Terror attack first aid.

[Alcoblog 10]

Superglue is all you need in a first aid kit. I've been shot many times and my emergency tube of n-Butyl cyanoacrylate has sorted the problem every time.

[Bob Arctor 11]

Not really - its more about dealing with massive trauma. For many years first aiders were never meant to use torniquets - that changed after the Boston bombings when some military vets used them to save a fair few lives. Torniquets are back in first aid at work now in a big way....

 

Is that on the longer courses? I did a1 day course with St. John Ambulance less than 6 months ago and they didn't cover tourniquets.

 

I would guess that one reason for "terror first aid" is that the first aider may already be in a dangerous situation, so rather than endanger another person by sending them in, the survivors who are already there can do it. Reduces the number of people at risk, I'd have thought.

 

I agree with Halibut, first aid is first aid surely. It's not specialist by definition.

[Obelix 11]

Is that on the longer courses? I did a1 day course with St. John Ambulance less than 6 months ago and they didn't cover tourniquets.

 

I would guess that one reason for "terror first aid" is that the first aider may already be in a dangerous situation, so rather than endanger another person by sending them in, the survivors who are already there can do it. Reduces the number of people at risk, I'd have thought.

 

I agree with Halibut, first aid is first aid surely. It's not specialist by definition.

 

You might have just missed it then, it's apparantly come in recently. Its only on the five day courses as I understand it.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Is that on the longer courses? I did a1 day course with St. John Ambulance less than 6 months ago and they didn't cover tourniquets.

 

I would guess that one reason for "terror first aid" is that the first aider may already be in a dangerous situation, so rather than endanger another person by sending them in, the survivors who are already there can do it. Reduces the number of people at risk, I'd have thought.

 

I agree with Halibut, first aid is first aid surely. It's not specialist by definition.

 

I recently attended an 'emergency first-aid course' tourniquets are back on the menu.

 

Strangely enough though, we were told if someone is choking we aren't supposed to call it the 'Heimlich Maneuver' it is now to be called 'Abdominal Thrusts. Summat to do with HM being a registered trademark.

[ratter71 10]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38495234

 

Now it's all very laudable this first aid business and not one for people to ignore.

 

But then... "They say people need to know how to help each other because it could take some time before it is deemed safe for paramedics to arrive on the scene. "

 

So it's OK for joe public but not the paramedics?

 

Now I'm sorry but if you are working in the blue light services, I would expect a certain amount of risk to go with the job. Nothing is perfectly safe but are we perhaps being a bit too cautious in not asking people to go into a situation?

 

Take Derrik Bird and his little shootfest in Cumbria. How many people bled to death because they were sat for hours at the roadside whilst paramedics stood uselessly a few hundred meters away because the control desk wouldn't let them attend the incident? As I recall a lot of people get to hospital eventually by private cars.

 

So are we being a bit too cautious? Is the balance moving a bit too far to one side or not?

 

 

 

 

So it's OK for joe public but not the paramedics?

You seem to be (deliberately?) misinterpreting this. Its not about "Joe Public" entering the hot zone, its about helping the person next to you.

 

Now I'm sorry but if you are working in the blue light services, I would expect a certain amount of risk to go with the job

A live shooting incident (as per your example) is a little bit more than a "certain amount of risk"

 

But what is "too hazardous"....? I mean firefighters have died when they thought it was safe - there were four in Glasgow that died recently and some more at some vegetable plant in Norfolk I recall.

 

No ones saying they should rush in regardless but it seems that they are saying any risk is too much almost and that I think is perhaps wrong firefighters risk lives to save lives so why not paramedics?

 

I dont know there is a right answer to it, but it's given food for thought this article.

 

When firefighters enter a building they do so with a vast amount of safety gear. Ambulance crews have polo shirts, steel toe cap boots and hi-vis jackets, none of which will stop knives/bullets/shrapnel.

 

Another aspect is is pay & terms of employment firefighter basic pay is £29,345 with a pension available at 60. Most ambulance crews will consist of a paramedic (or technician) and an ECA. ECAs are paid AFC Band 3 (starting pay of £16,800) and will not qualify for full pension till 67/68. Whilst money is not the be all and end all of it, how much risk would you take for less than £17k p.a.?

 

 

Also this applies only to "standard" road crews, all NHS ambulance services are now required to have HART/SORT capabilities for occaisions such as terror attacks, these will enter outer cordons (not sure how far in) but will take time to deploy from their base location, hence the need for first aid prior to their arrival

 

 

 

Sources:

 

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/firefighter

https://www.fbu.org.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Generosity-spinbuster-final.pdf

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/about/careers-nhs/nhs-pay-and-benefits/agenda-change-pay-rates

https://naru.org.uk/naru-work-activities/naru-work-activities-capability-deliverables-hart-programme/

[Obelix 11]

You appear to misinterpreting what I have said.

 

But it's Sheffield forum where the synthetic outrage runs rife...

[Bob Arctor 11]

You appear to misinterpreting what I have said.

 

But it's Sheffield forum where the synthetic outrage runs rife...

 

Why so batey Obelix? Those were quite reasonable points raised by ratter71. Perhaps if you explained fully what it is you want the emergency services to do differently in these situations people would understand your point of view better. Personally I don't think it makes sense for ambulance crews to go rushing into a situation willy nilly, they are no use to anyone if they are dead. I would expect them to do some kind of risk assessment first and while they are doing that there is a lot that Joe public could be doing.

[ratter71 10]

You appear to misinterpreting what I have said.

 

But it's Sheffield forum where the synthetic outrage runs rife...

 

Which parts have I misinterpreted, and where is the outrage (synthetic or otherwise)?

[Obelix 11]

Why so batey Obelix?

 

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

[ratter71 10]

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

 

Where is the outrage, where is the "right on" boasting. I answered your concerns. You appear to be throwing your teddy out.

[Bob Arctor 11]

Because I'm sick to death as I said of people deciding to ignore what was said, and strut their "outrage" at when they think is said in order to boast how right on they are.

 

Didn't see any of that, sorry. You don't seem very happy lately, is everything ok?

[Cyclone 10]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38495234

 

Now it's all very laudable this first aid business and not one for people to ignore.

 

But then... "They say people need to know how to help each other because it could take some time before it is deemed safe for paramedics to arrive on the scene. "

 

So it's OK for joe public but not the paramedics?

 

Now I'm sorry but if you are working in the blue light services, I would expect a certain amount of risk to go with the job. Nothing is perfectly safe but are we perhaps being a bit too cautious in not asking people to go into a situation?

 

Take Derrik Bird and his little shootfest in Cumbria. How many people bled to death because they were sat for hours at the roadside whilst paramedics stood uselessly a few hundred meters away because the control desk wouldn't let them attend the incident? As I recall a lot of people get to hospital eventually by private cars.

 

So are we being a bit too cautious? Is the balance moving a bit too far to one side or not?

 

Probably someone has said this already, but it might take time for paramedics to reach people, but other members of the public are already there and can do first aid.

 

The whole initiative seems daft to me, I don't think they've made any enquiry about the level of first aid training already out there.

Practically everyone I know has some first aid training. Through hobbies, through work, through profession. I suspect that if you canvassed people on the street maybe a 3rd would already have some training.

 

---------- Post added 07-01-2017 at 09:55 ----------

 

You appear to misinterpreting what I have said.

 

But it's Sheffield forum where the synthetic outrage runs rife...

 

I interpreted it the same way...

In fact I've bolded the sentence. No, it's not "okay" for the public to go rushing in, nobody suggested it was. However if you're hiding from the gunman in a room, and you have a casualty with you, you're already there and the paramedics aren't. They can't get to you (gunman still at large), you can do first aid.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Cyclone