Talk:Rescue breathing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject First aid, an attempt to maintain and improve wikipedia's first aid and emergency care related articles. Please see the WikiProject page if you would like to contribute.

[edit] Removed

"Whilst holding open the patient's airway (usually by the "head tilt chin lift" method), the rescuer exhales into the patient's mouth (whilst pinching the nose) (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation); or into the patient's nose (whilst holding the mouth shut) (mouth-to-nose resuscitation)."

JamieJones talk 12:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) : Wikipedia is not a how to

"The technique may be used on its own in cases of respiritory arrest or combined with chest compression in cardiac arrest"

JamieJones talk 12:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) This is inaccurate. Rescue breathing means without chest compressions. With chest compressions the protocol is called CPR.

* I didn't create a how-to, I created a description of the process, and I think that the mouth-to-mouth and mouth-to-nose both deserve mention. Your description is not actually a description of the technique, its a discussion of when you might use it. I removed the section on when to stop because that actually is a how-to, and is not appropriate for wikipedia, I notice that you put that back.
hmm. Ok, you make good points. I'm merging some ideas... JamieJones talk 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As for your second comment, I think that we're just crossing wires here - EAR/EAV is the process of expelling air from one person's lungs to another's; Rescue Breathing/Kiss of Life are colloquial terms which can either refer to EAR/EAV, or the specific protocol under which they are administered for a specific condition. If you're using the latter, then RB is not the same as EAR/EAV as you state in the introduction, it is simply a set of rules which contain the use of EAR/EAV. I'm assuming the former, in which case RB/EAR/EAV etc.. are all the same thing, and they are used alone in respiritory arrest or in conjunction with chest compressions in cardiac arrest (this combination is also known as CPR). In any case, EAR/EAV is a part of CPR even if RB is not.
Do you want to start a separate page on EAV/EAR then? Rescue breathing is definitely not part of CPR, but giving breaths is. The Canadian Red Cross (whom I work for) does not give a specific name to giving breaths. Instead, names are given to protocols...rescue breathing for no breathing, but with pulse; and CPR for no pulse. There is no terminology we use to describe the act of giving breaths other than straightforward "give 2 breaths". JamieJones talk 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oxygenation during EAR/EAV has been shown to be suboptimal, and for that reason several leading researchers are in favour of compression only CPR for at least the first few minutes. Saying that the research shows that this delivers an amount of oxygen which is "more than enough" is simply wrong. See the www.resus.org.uk website 2005 guidelines on Adult Basic Life Support, which have extensive discussion of this very topic. --John24601 12:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I will research it. In Canadian Red Cross (as with others I'm sure) we teach that 16% is enough...thanks for your comments. I look forward to working together more with you. I assume you are in the UK? Thanks JamieJones talk 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also don't appreciate

You removed my referenced comment, and replace it was unreferenced claims. I really want you to help build this article, but can you please work with what's there, and reference your claims. Thanks! JamieJones talk 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And indeed that's what I did do. If you're talking about the efficiency of EAV, then look at the link I put at the bottom to the Resuscitation Council (UK) website at the guidelines for Adult BLS; which have a discussion of this very topic. Popular culture and medical practice surrounding EAV (& resuscitation in general) is full of myth and flawed resoning, and we rely on official bodies such as the ERC and RCUK (I'm sure you have a similar body in Canada) to interperet the research that is there to form an opinion. The opinion of the world's leading resuscitation experts (as chanelled from the world convention on resuscitation through the various regional and national resuscitation councils) is that EAV delivers suboptimal oxygenation, and for this reason the focus should be on compressions in all cases of arrest (either respiritory or cardiac). Read the evidence and you'll see all that; read popular culture type websites and you'll see alot of hearsay and tall tales. --John24601 13:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Right; by referencing I mean not just an external link, but a direct footnote. It makes the article more authoritative. Adding your own footnote would be a great addition to this page. Again, my opinion comes from working with the Red Cross; but I will research as you suggest. Thanks again. JamieJones talk 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another thing

I just discovered the artificial respiration page. I think that's more what you're talking about. Rescue breathing is specific to a particular situation (No breathing, pulse present). But maybe we could still work on it as it should have its own page. JamieJones talk 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - Artificial Respiration is not actually a proper medical term. Strictly speaking, respiration applies to the transfer of gases between lungs/blood and blood/tissues, and the resultant biochemical process which creates energy. You can't artificially respirate someone for this reason; you artificially ventilate them. And artificial ventilation is actually a huge subject which includes EAR/EAV/Whatever you want to call it, mechanical ventilation (with a ventilator, of which there are many types), bag-valve-mask ventilation, and bagging through an ET tube; so there still needs to be some kind of seperate page for this EAR/EAV or whatever you want to call it I think. Furthermore, I think this whole mixup has come about as a result of us both having the same name for two slightly different things, although I accept that the Canadian Red Cross may have their own slightly different take on things; generally the medical and first aid communities would accept my definition of rescue breathing.... --John24601 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
but maybe maybe not in Canada :). Or the US, I searched the American Red Cross and found the term too. But maybe in the UK...do you have the UK Red Cross website? Nevermind, found it...check it out..."Take care not to tilt the casualty’s neck. If the person is unconscious and requires C.P.R (rescue breathing and chest compressions) ". Looks like you were right, the make a different distinction...we would never say rescue breathing together with chest compressions, to us that's like say RICE together with RED. Sure, you elevate and rest in both, but one is for musculo-skeletal, and one is for bleeds. Interesting.