On 10/11/2015 11:15, Chris French wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 09/11/2015 21:25, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2015 19:59, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 09/11/2015 16:30, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/y-rEI4bezWc


AEDs are an excellent idea snip

Not so sure, genuinely. If the ambulance is only a few minutes away,

The target is that first response should reach the victim within eight
minutes. A transport ambulance should arrive within 19 minutes. Not
all calls achieve those targets.

Indeed, our village is 20 mins drive from the nearest ambulance station,
- even blue lighting it I doubt they would do it in less than 15. Ok,
the ambulance might already be out somewhere, but that doesn't mean it
will be nearer.

why stop CPR while the AED takes measurements? This is valuable time
when blood could be circulating, albeit at a much reduced rate.

Part of the logic is that not everybody can do CPR, but anybody can
follow the instructions from an AED.


Yes, and the effectiveness of CPR is limited - it's not like the TV :-)
And even people who can do CPR, lots of them are probably like me and
somewhat rusty

De-fibrillation isn't like TV either - only a quarter of arrests are AED
'shockable' arrhythmias, so three out of four times you'd be wasting
valuable blood-pumping time. As you know, even with a second person
setting up the AED, there is a considerable measurement time during
which the patient can't be touched.

I think it's a genuine problem, and I can't find clear-cut statistics.

Cheers
--
Syd