Summary report on basic first aid skills popularization training

First, the general public's acceptance of first aid skills is much higher than expected, but misunderstandings are still concentrated in the two core directions of "rescue responsibility" and "non-professionals are useless to rescue"； Second, the operational differences between the internationally mainstream AHA (American Heart Association), ERC (European Resuscitation Council) and the domestic 2020 edition of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines are the most confusing points of controversy in current popular science. ； Third, the follow-up data 3 months after the training showed that only 32% of the trainees could completely recall the complete operating procedures of CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and AED (automated external defibrillator). The problem of "long-term retention" of emergency science popularization is far greater than the problem of "first popularization".

On the first day of the training, I met Brother Zhang, who runs a community fruit shop. He sat in the front row with a rolled-up notebook in his hand. The first question he asked was: "I have seen news about someone who saved an old man and broke his ribs and was sued for compensation. What if I really take action and can't afford the compensation?" ”

To be honest, this question is asked in every training. We specifically printed the original text of Article 184 of the Civil Code, "If the recipient is harmed due to the voluntary implementation of emergency rescue, the rescuer shall not bear civil liability" on the first page of the student handbook. We also included the local court's rejection of a similar claim last year. However, in the final theoretical assessment, 37% of the students still chose "yes" or "uncertain" on the question "whether they need to be held responsible for causing damage while rescuing people." Many people's understanding of the "good guy law" is still limited to the fragmented news they have received, and their sense of trust is far from established.

What’s interesting is that we invited two lecturers with completely different backgrounds for this training. One is a private charity rescue team member who holds the AHA first aid instructor certificate, and the other is a nurse on duty in the emergency medicine department of a tertiary hospital. When the two lectured on CPR, there were obvious differences in opinions: the rescue team members felt that it was very Professionals don’t need to worry about artificial respiration. When encountering a person who is unconscious and breathing on the ground, just squat down and press the chest. Even if the depth of the press is less or the frequency is slower, it is better than standing still and not moving. He also specifically emphasized that "even if you only dare to call 120, if you can accurately tell the location and the patient's condition, you are considered qualified."”； The emergency nurse insisted on explaining the complete CPR operation process, especially the essentials of oral foreign body removal and artificial respiration. She used the admission data of her own emergency room to speak, "If the family members can perform complete CPR, the survival rate of the patient after being sent to the hospital is about 20% higher than that of those who only perform chest compressions. There is no harm in learning more." We did not force a unified approach, but truthfully told the students both viewpoints, allowing them to choose based on their own acceptance - emergency science popularization is not meant to train ordinary people into professional doctors, the core is to first eliminate the worry of "not daring to take action".

Those who failed the assessment this time were basically middle-aged and elderly students over 45 years old. It was not because they were not careful, but because they really had objective obstacles: some wore reading glasses and could not see clearly the markings on the pressing positions for the practical assessment, some had insufficient arm strength and lost strength after pressing for half a minute, and the depth could not meet the 5cm requirement. Later, we specially added a little trick for these students: when pressing, keep your arms straight, put your entire body weight on your hands, and bring the weight of your upper body down. You don’t need to rely solely on your arms to exert force. You can basically pass the make-up exam. In the past, when we did science popularization, we always liked to stick to a unified standard. Now we have discovered that adjusting the operation methods to different groups of people is much more useful than sticking to a stuck standard.

What deserves more attention is the re-interview data 3 months later: We randomly selected 30 students who scored full marks in the assessment at that time. Only 9 people could accurately state the compression position, frequency and depth requirements for CPR. The remaining people either recorded the compression position as the left chest, or incorrectly remembered the frequency as 60 times a minute. There was a little girl who was a sophomore in high school who got full marks in the practical exercises. She told us embarrassingly that she had never thought about it again after the exam and had almost forgotten about it.

I have been doing emergency science popularization for almost 4 years. I always thought that "one training session to explain all the knowledge points thoroughly" was enough. But now I have discovered that "remembering" is far more difficult than "learning". We have posted QR codes with operating instructions next to the 12 newly installed AEDs in our jurisdiction recently. When you scan it, you will see a 15-second animation: first tap the shoulder to call the person to judge consciousness, touch the nose to judge breathing, then press the chest, attach the AED electrodes and follow the prompts. When something really happens, no one can take out their notebook to recall the training content. This kind of instant reminder is more effective than ten long-term training sessions.

This training also left a lot of regrets: there are more than 20 takeaway guys who signed up and have no time to come because they are running orders. We are planning to hold a "night special" next month. The training content is compressed to 40 minutes. The focus is on how to judge sudden death, how to use AED, and how to quickly register the correct position for 120 when in a hurry. Anyway, after doing science popularization for so long, there is no absolutely correct solution. Some people are afraid of taking responsibility, so just show them more cases and explain the law. ； If someone can’t remember the steps, give more short and quick reminders. ； Some people didn't have time to learn, so they dismantled the content and delivered it to their doorstep. If you can make one more person dare to lend a hand when encountering trouble, it will not be in vain.