had to pull out the actual article explaining the new science.

[elitts]

On 5/7/2019 at 6:07 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Compression Only is Friends and Family. Although it is mentioned in Basic Life Support. Sorry it's been a while since I taught Heartsaver so I need to review if they practice it or it's just mentioned.

 

Just remember, if it is a infant or child,  YOU MUST DO RESCUE BREATHS! ( MAJOR EMPHASIS). Compression only CPR is not effective with kids because the problem is most likely to be respiratory and not cardiac. Had a discussion about this with another instructor about it and had to pull out the actual article explaining the new science.

I didn't think this was new science. 

That's what they told me through 10 years of lifeguard training in the 90s.  It's the reason why you were always trained to give the first round of breathing and CPR with kids, THEN go call help, as opposed to with adults, you call help first, then start treatment.

With kids, it's often just a respiratory stoppage and the chances of actually getting them back up and running with an immediate intervention are much higher than with adults where all you are really hoping to do is keep their blood moving until paramedics arrive to take them for advanced help.

[Eagledad]

I have a question: when I was a scout, we were taught to turn the drowned person on their chest and compress the back a couple times to force some of the water out of the lungs. Now we are told to got strait to two breaths then CPR. What about the water in the lungs?

Barry

[Eagle94-A1]

40 minutes ago, elitts said:

I didn't think this was new science. 

You are correct, it is not new science. However when I teach BLS, there is a lot of confusion regarding when to use Compression Only CPR, which is only on adults. Even instructors were saying you can do compression only on infants and children. Had to show the journal that said still needed to do mouth to mouth, or mouth to mouth and nose, for infants and children.

 

36 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I have a question: when I was a scout, we were taught to turn the drowned person on their chest and compress the back a couple times to force some of the water out of the lungs. Now we are told to got strait to two breaths then CPR. What about the water in the lungs?

Barry

Actually they want you to start with compressions, then breaths now. The idea is that some oxygen is still in the bloodstream, and by pumping, you can get it going where needed.