|
|
Post by kathleenedgin on Jan 31, 2016 14:13:52 GMT
My job takes me overseas and my employer has begun to phase in a requirement that everyone working overseas has to take a particular training which includes a portion of combat medicine. Many of our positions are in volatile areas or could at any moment become volatile.
The information is presented over the course of 2 and a half days and focuses on the bare bone basics, how to check a pulse, airway and tourniquets. We also touched briefly on moving a patient, sucking chest wounds, and controlling bleeding.
While I had my EMS background to draw on, many in my class were your basic layperson, and some of the concepts were a bit foreign to them. (Although I can say that all of us now know how to apply a tourniquet on ourselves).
While I understand why my employer is taking this route, as a result of many places becoming unstable, I sometimes wonder if it is worth the effort especially when movements are sometimes contained to specific areas that are deemed safe. I am just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on training a layperson on these topics - is it worth it or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by durfeew on Feb 6, 2016 3:46:25 GMT
Perhaps one problem that could arise from providing a layperson with a crash course in emergency medicine is that with their limited knowledge base from the two and a half day course they might over estimate their abilities. I'm sure that in the presence of highly trained EMT's a layperson with some ems training may be helpful, but if the layperson is alone in a situation they may be more prone to mistakes. I know that the longer that I have been in this field the more I realize there is to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewfischer on Feb 11, 2016 7:15:47 GMT
More education is better. That said, I agree with the previous comment that, if not properly framed, limited and specialized training can cause laypeople to overestimate their knowledge and abilities. They may intervene in situations and "get in over their heads." I have worked calls where bystanders have initiated some treatment before arrival of the EMTs. Frequently, that intervention wasn't helpful. Occasionally, it was harmful or dangerous. Bystanders in those cases frequently make a point to tell the EMTs that they "know what they're doing" because they "took class XYZ." The solution should be to carefully reinforce the scope within which such specialized training is applicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasontiffin on Feb 11, 2016 23:28:51 GMT
Well we teach the lay person to perform hands only CPR which is a tough skill for them to master but at least they have been taught it. As far as the basics of bleeding control, I'm all about everybody helping out with this too as it may save someone's including our own lives some day with a tourniquet application. Sucking chest wounds can be a different story but if we tell someone to cover it and cover it only, that alone could save a life. I am a big advocate as a training guy myself that the more people know about the better off we are. I learned basic first aid back in school years ago and thought it was great and then of course advanced on it with my EMS training now. Another thing coming down the pipe with training the lay person is that, here in NYS, high school students are going to be required to take CPR as a requirement to graduate and that is awesome if you ask me! We read now a days about so many people being saved by the quick actions of the bystanders that have training which is why I'm an advocate for it. I will be cautious when it comes to airway management by the lay person as one movement of the cervical spine could kill someone if not done properly. I believe that if people want to know something or how to do something that they will seek it out and find out how to. But we can't force the lay person either, and I think your employer should take this into consideration as doing this stuff isn't for everyone.
|
|
toddc
New Member
Posts: 12 
|
Post by toddc on Feb 22, 2016 18:37:58 GMT
All things considered, I think that a "layperson" could be of benefit and or an issue. If that was deemed an acceptable title in the EMS Community w/ specific training, qualifications and a scope of practice sure. (basically a CFR type of position. But, I agree that there would be people that would over step or over estimate their abilities. Without an "official" title and or job description/scope of practice it could create real issues. Particularly with the "lawsuit happy" communities that we deal with today. We train all of our FF's for CPR, AED, First Aid etc. Those are member requirements. We also train people to "assist" EMT's w/ other basic skills but in moderation with limitations. Patient contact outside of CPR and First Aid are strictly handled by EMT's and or Ambulance personnel.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, we have to cover our butts 100% from a legal standpoint. Even though everything we do is "for the health and safety" of the patient, we can still be held responsible if we put a band aid on crooked or something drastic like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfrett on Mar 3, 2016 20:24:40 GMT
I tend to believe that the more education people receive, the better decisions they will be able to make. In an emergency setting, education is good. However, in order to teach a layperson some medical techniques, the material must be extremely clear. There must be no confusion as to how to perform a technique, and there must be very explicitly stated circumstances under which people can perform such work. From the perspective of the educator, if they can avoid legal cases where they trained, but did not certify, a layperson in a certain technique, then by all means the more education the better. That would certainly be a caveat to more education though, legal liability. I think that curriculum should be very clearly stated, there should be practical assessments, and scope of practice should be stated explicitly. That may make training the lay person more effective. I know that as a certified WFR and EMT, I sometime even get confused between my two roles and what exactly I can and cannot do. Confusion like this should be 100% avoided. People must know exactly what they can do and when.
|
|
