I believe the Good Samaritan act covers any trained medical professional which includes first aiders. Maybe just the providers I have gone to recently, they seem to be making more of a point of it now than I can remember.
Medical scenarios
- Thread starter TeeDee
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August) available until March 31st, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I believe the Good Samaritan act covers any trained medical professional which includes first aiders. Maybe just the providers I have gone to recently, they seem to be making more of a point of it now than I can remember.
You’re not wrong but I would argue that the framework that the course is based around should give you all the tools you would need for any eventuality.
Provided you work within the remit of the course, and the standard that you are assessed to of course. And if you work outside of that then a different training course or additional units should have been taken instead/as well as.
Ah, so someone trained in basic first aid should not attempt to stop arterial blood flow because they've only read how to do it or seen a video of it? I respectfully disagree, no matter what the litigation situation may or may not be (and, on all the training I have done, it's been stated that no litigation action has ever been applied in the UK). There is a huge difference between someone in a professional environment (and that may include outdoor pursuits instructors) failing to apply 'correct procedure' and a non-professional doing their best but getting it wrong IMO.
On top of that, none of us can predict the scenario we may encounter. Basic FAW is woefully inadequate for anything but the odd cut and bruise but I hope most people trained to that level wouldn't walk past someone bleeding to death!
Oh dear, I've slipped into the very activity that I forecast in my first post
On top of that, none of us can predict the scenario we may encounter. Basic FAW is woefully inadequate for anything but the odd cut and bruise but I hope most people trained to that level wouldn't walk past someone bleeding to death!
Oh dear, I've slipped into the very activity that I forecast in my first post
I am not trained in first aid though I did pick up a few basic nursing skills in having to look after my mum, and I was pretty good with bed sores and lifting and moving arthritic patients, which takes a lot of care and having lived amongst disabled people I know the does and don't of dealing with epileptic people for instance.
Arterial bleeds scare me though, I know the basic principle of applying pressure, and when I had a angiogram the hospital had a very clever device that used the power of a vacuum to seal an open artery. Trends change in first aid too, mouth to mouth which was a big thing back in the day is no longer taught and it is chest compression now, and if it is not strong enough to break the ribs you are not doing it right
Arterial bleeds scare me though, I know the basic principle of applying pressure, and when I had a angiogram the hospital had a very clever device that used the power of a vacuum to seal an open artery. Trends change in first aid too, mouth to mouth which was a big thing back in the day is no longer taught and it is chest compression now, and if it is not strong enough to break the ribs you are not doing it right
I totally agree. Someone doing their best but getting it wrong is I think the essence of the Good Samaritan act. And it’s great that that is recognised and there are laws protecting individuals.
As for arterial blood flow, that would be covered on any first aid course. It’s one of the main priorities of preserving life. And whilst a very serious event, can (and has) led to things like misuse of tourniquets for example. I think there’s a fine line between giving your own experience anecdotally with a view of learning from it and inadvertently offering incorrect advise. I hope that makes sense?
As for arterial blood flow, that would be covered on any first aid course. It’s one of the main priorities of preserving life. And whilst a very serious event, can (and has) led to things like misuse of tourniquets for example. I think there’s a fine line between giving your own experience anecdotally with a view of learning from it and inadvertently offering incorrect advise. I hope that makes sense?
Trends change in first aid too, mouth to mouth which was a big thing back in the day is no longer taught and it is chest compression now, and if it is not strong enough to break the ribs you are not doing it right
Prime example just written here. Perfect! (I’m not picking on you Laurentius, sorry)
Unfortunately rescue breaths were never “out” and have always been taught. The confusion came about because incidents occurred where people failed to do any CPR due to the fact they were too uncomfortable to give rescue breaths. Subsequently changing the statistics on resuscitation. This led to an advertising campaign in order to help people realise that doing something was better than nothing.
I’m also be interested in field procedures that worked however unconventional.
Poultices are not considered as first aid these days but an old survivor of the Spanish civil war told me how an injury that looked very bloody was in fact a plum jam poultice.
Poultices are not considered as first aid these days but an old survivor of the Spanish civil war told me how an injury that looked very bloody was in fact a plum jam poultice.
I wonder if some "incidents" that happened could be used as a discussion point?
For example, in my sector, we use near-misses, incidents and.accidents as learning- there are sector-level videos (based on real events) that present a scenario and there's places where it stops for "what should you do next" discussions by the trainer, then the video is resumed to see how it was handled- and then discuss the differences, what was better/worse.
In the bushcraft context, one could consider some plausible hypotheticals. Such as, there's a pair of friends hiked into a cabin. There's a phone signal but access is difficult- on foot only. One of the pair takes their axe to cut some wood and misses, serious injury to leg. What happens next?
I am suggesting detailed plausible scenarios (base on real events even- then you also know the outcome) which are used to stimulate discussion and self-reflection.Not so much about detailed medical training, albeit the real-life experience of a first-responder or even a mountain leader type would be very useful. It's mainly about self-reflection, "how might I respond in this situation" and takes in not just technical training but the human response to events (and the kit that one has with one at that point in time). In real life, someone with a lot of theoretical training who freezes might not do so well as someone who is practical and will actually "press here" to stop bleeding, and is stubborn enough to keep "pressing here" until help arrives.
There's a you tube video about an accident on Crib Coch. The chap who made the video may or may not have done everything "right-" but he did enough to save someone who fell and was seriously injured in bad weather. It's easy to be an armchair expert after the event; what is more valuable IMO is some self-reflection and honesty about the ability to cope in a real-life emergency.
GC
For example, in my sector, we use near-misses, incidents and.accidents as learning- there are sector-level videos (based on real events) that present a scenario and there's places where it stops for "what should you do next" discussions by the trainer, then the video is resumed to see how it was handled- and then discuss the differences, what was better/worse.
In the bushcraft context, one could consider some plausible hypotheticals. Such as, there's a pair of friends hiked into a cabin. There's a phone signal but access is difficult- on foot only. One of the pair takes their axe to cut some wood and misses, serious injury to leg. What happens next?
I am suggesting detailed plausible scenarios (base on real events even- then you also know the outcome) which are used to stimulate discussion and self-reflection.Not so much about detailed medical training, albeit the real-life experience of a first-responder or even a mountain leader type would be very useful. It's mainly about self-reflection, "how might I respond in this situation" and takes in not just technical training but the human response to events (and the kit that one has with one at that point in time). In real life, someone with a lot of theoretical training who freezes might not do so well as someone who is practical and will actually "press here" to stop bleeding, and is stubborn enough to keep "pressing here" until help arrives.
There's a you tube video about an accident on Crib Coch. The chap who made the video may or may not have done everything "right-" but he did enough to save someone who fell and was seriously injured in bad weather. It's easy to be an armchair expert after the event; what is more valuable IMO is some self-reflection and honesty about the ability to cope in a real-life emergency.
GC
Similar threads
