Usefullness of sparring

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Well no we dont, we have evidence that a very small number of people have used the skills success fully, we have no idea how many people died needlessly because the training was sub par ?

Your a management consutant, would you really recommend , that life crucial skills are taught by unqualified people.

I've had this argument all my working life, if you want a scaffold traNing course pay a scaffold with training qualifications to give it, don't send Jenny from accounts on a two day scaffold course and expect her to do it. And yes this very arguments For cpr,and defibs
And that works fine, because a limited number of people need scaffold training, and it can afford to cost what it takes to get them in. To get CPR out to "the masses" requires ready access at low cost, with frequent availability. You don't get that by shifting a qualified, experienced nurse to delivering that training. That's going to be expensive, so that is most commonly used for training people with a real expectation to use it (i.e., other medical professionals). That follows the scaffolding training model. If we wanted to stop people from screwing up when putting up quick scaffolding at their home, we'd have to offer that training really inexpensively, and in a short timeframe through places like Home Depot. We could easily gather the information we need from really good scaffolding folks (especially the ones doing the training), and figure out the most important things for an average person to know when creating a scaffold at home, including what materials are best for that 3' or 6' scaffold, and basic dimensions. We could then train some trainers to deliver that information.

We both know the training from the experience scaffolding guy (if he's also a good trainer) is the better training and will likely produce the better results in the long run. We both also know that people are better off with some decent information, tips, warnings, and suggestions from a well-organized training session based on good analysis and planning, than they would be if they didn't go to it.
 

gpseymour

MT Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
25,736
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Hendersonville, NC
Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.

If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible
I'd agree when an organization is training its people. But that's not going to reach the maximum number of people. To do that, we need public classes (quite easy to find in the States). And we have good evidence people from those public classes - even when taught by non-medical staff - save lives. We don't know how many more (if any) they'd save if those classes were taught by medical professionals, but we know they do save lives.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
And that works fine, because a limited number of people need scaffold training, and it can afford to cost what it takes to get them in. To get CPR out to "the masses" requires ready access at low cost, with frequent availability. You don't get that by shifting a qualified, experienced nurse to delivering that training. That's going to be expensive, so that is most commonly used for training people with a real expectation to use it (i.e., other medical professionals). That follows the scaffolding training model. If we wanted to stop people from screwing up when putting up quick scaffolding at their home, we'd have to offer that training really inexpensively, and in a short timeframe through places like Home Depot. We could easily gather the information we need from really good scaffolding folks (especially the ones doing the training), and figure out the most important things for an average person to know when creating a scaffold at home, including what materials are best for that 3' or 6' scaffold, and basic dimensions. We could then train some trainers to deliver that information.

We both know the training from the experience scaffolding guy (if he's also a good trainer) is the better training and will likely produce the better results in the long run. We both also know that people are better off with some decent information, tips, warnings, and suggestions from a well-organized training session based on good analysis and planning, than they would be if they didn't go to it.
Hang on, we are now discussing a different thing, I'm not talking about the masses, the whole population, I'm talking about the work place and an employer meeting their duty of care by having qualified trainers to train life crucial skills.

Now employer either meet that expectations or they dont, if they need to invest money then so be it. If they can't afford to pay for the health and safety of their staff and effected members of the public then they shouldn't be in business
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,213
Location
In the dojo
Your turning it into a personal slight, you asked me the question and I have given my views, my views are that people teachingskills on Which lives depend, should be suitably qualified, in this case that would be a medical qualification and suitable experiance, if you did a good job of your training that's down to your personal attribute s and not to the organisation having a good system for training life saving skills your level may very well not be replicated by others
That wasn’t a personal slight towards you nor anyone else here. The smartass was a guy in one of my classes (this was when I taught at a college). I knew him from other stuff, and he was always a smartass. Good guy, but a smartass nonetheless
 

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.

If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible

That's assuming that CPR trained by non-professionals is worse than CPR trained by professionals, and right now there is no evidence to suggest that. My CPR training comes from the RLSS, which is Ofqual accredited to meet the same standards as that used by paramedics and doctors. Are you suggesting that the training I received is worse than that given to paramedics? I would also like to point out that all workplace CPR training is done through the "first aid at work" course, which is also provided by the RLSS and is recognised by the HSE and the GMC. You do not need to be a medical professional or have real world experience in order to be a first aid at work trainer. I think I trust their judgement a little more than you, no offence.
 
Last edited:

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
I'd agree when an organization is training its people. But that's not going to reach the maximum number of people. To do that, we need public classes (quite easy to find in the States). And we have good evidence people from those public classes - even when taught by non-medical staff - save lives. We don't know how many more (if any) they'd save if those classes were taught by medical professionals, but we know they do save lives.
Such classes in the UK are run by amongst others The johns ambulance organisation who only use qualified people vetted to a very high standard. There is absolutely no way anyone is teaching cpr, to the public just on a three it five day course of how to do/ teach cpr, the liabilities for prosecution and litigation would be enormous if they cocked up
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
That wasn’t a personal slight towards you nor anyone else here. The smartass was a guy in one of my classes (this was when I taught at a college). I knew him from other stuff, and he was always a smartass. Good guy, but a smartass nonetheless
No, you seem to be taking my views that your unqualified to teach cpr, as slight against you and it isnt, my issue is with unqualified people in general teaching cpr
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,213
Location
In the dojo
Yes, I can't argue with that, my point is not that only medical people should be trained in cpr, it's that only medical people should be training people in cpr, bad training isn't worse than no training, it's just the same, people die.

If an organisations needs to train it's staff in cpr, then they should invest the money and pay someone qualified to teach it, not do it as cheaply as possible
The qualification for teaching American Red Cross CPR/First Aid is successfully passing the instructor training course. The first thing you must do the first night is demonstrate everything properly without any prompting. If you succeed, you move on; if you don’t, you’re told to enroll in a future class after you’re able to demonstrate the skills properly. Other organizations are similar, as far as I know.

As to going the cheapest route, there really isn’t a cheapest route. Give or take a few dollars, everyone charges the same thing. The Red Cross charges instructors per card issued, and instructors charge whatever they want. Everyone’s within the same price because no one wants to price themselves out of the market, and not charging enough is a waste of time. Teaching a 4 hour class is a whole day thing for the instructor when you add up the outside work needed - transporting and setting up equipment, breaking it down and cleaning it, paperwork involved, etc. People have said we charge too much for 4 hours of work, to which I’ve always replied the 4 hour class takes me 7 hours start to finish. When they see me there about an hour before the class starts and finally leave the parking lot an hour afterwards, they get it.

The only real cost cutting measure in it is to have an existing employee teach it in-house. But by the time they pay for the instructor training, materials and equipment, it takes about a dozen classes before they break even. Depending on staff size, it could be not worth it as they’ll never break even.

Perhaps too much information here.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
The qualification for teaching American Red Cross CPR/First Aid is successfully passing the instructor training course. The first thing you must do the first night is demonstrate everything properly without any prompting. If you succeed, you move on; if you don’t, you’re told to enroll in a future class after you’re able to demonstrate the skills properly. Other organizations are similar, as far as I know.

As to going the cheapest route, there really isn’t a cheapest route. Give or take a few dollars, everyone charges the same thing. The Red Cross charges instructors per card issued, and instructors charge whatever they want. Everyone’s within the same price because no one wants to price themselves out of the market, and not charging enough is a waste of time. Teaching a 4 hour class is a whole day thing for the instructor when you add up the outside work needed - transporting and setting up equipment, breaking it down and cleaning it, paperwork involved, etc. People have said we charge too much for 4 hours of work, to which I’ve always replied the 4 hour class takes me 7 hours start to finish. When they see me there about an hour before the class starts and finally leave the parking lot an hour afterwards, they get it.

The only real cost cutting measure in it is to have an existing employee teach it in-house. But by the time they pay for the instructor training, materials and equipment, it takes about a dozen classes before they break even. Depending on staff size, it could be not worth it as they’ll never break even.

Perhaps too much information here.
Break even ? It's not a prOf it loss thing . It's about having the best quality training and that does not come from an in-house employee when compared to a qualified profession al
 

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
Such classes in the UK are run by amongst others The johns ambulance organisation who only use qualified people vetted to a very high standard. There is absolutely no way anyone is teaching cpr, to the public just on a three it five day course of how to do/ teach cpr, the liabilities for prosecution and litigation would be enormous if they cocked up

You might want to rethink that a little bit....

Adult and Paediatric First Aid Instructor Training Courses | Aid Training

5 day course to become a first aid at work trainer.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
You might want to rethink that a little bit....

Adult and Paediatric First Aid Instructor Training Courses | Aid Training

5 day course to become a first aid at work trainer.
I just said classes given to the public not at work,

Yes you can be qualified to give first aid training in 5 Days, I see no problem with that if it's restricted to cleaning Woundsand sending people to hospital, what your allowed to do as a first Wider s is very resticted.

It's doesn't actually say if it includes a cpr, if it does then I would view that level of trAINing as inadequate,
It would be allowed to happen at my company, in fact we wouldn't use in house staff to train any first aid, for the very reason we would be extremely vulnerable to litigation if it went wrong
 
Last edited:

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
I just said classes given to the public not at work,

Yes you can be qualified to give first aid training in 5 Days, I see no problem with that if it's restricted to cleaning sounds and sending people to hospital, what your allowed to do as a first sides is very resticted.

It's doesn't actually say if it includes a cpr, if it does then I would view that level of trying as inadequate,
It would be allowed to happen at my company, in fact we wouldn't use in house staff to train any first aid

The "first aid at work" course includes CPR and AED useage. The other problem with trying to prove if CPR training is worse when taught by non-medical professionals is that CPR is a perishable skill and therefore needs to be practiced regularly. I know so many people who have gone on their CPR course and never used it, or practiced it after the course. This is pointless, which is why as a lifeguard I do monthly training in both water rescue and CPR to keep my skills up. If someone fails to bring a person back to life using CPR, how can you tell whether it was a lack of training by a "qualified" professional that caused the failure?
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
The "first aid at work" course includes CPR and AED useage. The other problem with trying to prove if CPR training is worse when taught by non-medical professionals is that CPR is a perishable skill and therefore needs to be practiced regularly. I know so many people who have gone on their CPR course and never used it, or practiced it after the course. This is pointless, which is why as a lifeguard I do monthly training in both water rescue and CPR to keep my skills up. If someone fails to bring a person back to life using CPR, how can you tell whether it was a lack of training by a "qualified" professional that caused the failure?
It doesn't actually say that in that link,

The onus is one the company to show they did everything that was reasonably practical, not on someone else to show that another way was better or worse.

The company has a legal responsibility to show that the first Aider,was competENT not qualified, in that they had been told, but competent to actually do it. If your the trainer that responsibility is on you, If your in house trainer says a fist AIDer is competent and they are not and someone dies, then the company are very very liable, a lot of companies give certificates or completion and not of com p etance, and legally they are of no use at all, they would be less liable in a lot of cases of these was no first wider at all, not at swimming baths obviously
 
Last edited:

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
It doesn't actually say that in that link,

The onus is one the company to show they did everything that was reasonably practical, not on someone else to show that another way was better or worse.

The company has a legal responsibility to show that the first Aider,was competENT not qualified, in that they had been told, but competent to actually do it. If your the trainer that responsibility is on you, If your in house trainer says a fist AIDer is competent and they are not and someone dies, then the company are very very liable

All first aid at work courses follow the same curriculum, including the CPR and AED procedures. Again you are assuming that just because the CPR failed it automatically means that the person performing the CPR was doing it wrong, and in turn was taught badly by whoever did the training. This is far from the truth. There are many reasons why CPR might fail to bring someone back to life despite being performed perfectly. Hell, even in Hospitals where the victim is surrounded by medical professionals, people still die from sudden cardiac arrests. The good Samaritan laws state that if you fail to resuscitate a person who has collapsed, you cannot be held responsible for them dieing. Again I'd like to point out that someone needing CPR is already dead, you cannot make them worse by performing "bad" CPR. And sometimes, no matter how well you do the CPR or how quickly the paramedics get to the scene, you can't bring them back.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
All first aid at work courses follow the same curriculum, including the CPR and AED procedures. Again you are assuming that just because the CPR failed it automatically means that the person performing the CPR was doing it wrong, and in turn was taught badly by whoever did the training. This is far from the truth. There are many reasons why CPR might fail to bring someone back to life despite being performed perfectly. Hell, even in Hospitals where the victim is surrounded by medical professionals, people still die from sudden cardiac arrests. The good Samaritan laws state that if you fail to resuscitate a person who has collapsed, you cannot be held responsible for them dieing. Again I'd like to point out that someone needing CPR is already dead, you cannot make them worse by performing "bad" CPR. And sometimes, no matter how well you do the CPR or how quickly the paramedics get to the scene, you can't bring them back.
We are talking about health and safety at work, the good Samaritan law doesNT apply, in fact there is no good Samaritan law in the uk,

Some one isn't legally dead till a Dr says so, a Dr in hospital is competent to give CPR and pronounced death,

If your qualified in house trainer gives rubbish instruction then the company is liable legally and to civil claims, which but if this are you disagreeing with ?
 

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
We are talking about health and safety at work, the good Samaritan law doesNT apply, in fact there is no good Samaritan law in the uk,

Some one isn't legally dead till a Dr says so, a Dr in hospital is competent to give CPR and pronounced death,

If your qualified in house trainer gives rubbish instruction then the company is liable legally and to civil claims, which but if this are you disagreeing with ?

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is in place regardless of whether the incident happened in a public space or a place of work. The Act also states that "The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger."

In other words, if someone collapsed at work and went into cardiac arrest and you tried to resuscitate them using CPR, and failed, the court would have the fully investigate the circumstances of the incident rather than just passing sentence based on the outcome. That's in the very unlikely event of you getting sued for trying to help someone in the first place.

To quote the following article: First Aid & The Law Part 1 - Duty of Care

"
For example, if a person inappropriately administered chest compressions where a casualty was not in cardiac arrest, which caused damage to the chest wall or underlying organs, they would be causing damage which would not otherwise have been suffered and, given that the casualty was not in need of emergency resuscitation, would by his intervention be leaving them in a worse position.

If, however, CPR is performed on a casualty in cardiac arrest, It is difficult to see how a persons intervention could leave someone worse off since a victim would, without immediate resuscitation, certainly die. Furthermore, if an AED is being used, it will only permit the administration of a defibrillatory shock when it detects a shockable rhythm and, since patients in this state are clinically dead, it is unlikely that any intervention with this device could make the situation worse. "

You can be liable for not performing aid when a situation arises, but not for doing "bad" CPR on someone who has no heartbeat.
 
Last edited:

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,684
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Manchester UK
The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is in place regardless of whether the incident happened in a public space or a place of work. The Act also states that "The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger."

In other words, if someone collapsed at work and went into cardiac arrest and you tried to resuscitate them using CPR, and failed, the court would have the fully investigate the circumstances of the incident rather than just passing sentence based on the outcome. That's in the very unlikely event of you getting sued for trying to help someone in the first place.

To quote the following article: First Aid & The Law Part 1 - Duty of Care

"
For example, if a person inappropriately administered chest compressions where a casualty was not in cardiac arrest, which caused damage to the chest wall or underlying organs, they would be causing damage which would not otherwise have been suffered and, given that the casualty was not in need of emergency resuscitation, would by his intervention be leaving them in a worse position.

If, however, CPR is performed on a casualty in cardiac arrest, It is difficult to see how a persons intervention could leave someone worse off since a victim would, without immediate resuscitation, certainly die. Furthermore, if an AED is being used, it will only permit the administration of a defibrillatory shock when it detects a shockable rhythm and, since patients in this state are clinically dead, it is unlikely that any intervention with this device could make the situation worse. "

You can be liable for not performing aid when a situation arises, but not for doing "bad" CPR on someone who has no heartbeat.
I never suggested you could, but nNothing in that changes the law as was, it really doesnt, and it doesn't stop an employer being sued for negligence as they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employee,

Let's say out in house f/ a trainer, makes a bad job of training the first aider and he gives for where non is needed breaking a few ribs, the employer can be used for the bad actions of the first aider,and prosecuted and SUEd for the actions of the trainer
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
6,116
Reaction score
1,812
Location
Southeast U.S.
I saw a 20/20 or Nightline or similar episode a while back where there were teachers sending people to attack students from a women’s self defense course. The students knew it was coming and agreed; they just didn’t know when and where. And the attackers wore those red man suits.

They filmed one guy hiding in a student’s garage and attacked her as she got out of the car. The woman was successful. Gee, I wonder why? How did the camera crew and the attacker get in there without her previously knowing? He came up behind her, but I’d imagine the squishiness of the red man suit probably subconsciously told her she’s it’s not real.

Staged for tv? Absolutely. She probably wouldn’t have done as well if she genuinely didn’t know it was coming. I mean, who let the camera, lights and sound crew in? But the principle is better than simulating it in the dojo if the student genuinely didn’t know when nor where.

Edit: Then again, maybe her husband or someone else let them in unbeknownst to her. Doubt it; TV isn’t the most honest thing out there.
Trail cam possibly?
 

JR 137

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
5,162
Reaction score
3,213
Location
In the dojo
Trail cam possibly?
It was quite a while ago, but I distinctly remember thinking how could they possibly get the shots and lighting they got without her knowing they were coming. It was dark out and they were in her garage when the “attacker” ran in. He got her as she was getting out of her car. The picture didn’t look like it was filmed by guys running.

Regardless of all of that for TV stuff, they claimed the teacher did the same to his other students. So if one was staged for tv, that doesn’t change the ones that weren’t filmed.
 

Latest Discussions

Top