With the overall stat at only 3% points difference (vs above quote specifict to public spaces), it's not as huge a difference as it might have been, but of course lots of room for improvement. I...
in a public place, such as the street, the difference was greater (61% of women compared to 68% of men).
With the overall stat at only 3% points difference (vs above quote specifict to public spaces), it's not as huge a difference as it might have been, but of course lots of room for improvement.
I was curious if simply using mannekins with breasts might help make strangers feel more comfortable giving cpr to a woman. At least in the first aid courses Ive taken, the practice mannekins have all had masculine-looking chests. It seems like at least one company has explored this concept (though the result is admittedly weird and extremely unreal looking): link
I totally agree! I had a similar thought didn't express in my first comment of including mannequins with very large chests/breasts, so that people feel more comfortable finding the sternum on...
as would using morbidly obese mannequins
I totally agree! I had a similar thought didn't express in my first comment of including mannequins with very large chests/breasts, so that people feel more comfortable finding the sternum on different body types.
don't emphasize how quickly you have to start CPR on someone if you want to give them a chance at all
I let my first aid/cpr training lapse a number of years ago, but the training I received I seem to remember the importance of trying at all, regardless of doubt or time-frame (outside of, you know, extremely obvious traumatic injuries). Your point makes sense, but I'd be afraid that message could make people feel like 'it's already too late' vs. a broader 'just do it, here's how' comms approach.
The current mannequins pack nicely as they are pretty rectangular. Breasted and obese models will likely cost more and take up more storage space. I'm not sure how much different mannequins would...
The current mannequins pack nicely as they are pretty rectangular. Breasted and obese models will likely cost more and take up more storage space. I'm not sure how much different mannequins would help anyway as I'd wager most hesitancy to start CPR is due to worry of impropriety. It's just way more socially acceptable to touch a flat chest than a breasted one, so bystanders will wait for definite signs of emergency before risking it.
If we assume that it is because of a worry of impropriety as you stated, then couldn't it also track that breasted mannequins (womannequins?) being part of the training might ease some of the...
If we assume that it is because of a worry of impropriety as you stated, then couldn't it also track that breasted mannequins (womannequins?) being part of the training might ease some of the worry if someone can feel more confident that where they place their hands on or near breasts in such an emergency is the proper place and feel more comfortable knowing that's how they were trained to do it?
Also what's the point of mannequins? We could just describe CPR to people in words right? Or we could show them a set of pictures? Or perhaps a video? Well none of those give you the actual experience of what it's like to push your hands down on someones chest, doing is better than just reading, hearing, or seeing. Getting a more realistic experience of CPR with a mannequin presumably makes people more competent, capable and/or comfortable with CPR, having different mannequin shapes would presumably extend some of those benefits in cases where the traditional mannequin doesn't adequately prepare people for the different physical sensations or dynamics.
The point of the mannequins is to provide practice of some form and to have a thing that can demonstrate the basics of a chest cavity/mouth. It helps to show how much force it takes to "raise the...
The point of the mannequins is to provide practice of some form and to have a thing that can demonstrate the basics of a chest cavity/mouth. It helps to show how much force it takes to "raise the lungs" and how deep you need to compress the chest. But unless you're expecting the practice to also include ripping the shirt/bra off the dummy, I don't see how it would change the training at all. An obese dummy could show some of the particular complications of dealing with the extremely obese, but that level of nuance is not going to be useful by anyone other than a paramedic.
The point of CPR training is to give some amount of awareness to the general populace in the hopes that a person in critical need can receive basic life support until help arrives. The grand majority of the training will be forgotten. A trainer just hopes you remember some key things like clear airway, chest compressions, and the song "stayin alive".
Not the exact same thing, but when I did first aid, they taught CPR and got us to practice the motions, and also taught us how to safely use a defibrillator (which is unsafe for the obvious reason...
Not the exact same thing, but when I did first aid, they taught CPR and got us to practice the motions, and also taught us how to safely use a defibrillator (which is unsafe for the obvious reason of not getting yourself electrocuted, but also any time you spend setting the defibrillator up is time not spent on compressions)
One thing I was a little disappointed about was how they mentioned in passing that the underwire in a bra should be removed before the defibrillator applies current, but never actually went into detail or even showed diagrams or anything.
I’m left wondering what I’d do if I found myself in that situation, and worried if it’s something I’d forget about because it’s not something I practiced. I don’t know because I’ve never needed to use my training, but I’m worried that all theory would leave my head in the stress of the moment and I’ll be entirely acting on muscle memory. In that case, yeah I’ll absolutely be able to start compressions and apply a defibrillator, but I suspect I’d completely forget about removing metal until afterwards.
Success rates for CPR are pretty low. Outside hospital there's a 12% success rate, and inside hospital that rises only to 20% to 40%. (Depending very strongly on where abouts in the hospital the...
Society pushes CPR as some crucial life saving skill, and people misunderstand how successful it is, and that leads us to frame information like this in weird ways.
In what way do you think this is being framed weirdly? If there was a disease that had a single cure with a success rate of 12% and the alternative was certain death (I'm assuming that cardiac...
In what way do you think this is being framed weirdly? If there was a disease that had a single cure with a success rate of 12% and the alternative was certain death (I'm assuming that cardiac arrest without intervention has a survivability of close to nil) and we found that women had measurably unequal access to it, would that not be a concern?
To your broader point, for something that can be taught in an hour, a 12% survival rate seems very much worth it from a societal point of view to me. What success rate would you need to justify society "pushing" it as a skill worth having?
You are going to die of a cardiac arrest. You get a choice: option 1) die relatively peacefully option 2) die in chaos, with someone breaking your ribs, puncturing your lungs, battering you in a...
In what way do you think this is being framed weirdly? I
You are going to die of a cardiac arrest. You get a choice:
option 1) die relatively peacefully
option 2) die in chaos, with someone breaking your ribs, puncturing your lungs, battering you in a futile attempt to save your life.
Most people pick option 1, but this thread has framed that as sub-optimal, and has framed option 2 as being the option that people really want and are being unjustly denied access to.
and we found that women had measurably unequal access to it, would that not be a concern?
Of all the healthcare options that women have measurably unequal access to, we should probably focus on things that have better evidence for improving quality of life or for lengthening life. And there are like a million of those! We could start with providing better access to healthcare for women who experience heart disease and heart attacks, meaning they're less likely to have a heart attack or go into cardiac arrest in the community. We're still not sure if women and men experience different symptoms when they have a heart attack. Here's John Hopkins saying they do, and here's the British Heart Foundation saying it's a myth
What success rate would you need to justify society "pushing" it as a skill worth having?
It's not about the success rate, it's about the rate of harm inflicted by well meaning but poorly skilled bystander members of the public.
Community defibrillators are easier to use and far more likely to have a good outcome. We should focus time and money on those instead of CPR.
I would absolutely choose broken ribs over everlasting sleep. I think you're in the minority in choosing death in that scenario and I imagine if I sourced credible DNR statistics, we'd find that...
this thread has framed that as sub-optimal, and has framed option 2 as being the option that people really want and are being unjustly denied access to.
I would absolutely choose broken ribs over everlasting sleep. I think you're in the minority in choosing death in that scenario and I imagine if I sourced credible DNR statistics, we'd find that the majority of people feel the same way. The fact you don't want that 12% chance of life is - respectfully - so alien to me that it makes me want to ask if everything is ok but this is the internet and that is easily taken badly.
Of all the healthcare options that women have measurably unequal access to, we should probably focus on things that have better evidence for improving quality of life or for lengthening life.
I don't like this whatabouttism. We are a complex society that can address multiple failures at the same time and the existence of other problems is not a reason or excuse to not focus on others.
Community defibrillators are easier to use and far more likely to have a good outcome. We should focus time and money on those instead of CPR.
From what I've read the "successful" outcome of CPR most often leaves the recipient in a pretty bad state, not just because they've got broken ribs but because their brains haven't really received...
I would absolutely choose broken ribs over everlasting sleep
From what I've read the "successful" outcome of CPR most often leaves the recipient in a pretty bad state, not just because they've got broken ribs but because their brains haven't really received enough oxygen, and their prognosis is generally poor. I'm strongly in the "Do Not Resuscitate" camp as far as CPR goes, as I don't want an extra three months of suffering TYVM, I'd rather just let go.
[But (a) I'm old and (b) not well enough informed to be sure this is correct]
With the overall stat at only 3% points difference (vs above quote specifict to public spaces), it's not as huge a difference as it might have been, but of course lots of room for improvement.
I was curious if simply using mannekins with breasts might help make strangers feel more comfortable giving cpr to a woman. At least in the first aid courses Ive taken, the practice mannekins have all had masculine-looking chests. It seems like at least one company has explored this concept (though the result is admittedly weird and extremely unreal looking): link
I totally agree! I had a similar thought didn't express in my first comment of including mannequins with very large chests/breasts, so that people feel more comfortable finding the sternum on different body types.
I let my first aid/cpr training lapse a number of years ago, but the training I received I seem to remember the importance of trying at all, regardless of doubt or time-frame (outside of, you know, extremely obvious traumatic injuries). Your point makes sense, but I'd be afraid that message could make people feel like 'it's already too late' vs. a broader 'just do it, here's how' comms approach.
The current mannequins pack nicely as they are pretty rectangular. Breasted and obese models will likely cost more and take up more storage space. I'm not sure how much different mannequins would help anyway as I'd wager most hesitancy to start CPR is due to worry of impropriety. It's just way more socially acceptable to touch a flat chest than a breasted one, so bystanders will wait for definite signs of emergency before risking it.
If we assume that it is because of a worry of impropriety as you stated, then couldn't it also track that breasted mannequins (womannequins?) being part of the training might ease some of the worry if someone can feel more confident that where they place their hands on or near breasts in such an emergency is the proper place and feel more comfortable knowing that's how they were trained to do it?
Also what's the point of mannequins? We could just describe CPR to people in words right? Or we could show them a set of pictures? Or perhaps a video? Well none of those give you the actual experience of what it's like to push your hands down on someones chest, doing is better than just reading, hearing, or seeing. Getting a more realistic experience of CPR with a mannequin presumably makes people more competent, capable and/or comfortable with CPR, having different mannequin shapes would presumably extend some of those benefits in cases where the traditional mannequin doesn't adequately prepare people for the different physical sensations or dynamics.
The point of the mannequins is to provide practice of some form and to have a thing that can demonstrate the basics of a chest cavity/mouth. It helps to show how much force it takes to "raise the lungs" and how deep you need to compress the chest. But unless you're expecting the practice to also include ripping the shirt/bra off the dummy, I don't see how it would change the training at all. An obese dummy could show some of the particular complications of dealing with the extremely obese, but that level of nuance is not going to be useful by anyone other than a paramedic.
The point of CPR training is to give some amount of awareness to the general populace in the hopes that a person in critical need can receive basic life support until help arrives. The grand majority of the training will be forgotten. A trainer just hopes you remember some key things like clear airway, chest compressions, and the song "stayin alive".
Not the exact same thing, but when I did first aid, they taught CPR and got us to practice the motions, and also taught us how to safely use a defibrillator (which is unsafe for the obvious reason of not getting yourself electrocuted, but also any time you spend setting the defibrillator up is time not spent on compressions)
One thing I was a little disappointed about was how they mentioned in passing that the underwire in a bra should be removed before the defibrillator applies current, but never actually went into detail or even showed diagrams or anything.
I’m left wondering what I’d do if I found myself in that situation, and worried if it’s something I’d forget about because it’s not something I practiced. I don’t know because I’ve never needed to use my training, but I’m worried that all theory would leave my head in the stress of the moment and I’ll be entirely acting on muscle memory. In that case, yeah I’ll absolutely be able to start compressions and apply a defibrillator, but I suspect I’d completely forget about removing metal until afterwards.
Success rates for CPR are pretty low. Outside hospital there's a 12% success rate, and inside hospital that rises only to 20% to 40%. (Depending very strongly on where abouts in the hospital the incident happens). https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/patients-overestimate-the-success-of-cpr/
Society pushes CPR as some crucial life saving skill, and people misunderstand how successful it is, and that leads us to frame information like this in weird ways.
In what way do you think this is being framed weirdly? If there was a disease that had a single cure with a success rate of 12% and the alternative was certain death (I'm assuming that cardiac arrest without intervention has a survivability of close to nil) and we found that women had measurably unequal access to it, would that not be a concern?
To your broader point, for something that can be taught in an hour, a 12% survival rate seems very much worth it from a societal point of view to me. What success rate would you need to justify society "pushing" it as a skill worth having?
You are going to die of a cardiac arrest. You get a choice:
option 1) die relatively peacefully
option 2) die in chaos, with someone breaking your ribs, puncturing your lungs, battering you in a futile attempt to save your life.
Most people pick option 1, but this thread has framed that as sub-optimal, and has framed option 2 as being the option that people really want and are being unjustly denied access to.
Of all the healthcare options that women have measurably unequal access to, we should probably focus on things that have better evidence for improving quality of life or for lengthening life. And there are like a million of those! We could start with providing better access to healthcare for women who experience heart disease and heart attacks, meaning they're less likely to have a heart attack or go into cardiac arrest in the community. We're still not sure if women and men experience different symptoms when they have a heart attack. Here's John Hopkins saying they do, and here's the British Heart Foundation saying it's a myth
It's not about the success rate, it's about the rate of harm inflicted by well meaning but poorly skilled bystander members of the public.
Community defibrillators are easier to use and far more likely to have a good outcome. We should focus time and money on those instead of CPR.
I would absolutely choose broken ribs over everlasting sleep. I think you're in the minority in choosing death in that scenario and I imagine if I sourced credible DNR statistics, we'd find that the majority of people feel the same way. The fact you don't want that 12% chance of life is - respectfully - so alien to me that it makes me want to ask if everything is ok but this is the internet and that is easily taken badly.
I don't like this whatabouttism. We are a complex society that can address multiple failures at the same time and the existence of other problems is not a reason or excuse to not focus on others.
Again. Why not both?
From what I've read the "successful" outcome of CPR most often leaves the recipient in a pretty bad state, not just because they've got broken ribs but because their brains haven't really received enough oxygen, and their prognosis is generally poor. I'm strongly in the "Do Not Resuscitate" camp as far as CPR goes, as I don't want an extra three months of suffering TYVM, I'd rather just let go.
[But (a) I'm old and (b) not well enough informed to be sure this is correct]