Does timing have anything to do with it?
Featured Replies
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Currently Reading 0
- No registered users viewing this page.
A better way to browse. Learn more.
A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.
So a few days ago I had my first hospital code. Paramedics brought in a full cardiac arrest who had been down for 15 minutes I believe before he came in. The patient was already intubated and once he came down to the ER the techs began doing chest compressions- including me.
Now I've done BLS training that said 30 to 2 was the ratio of chest compressions to rescue breathing. And I know the rescue breaths have changed- 30 to 2 is now more appropriate for outside the hospital (or at least the rescue breathing was not the same for this guy). However I kept seeing people jumping on his chest with no rhythm whatsoever-it was about getting as many compressions as fast as possible.
I spoke with a few of the nurses there because I'm still in orientation and obviously getting used to the hospital setting. But I felt I could throw the question out here. Is there a need for a rhythm anymore? I know you want to allow the chest enough time to recoil and studies have been showing something closer to 50 chest compressions is more successful. I'm just not sure if I should be keeping the steady rhythm in my head (my last CPR class taught the process to the tune of "Staying Alive"...appropriate no?) or wait for the chest to recoil- but go all out.
So what's the general concensus? Any help is appreciated- thanks!