Talk:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
From Academic Kids
Most of this page looks like it was copied directly from the external link (http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg13_0001.html). There are probably copyright issues. Bummer. -- Merphant
Changes July 27 look good - thanks philb
- I've emailed Columbia University about this. -Smack 20:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Outcome of the above email to Columbia not reported here. I assume that means they're okay with it. But even if we don't know that for sure, I would not favour trying to remove copyrighted parts of the text unless anyone really makes a fuss. There is too much risk of messing it up in the process. This is lives we could be talking about. --Trainspotter 00:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
112 will work in the UK, no need to contrast the UK with continental Europe. Several European countries have alternative numbers and these are listed at Emergency telephone number, but for this page 112 is all that's actually needed. (Personally, I'd instinctively dial 999 in Britain, but that's largely because of learning it before 112 was introduced.) --Trainspotter 23:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
added some comment's after look listen & feel for better understanding of CPR by new students --xl5
I've made quite a few changes to this article (although I've not actually changed as much as all the red text in the edit history would have you believe, honest!). I've changed the order of a few things slightly. I also removed a few bits which were repeated over and over throughout the article so that it reads better and in a more logical manner. I've modified the child CPR section so that it follows the same DRABC structure as the adult CPR section - they are after all the same basic procedure, and previously it was hard to relate child CPR to that for adults. ABC is certainly a widespread training mnemonic, and it is virtually impossible to forget the correct procedure if you learn it this way! DRABC is taught a lot in the UK and I think it is good to emphasise the need to check for danger and response before assuming CPR is necessary. Danger is especially important, as you are useless providing CPR if you injure yourself! I altered the bit about getting help slightly, so that you shout for help as soon as you know it is required (when the person is found to be unresponsive, i.e. you know they're not just asleep), and then call for an ambulance once you have determined whether or not the casualty is breathing. This is the method taught in the UK, and if you are on your own it is certainly wise to check the breathing before going to get help - if the casualty is breathing, they would be much safer placed in the recovery position to protect their airway before you go for an ambulance.
Anyway, I hope that I've improved this article somewhat. I also placed emphasis on the importance of CPR training - this stuff really cannot be learned off "paper" alone. I would envisage this article being used more as a reminder for those who have received some training than as a standalone "teach-yourself" guide.
Maybe one day we could have diagrams or photographs to illustrate the article?! Anyone fancy the job?
Tjwood 20:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Commerical external links
I've removed some external links added by an anonymous user (68.7.15.227). They were removed by me, then added by the user again. As far as I can tell they are links to commercial sites and as the user has contributed only those links to wikipedia, I think they are just spam. If the user wishes to add them to the page again could they please explain here their justification for doing so? Tjwood 17:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This page is too complicated
The recent edits have helped but revisiting this page reminds me that it is overly complicated. Experts are generally moving towards simplification of guidelines to focus on the main points... to this end I may now cut a bit... perhaps we could break out into some subpages... eg:
We could include buckets of esoteric detail in these pages allowing us to keep CPR straight to the point. just a thought Erich 18:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, this page is complicated, but the detail is important. Your recent adjustments to the article have helped a bit. If what you are thinking of is a simple summary of CPR procedure, as a reminder for those who know CPR, then maybe we should have a page CPR Summary or something (the subpage idea is good except for the fact that Wikipedia discourages them). A simple flow chart would be one way to lay out a summary but I'm not sure how that would work in Wikipedia.
- The trouble with simple summaries is that a layperson who has never had CPR training may read it and then think they know CPR, when of course actual training and practice is the only way to learn it properly.
- I also think this article (or any summary article we create) really really needs more illustrations/photographs.
- Tjwood 10:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I thoroughly support the bunch of recent suggestions to provide a simplify version. We need to have:
- somewhere a clear, simple summary, while still making the point that there is no real substitute for practical training
- somewhere else the nitty-gritty detail, but not in such a way that it obscures the simple summary
- a clear way to navigate between the two
My feeling is that the CPR Summary is a good idea, and then presumably keep the longwinded version on this page, provided that the summary page is linked very prominently from the top of this page and vice versa. I don't so much like the idea of separate pages for calling for help, airway management, etc, because it forces people to chase up a whole bunch of links, rather than have a page to print out and use as handy reference.
In the summary page, let's stick to whatever seems to be the most widespread teaching; it's okay to incorporate bits of teaching from different countries at different points of the procedure, but only if the whole thing is consistent -- a hotch-potch is more to be avoided than national bias.
Realistically, I am not going to get the time to work on this. But a big thank-you to whoever does so.
,,,Trainspotter,,, 22:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a go at creating CPR summary. See my comments at Talk:CPR summary. Tjwood 21:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Call for help
I've tried to contribute something about calling for help since I though the section was not very complete, but I realised that the article was organised quite differently than I though. Perhaps we have different systems depending on countries... Do you systematically call for an ambulance when you have an uncounscious patient ? This is what we are trained to do here... Also, we never interrupt CPR unless asked by a physician (typically, patient dead :( ) or by the rescuer who's in charge of the defibrillation (for analysing, shoking, or stoping the CPR if the defibriallation has been successful). Sorry if I've been messy ! Rama 12:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Formatting & things
Rama, my compliments on your work here, and the very good drawings (they sure capture the mood!) I'm not sure about the formatting. The disclaimers are unnecessary (there are two on every page), and the uppercase titles are not Wikipedia standard. Would you mind if I changed them? JFW | T@lk 13:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I did not originate the uppercase titles -- I'm actually quite agreed with you that they sort of break the standard formatting, and I'm quite in favour of some change.
- Perhaps we want to reduce the "CPR for children" part ? As it is, I think it makes things rather more complicated; why not have a main "CPR for adults" section and reduce the children section to the size of infant ? I don't think the amongt of informations in "children" justifies the size and subdivisions of this part...
- Sorry, but which disclaimers are you talking about ?
- Speaking of disclaimers, I was thinking about introducing templatised symbols in first aid related articles for thaings like "Lethal danger for the patient", "permanent injury danger", "danger for the rescuer", "Nice thing to do", "tip" (a little bit like "First aid for dummies" would be :p). The idea would be ta make things very clear while unifiying the notations and not over-charging the pages with blinking red bold italic upper-case big disclaimers :) Anyone interested ?
- Thanks again everybody for this nice page ! Rama 13:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My rewrite
I'm partially done with a big rewrite. These are my aims:
- Wikipedia is not supposed to address the reader. I'm changing all forms to third person.
- There are interspersed comments about defibrillation. In the vast majority of CPR scenarios, no defib is accessible. Apart from occasional mention, these belong in a seperate paragraph.
- There were considerable misspellings ("uncouncious")
Please don't remove my rewrite tag. Editing is free, but I'd like to know where I left off... JFW | T@lk 21:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oups, sorry... I'm afraid I've been editing before this notice appeared ! ^_^;;
- Speling mystakes are usualy my fault. Please forgive me.
- For the defibrillations part, I'd suggest putting it after the circulation since if makes a nice "ABCD"; that said, I do agree that we'd mainly mention defibrillators as important, mention that one can find them in some public places and in police cars, and link to the appropriate article.
- Perhaps we'd need to further simplify some parts, especially the "breath" part -- there is an article about Artificial_respiration should not be duplicated.
- I'm adding a few more images, I think we'l be done with these (but if I'm wrong, do tell me)
- Thanks again for the nice work and sorry for my clumsiness ! Rama 22:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd just like to suggest that references to defibrillation remain intact. Defibrillators are increasingly available both in public places and in private homes (I've even seen them being advertised on television). - Nunh-huh 22:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, but there's more to CPR than defibrillation. In the old version, the article started about defibs without even mentioning the ABC algorhythm, let alone the fact that defib is contraindicated in asystole and EMD. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Icons system proposal for all first aid-related articles
What would you people think about something like this :
- Missing image
Lethal_danger.png
Always put a pregnant woman in recovery position on her left side to avoid potentially lethal conpression of the inferior cava vein. - Missing image
Warning_icon.png
Do not put a conscious patient while back injuries in recovery position. - Missing image
Ktip.png
The rescuer can use his knees to secure the patient's head while administrating oxygen
To be used with parcimony, of course. Just an idea... Rama 09:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. I really think these icons distract from the flow of the text. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NPOV
As far as I'm concerned, the recent changes to this article are not NPOV. The re-write is biased very much towards one specific teaching method of CPR which would not be considered correct by many. (In the UK, CPR teaching specifically states that a layperson should NOT check pulse [[2] (http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/bls.htm#pulse)]). The article used to acknowledge that teaching methods differed, but this has been removed in favour of a specific method of training. Also, you say that the process I would know as "rescue breathing" is called "insulfation", yet I can't find insulfation (or insulphation) in either Dictionary.com or the Oxford English Dictionary, and there are only 47 references to insulfation on the entire web according to Google ([[3] (http://www.google.com/search?&q=insulfation)]), so I'm changing this to "rescue breathing". I don't have much time to alter this article right now but I will be trying to get it back to an NPOV whilst retaining as many of your edits as possible.
