Talk:First Aid/Archive 2

First Aid/Templates
These templates can be used throughout the wikibook.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done?
A list of tasks needing to be done - feel free to move things around on this page as things get done.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful content may be found here
There may be useful content here. Please be very careful when taking content from here, as much of it is out-of-date and/or non-standard. That said, there may be plenty to copy and paste if appropriate. Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Health and Science/First Aid, Basic and Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Health and Science/First Aid, Standard. Mike.lifeguard 00:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also here: Scouting:BSA - First Aid Merit Badge Mike.lifeguard 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2005 standards from ILCOR in Circulation Mike.lifeguard 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First Aid/Appendix C: Sources was created, and these sources were included in it. Mike.lifeguard 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Processing page text
This stuff was added by User:Whiteknight as "processing page text", but I don't think its supposed to do what it's doing, so I removed it. Also, I don't think it renders the same when you preview vs save. I dunno what's going on there.

Mike.lifeguard 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I made those edits with a bot, based on the lists of books on the bookshelf. If this book got tagged twice, it must be shelved on two different shelves. The templates do render correctly, although I will admit that perhaps they aren't the most aesthetically pleasing of all templates. That's something we can work on in the future, of course. The important part is that the templates put this book into the correct Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress  categories, so that the book can be found more easily. If you have any other questions about this, let me know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Having those additional categorizations is fine, but the text at the bottom of the page but before the categories bar is a nuisance. Can't those template be changed so you still get the tags in that bottom bar where Category:First Aid is, but no text above it, where the content is? If not, leave them (I doubt anyone will read to the end of the disclaimers anyway) but it should be possible, though I have no idea how. Mike.lifeguard 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we can work to change the templates. Like i said, they were just a first attempt at a categorization, and we can make them prettier or we can even make them disappear entirely if we want. I'll figure something out about it and let you know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made them invisible for now. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency Childbirth
The content was included on First Aid/Ch10Sec2Birth, which is probably getting deleted. If we want to include it, there it is. Mike.lifeguard 06:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Childbirth seems like more than the lay rescuer would be able to help with. If it can eventually be rewritten to make it more lay-rescuer friendly such as (provide privacy and put absorbant materials under the mother and let the birth happen by itself while waiting for advanced care), it might be suitable to use. Mike6271 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be included, even in First Aid/Advanced Topics, although I suppose someone will want it to be included there. If we decide to include the section, it'd have to go there, and it'd have to be re-written for lay rescuers.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, think of it this way, we can offer this as an instructional guide and note that it is Advanced (Remember that no rescuer is required to go beyond their training). After all, lay rescuers are more than likely going to be the only trained individuals during such a time as birth can happen very quickly. --Nugger 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was just that I don't consider it to be part of first aid. Even advanced first aid. If we had a textbook aimed at EMTs/Paramedics/whatever then it would be far more appropriate there. Perhaps you (Nugger) and Owain.davies and Mike6271 could start one and include this sort of thing. Or maybe a book on midwifery...  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This topic is more suitable for a first responder course. Firefighter04 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, the suggestion here is that no layperson will ever need to deal with this? If someone happens to have to deal with this, shouldn't they be advised somehow? 72.50.169.6 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Victims, patients, casualties
I know this has been discussed on EN Wikipedia, with many of the same people, but i am not comfortable with the use of 'victim' to describe the person being treated.

Victim always implies that the harm has been cuased to them (usually a victim of crime), but you couldn't say that someone was the the 'victim' of a vicious paper cut, or a tragic 'victim' at the hands of a particularly nasty hole in the ground.

(See the Wiktionary entry if you want a definition)

Some things are just accidents! (although i'm sure there are lawyers out there who would disagree...)

My personal preference is for 'patient', as this is standard terminology for most people, and this is how it tends to be dealt with in research papers (for instance papers on bystander CPR). I know some people feel that patients are something that only doctors have, but certainly my ambulance service deals in patients as opposed to anything else.

Alternatively you could use 'casualty', as this has wide recognition, but in my opinion this really only refers to trauma patients. You aren't usually a 'casualty' of a stomach ache (or a victim for that matter), but you could be a 'patient with stomach ache'

In either case, i think victim is inappropriate, and needs to be changed.

Thoughts? Owain.davies 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did weigh in on this debate on WP, so feel free to read my comments there if you like. The definition at wiktionary includes "An unfortunate person who suffers from a disaster or other adverse circumstance." I'd call a heart attack or a dislocated shoulder an "adverse circumstance". As well, I think it's incredibly important, especially in Wikibooks (where we do how-tos and try to teach people - this isn't an encyclopedia) to be clear that first aiders are not healthcare providers - they are lay rescuers. So yes, paramedics, nurses, doctors (etc...) can have patients. But first aiders don't. I agree that casualty is inappropriate, but the correct alternative is victim, not patient. Mike.lifeguard 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have previously read your comments on WP, and I see what you're saying, but i don't think you can be a 'victim' of a headache. That single wiktionary definition is just the one definition, and every other one i can find (inc on other dictionary sites) gives a meaning where a victim involves someone being at fault.  No fault = no victim. Owain.davies 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will just add, that the majority of opinion at WP was against the use of victim, as i'm sure you know. For the record, the 'official' terminology in the UK for first aiders (as agreed by all the major first aid providers) is 'casualty', although as i said, i'm not a fan.   There is no reason that the person being treated has to be a victim right up until the ambulance arrive, when they suddenly become a patient.  As for diagnosis, i hope that first aiders can diagnose a simple level - even if it's just diagnosing cardiac arrest! Owain.davies 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire LSS disagrees with you, as victim is the word they use consistently in all their texts. Keep in mind that headache, stomachache, vicious paper cut, and "a tragic 'victim' at the hands of a particularly nasty hole in the ground" are not things that will ever be included in this WB - that's not first aid.
 * Casualty=dead, so I agree that this is entirely inappropriate
 * Patient=healthcare setting, not first aid, so this is also entirely inappropriate, especially considering that as the WB is attempting to teach, it is crucial to maintain the distinction between lay rescuers and healthcare providers.
 * Victim is the only alternative I can think of, and is widely used, though not in the UK, apparently. -Mike.lifeguard 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance, but who are the LSS? Life Saving Society? Presumably you mean ILSF (i am a member and am well aware that they use victim predominantly, but that is because it is appropriate for drowing and other marine injuries - BUT you will note that they use Patient in relation to injuries etc. once the person is on land see here) As for headache, stomach ache, twisted ankle from hole in the ground and paper cut - these are PRECISELY the sort of first aid that most people will end up dealing with!  I've done many of these in my time on ambulances (yes people really do call for that), in the workplace and as a lifeguard!)  It's a slight pet peeve of mine that some people spend all their time describing worst case scenario (and don't get me wrong, you need to be ready) but gloss over the minor stuff which makes up the majority of the work!   I do apologise, i've looked back, and this does look like a rant, but i'm just trying to reach a conclusion on this.  On a minor point, i don't think casualty means dead, but i think it should be restricted to trauma patients Owain.davies 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the international federation - they don't actually train anyone. The LSS is the Canadian 'arm', widely regarded as a leader in training, especially lifeguarding (but also first aid). The international federation is 'just' an umbrella organization (not that it isn't important).
 * In regards to the most common things people will be dealing with. Take headaches as an example - it's not included in the Standard level. That's the/my criterion for inclusion in the book (with the exception of the Advanced Topics section). Which is why anything that doesn't fall inside that is being 'relegated' to that section or being deleted. That's not to say that we don't have room for advanced topics - clearly there is room, but we're keeping it separate for a reason (it's outside the Standard standard of care; forgive that unfortunate use of words).
 * I can agree that casualty is for those people suffering from a trauma injury, and as such would be a runner-up to victim in my mind. Patient is absolutely off-limits: as I said before, this Wikibook needs to keep the lay rescuer/healthcare provider distinction crystal clear; using patient would blur the line more than casualty. Acceptable to you as well? -Mike.lifeguard 01:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't actually train anyone, but they do set the standards for all national societies. I'm a member of the RLSS and SLSA (UK ILSF members) as well as the British Red Cross, and patient is definitely standard.  I find it hard to believe that things like headaches are not covered in standard first aid, this would pretty much always be on a standard first aid course here.  I can't really reconcile to the use of victim, because apart from the one very narrow definition on wikitionary, no-one else seems to agree that it applies to anything other than something which has a perpetrator.  If you don't like paper cuts and headaches, i wouldn't say that you are the 'victim' of an asthma attack, because nobody caused it.  Given the outcome of this debate on WP (which i didn't take part in), and the lack of any further support, i think patient has got to be the right answer. Owain.davies 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Being from the US, patient is pretty much always used in more advanced first aid or healthcare CPR classes. However, when using patient, it (as Mike said) implies something more than what the lay-rescuer provides.  Looking at a boy scout handbook, it says "first aid is the first help given the victim of an accident or other health emergency."  Although victim does make it seem like something happened to the individual in a "more violent" way, by using victim, the lay-rescuer will not feel like he has to exceed his scope of practice to help the victim.  Although at my EMS agency we call them "patients," in a lay-rescuer situation, victim would be more appropriate here as patient implies more than just basic care.  Mike6271 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * American Red Cross uses 'victim' throughout their materials. In response to the idea that one cannot be victim of something like a headache, I would respond that from a first aid standpoint, the person is a victim of some unknown sudden illness, of which headache is a symptom. 68.225.184.156 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus? It looks like we're going to use victim for everything except in First Aid/Advanced Topics, where we'll have the option of using patient.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 00:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I will use victim from now on. Mike6271 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
How should the spelling work here? Oedema is the same thing as edema, just with a different spelling. Should we go with American English or English English? Mike6271 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a preference for Canadian English, being Canadian. Hopefully you (American, I think) and User:Owain.davies (British, I think) will battle it out. Then you'll need a compromise position, which will be Canadian English, being halfway between the two, more or less. Which is exactly what I want. Let the evil scheme commence
 * In reality, I don't care that much - do whatever you want.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In theory, we should use the first variant used - Canadian in this case. So it's really up to Mike... Owain.davies 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe try using something like Oedema (US: Edema) would work as I tried in First_Aid/Extended_Assessment so that someone from the US reading it will know that Oedema is the same as Edema.  Unless it is obvious as to what it is, does anyone support using the (US: usspelling) format so we can keep it in Canadian English? Mike6271 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No sense not having both. Write "The patient might have Oedema (edema)...". Whatever you do, just be consistant. If you need to have a glossary at the end of your book to explain terms like this, that might help to keep everybody on the same page. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is indeed. Thanks!  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a Glossary for terms like this. When you find them, please add them. As well, feel free to include alternate spellings.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to make it "jump" to the term? Mike6271 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if you make a section for each term. Then you can do something like First Aid/Appendix A: Glossary and it'll jump to that section. That'll make the glossary really bulky though. There might be a workaround that I'm not aware of - take a look through the help stuff?  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To create a tag to jump to, without having to create a section, use the template. For instance, if you wanted to jump to "Band-Aid", you would write:
 * ;Band-Aid: ...
 * Hope this is what you are talking about. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It sure is! Thanks  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I'd like to propose splitting the First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps module.
 * The BLS chapter would match First Aid/CPR summary by turning into:
 * Area
 * Awake
 * Ambulance
 * Airway
 * Breathing
 * Compressions (remember that there is no circulation check, so C for Compressions is a reinforcement of those changes)
 * Deadly bleeding (see last bullet for more on defib)


 * First Aid/Life-Threatening Medical Emergencies would be deleted, since it essentially says "there's some other stuff you'll need EMS for. We'll tell you that on other pages"... well, we're gonna tell them on the other pages - they don't need a heads-up.


 * The 3Ps would be moved to "Purpose of First Aid" in Issues in Providing Care. are already covered in First Aid/What Is First Aid


 * First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps is already covered elsewhere would be covered in Area


 * First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps moves to Area


 * First Aid/Emergency First Aid & Initial Action Steps moves to Ambulance


 * Defibrillation will be mentioned in Ambulance as well - lay rescuers should attempt to obtain an AED and AED-trained responder at the same time as calling EMS. AED use must stay in First Aid/Advanced Topics since it required advanced training.

 – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AED does not require advanced training, however I can understand where you are coming from as some areas have not upgraded to new standards. (Most newer AEDs have step-by-step instructions with visual aids so that anyone could use an AED efficiently. I have also stated this elsewhere, but I don't agree with the way the ABCs are handled. Maybe change it to A for Assessment in the steps of first-aid and change the ABCs to Airway, Breathing, Circulation. --Nugger 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The training organizations disagree with you - they all recognize the need for AED-specific training. I happen to agree with you; I think AEDs are so easy to use that training is not needed. But again, what we think doesn't matter - we go by what the experts say. And they say that it requires training, so it must therefore stay in First Aid/Advanced Topics.
 * I don't understand why we would want anything called A for Assessment. The whole premise of the BLS chapter is assessment and intervention.
 * Please also read my comments here.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I revoke my statements as it was confusion on my part. Details here --Nugger 00:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Name Change
Most of the content in this book is primarily taught in a certified first responder course rather than a basic first aid course. I took a basic first aid course and it basically went over soft tissue injuries, control of bleeding, and musculoskeletal injuries (e.g. splinting, etc.) and medical emergencies but not childbirth, patient assessment (Check, Call, Care is all I learned in the BFA class), and in-depth kind of stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firefighter04 (talk • contribs).
 * It should stay first aid. Some of the topics are more advanced, but they are all basic first aid topics that anyone can do.  There is much more to being a First Responder than what is covered in this section.  I don't know why you changed it to Certified First Responder without any vote from the contributers.  Mike6271 19:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it back to first aid. Mike6271 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request that First Aid/Abuse & Neglect Be Merged
I am requesting that the article First Aid/Abuse & Neglect be merged into the book Certified First Responder (formerly known as "First Aid"). Firefighter04 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

✅  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First Aid Kits
Should we have a section on first aid kits and what a personal/home first aid kit should contain? Mike6271 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be useful. Owain.davies 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'd say it should probably be an appendix. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will someone add the page...I don't...want to break it :-P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike6271 (talk • contribs) 00:34, November 20, 2007.
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]]  - First Aid/Appendix E: First Aid Kits. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WB:FBN
Did you guys notice that this book is up for Featured Book status? Feel free to comment on the discussion. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 00:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] This is now a featured book. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimers
How to we feel about removing the disclaimers? They're redundant as all of Wikibooks is covered by those disclaimers (they were adapted from the boilerplate disclaimers which apply to everything). I think the originals are enough, and they're a bit hideous next to the TOC. I'll remove them at some point unless there's objection. Keep in mind that we have mini-disclaimers throughout (ie when we talk about administering epi-pens, we say "only if it's legal to do so" etc) – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 10:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]]  – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know what disclaimers were there previously, but I have added a brief sentence in the body text just to draw people's attention to the general disclaimer. There is always the possibility that somebody adds wrong information (whether maliciously or with good intentions), and that somebody else reads it before it can be removed, and later relies on it in an emergency situation. There has to be a balance, and I don't think that it is necessary to give lengthy disclaimers on the front page when people can just click the link to the disclaimer page, but I do think that the potential harm in that situation is enough to justify giving the link more prominence than just the foot of the page. Alan Iwi (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoiding disclaimers in content is standard practice, so I have removed that. The disclaimer is already linked on every single page of the wiki, and that is sufficient. Note we already do more than that where it actually makes sense to do so because doing so is part of the lesson. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First Aid
Someone just added this; thought you might be interested to take a look. I've added a link from there to this WikiBook. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness First Aid
This section should probably be pulled out of Advanced Topics and should stand on its own. It is really a different method of first aid. Geo.plrd (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest rather than splitting it up that you use subpages. Most treatment needn't be repeated - it's RED no matter your location - what is probably most important is covering exposure, transportation etc. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will use subpages. However I believe that this subject merits a chapter of its own as treatments in wilderness first aid can be radically different than those undertaken under normal conditions. Geo.plrd (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has it's own section which can be as large as need be (is that a "chapter"?)
 * Probably the best thing to do where treatment varies only a bit is to say "Refer to Wherever, but note that something different regarding treatment in the wilderness
 * For things which are massively different, only then would I recommend that you rewrite the section. Probably beginning with principles of wilderness first aid would be good - you will then be able to say for each condition "Here is how we treat it differently in the wilderness" with reference to those principles. Perhaps I'll grab you on IRC if I'm not making sense. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Contact Appendix?
Would be wise/feasible to create an appendix with emergency numbers for each country? Geo.plrd (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine, however I would recommend not bothering with local numbers, which is what I think you meant - things like 911 and equivalents, poison control centres etc &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean local numbers, but the national emergency and poison control numbers. Geo.plrd (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)