# CPR Certifications



## ericcoch (Oct 13, 2008)

Does anybody know if a CPR for the Professional Rescuer card from the American Red Cross will be acceptable or just AHA.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 13, 2008)

Has to be AHA.


----------



## gillysaurus (Oct 13, 2008)

To be enrolled in an EMT-B course?

For my school it can be either AHA's BLS for Healthcare Provider OR ARC's BLS for the Professional Rescuer. Same class, different company.

I'm in Colorado, it could be different elsewhere.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 13, 2008)

thats a state to state deal. mass will accept both.

call your oems or look it up on the website. unless of course theres another member here from your state.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 13, 2008)

It is not state to state if you are going for national registry, I assume, since its in the NREMT section, hes asking for registry.

NR wants AHA.


----------



## Oregon (Oct 14, 2008)

Really?  They take my CPR Pro from the Red Cross every year.
That's the major difference, red cross cert is for one year, AHA is for two.
Cheaper to do the two year cert.
I just do red cross because I never do CPR, and I figure I need to practice it twice as much.


----------



## gillysaurus (Oct 14, 2008)

I don't remember having to send proof of CPR/AED certification into National Registry when I took my test. The only time I had to verify was when I enrolled in EMT courses.


----------



## Oregon (Oct 14, 2008)

My little re-cert brochure states the need for a copy of my CPR card, but it just says "CPR for the professional Rescuer", so I figure they don't care much.
My State isn't picky either.  They are picky about a lot of stuff, but not that fortunately.


----------



## reaper (Oct 14, 2008)

Most states are now accepting CPR PRO.

They realize that both are a joke now, so it really does not matter!


----------



## Sasha (Oct 14, 2008)

Maybe it was just a state requirement then.. We did use the NREMT as our state test, after all.

On my application it asked for a copy of my CPR card and specified it was AHA Health Care Provider CPR.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Oct 14, 2008)

Actually neither organization "certifies" anyone in CPR. Rather each describes that an individual met their standards. Yes, NREMT accepts either one as long as it is health care provider level, although AHA is considered more medical. 

R/r 911


----------



## reaper (Oct 14, 2008)

Sasha said:


> Maybe it was just a state requirement then.. We did use the NREMT as our state test, after all.
> 
> On my application it asked for a copy of my CPR card and specified it was AHA Health Care Provider CPR.



FL does accept CPR PRO also!


----------



## Sasha (Oct 14, 2008)

reaper said:


> FL does accept CPR PRO also!



Im pretty sure it doesnt. We went through some drama with one student who had Red cross as oppose to AHA and how the medical director wasnt going to let him do his practical because he didnt meet the requirements, but this was almost a year ago (How time flies!) so maybe its changed recently. Ah well, I prefer AHA anyway.


----------



## reaper (Oct 14, 2008)

They have accepted it for last the 5-6 years.

Contact the state EMS office for answers. Medical Directors don't always have the correct info.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 14, 2008)

reaper said:


> They have accepted it for last the 5-6 years.
> 
> Contact the state EMS office for answers. Medical Directors don't always have the correct info.



Considering we tested in front of the state medical director, I would hope he would!


----------



## Ridryder911 (Oct 14, 2008)

p.s. also NREMT officially does NOT have Basic EMT practicals rather they allow the state or school to perform them. They do offer guidelines. 

R/r 911


----------



## zacdav89 (Oct 14, 2008)

Sometimes you just have to dig a little bit, I went to the Florida’s dept. of health web site http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/EMT-Paramedic/faq-certification.htm#cert7  they do accept AHA and ARC cpr courses. Like stated earlier, aha is based more in the medical then arc but they both are based off the same guidelines set by the ECC.


----------



## reaper (Oct 14, 2008)

Sasha said:


> Considering we tested in front of the state medical director, I would hope he would!



That is why I stated to contact the state EMS. The State medical director does not know all the rules for licensing. 


Some of us do know a little about FL EMS! Just ask, if you have a question.


----------



## mikie (Oct 14, 2008)

In my basics class there was someone who had AHA but it wasn't for pro-rescuer, layperson (i think).  and they wouldn't let her continue the course cause it wasn't the "pre-req"  

It's state/school dependent


----------



## Sasha (Oct 14, 2008)

What is really the difference between medical provider and lay person? They are both push up and down real fast here, blow there, and you are good to go joe.


----------



## KEVD18 (Oct 14, 2008)

Sasha said:


> What is really the difference between medical provider and lay person? They are both push up and down real fast here, blow there, and you are good to go joe.



yeah, but its sort of nice to understand the physiology behind whats going on. that's the diff between the heartsaver and the healthcare provider courses. 

heartsaver is the mechanics of the cpr, with a brief and incredibly dumbed down explanation of the physiology.

healthcare provider goes into more of whats going on and why we do the treatment modalities that we do.

the two courses aren't equal in scope, yet. but as the courses continue to be dumbed down,. they will inevitably meet at the bottom.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Oct 14, 2008)

The layperson does not have to perform ventilation's or how to ventilate using adjuncts such as BVM, pocket mask, oxygen administration, etc. As well, they are not informed on the usage of AED's, pediatric or infant (unless a specialized class). 

There is a lot of difference or should be between common laymen and health care provider course. 

R/r911


----------



## mikie (Oct 14, 2008)

KEVD18 said:


> healthcare provider goes into more of whats going on and why we do the treatment modalities that we do.



Ya, but how much detail does it really go into?  Not much of a difference, at least if you ask me.


----------



## zacdav89 (Oct 14, 2008)

The first are geared towards the lay person who most likely will not see a cardiac arrest frequently in life so it becomes a very scary situation, they set of these classes with more simplicity to them to make it easier to recall the necessary information to do the job before we get there, the bls and pro gear more towards using tools like bvms and AED (though some layperson classes use theses tools in teaching too) but also gear towards working with a partner and taking control of the scene. These also include different ratios when using two person responders’ 15:2 on children and infants that are not included in layperson CPR classes. At least this is the way with the Red Cross and my basic understanding of the AHA system.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Oct 14, 2008)

I wished it was true. Unfortunately that is the propaganda they are feeding us. Many of us remember when CPR was much harder and the common laymen attended 8 hours of CPR training and was tested over the circulation of the heart. In fact much harder than some of the EMT tests now. 

Guess what, people took it and passed it. They also performed it as well. Seattle had a 1:4 ratio of people knowing CPR. So "dumbing it down" does not produce better numbers or increased save rates. 

R/r 911


----------



## zacdav89 (Oct 14, 2008)

I agree, I may not know how CPR was before some of these newer standard but I do understand that as a nation are cardiac survival rates suck. Something’s got to change and fast.


----------



## medicdan (Oct 14, 2008)

Sasha said:


> What is really the difference between medical provider and lay person? They are both push up and down real fast here, blow there, and you are good to go joe.



Actually, a lot. 
There are small differences in protocol esp. based on the newest research- i.e. Laypeople are instructed NOT to check a pulse on an unresponsive adult- they are to progress directly to the rescue breaths, etc, HCPs under AHA are taught that for an infant and 2-person CPR to change to 15:2, etc. As well, there is little discussion in the lay-person class as to WHY we make the decesions we do-- what the reasoning is-- and in fact, ARC instructors are told to deflect those questions, even if they can answer them, so as not to confuse the class.

There are minor differences between AHA and ARC. I recently became an ARC instructor, and have strong feelings against what is taught, but still teach it. ARC makes the majority of it's money from these classes (that goes on to fund disaster relief, etc.), so they charge for everything, and its getting expensive.  This is turning into a pissing match, and I dont see an end in sight.


----------



## medicdan (Oct 14, 2008)

JFTR, as a lowly EMT and new CPR instructor, I disagree with the actions of AHA this April in their release of the "push hard and fast" PR campaign. They are telling lay-people that all they need to know is to push hard and fast on the chest of anyone who looks unconscious-- no check for consciousness, pulse, respirations, just push hard and fast "wherever". If not already, we are going to start to see broken ribs, etc. on diabetics and epileptics...
[/rant]


----------



## Ridryder911 (Oct 14, 2008)

zacdav89 said:


> nation are cardiac survival rates suck. Something’s got to change and fast.



Can't cure death. Realistically, the focus should be on preventative and not the post or afterwards. Unfortunately, as much research and new methods are developed it has always been shown and demonstrated that they never achieve much more than 6% prehospital and about 4% in hospital save rates. 


R/r 911


----------



## el Murpharino (Oct 14, 2008)

emt-student said:


> JFTR, as a lowly EMT and new CPR instructor, I disagree with the actions of AHA this April in their release of the "push hard and fast" PR campaign. They are telling lay-people that all they need to know is to push hard and fast on the chest of anyone who looks unconscious-- no check for consciousness, pulse, respirations, just push hard and fast "wherever". If not already, we are going to start to see broken ribs, etc. on diabetics and epileptics...
> [/rant]



I believe they're telling "lay rescuers" to look for signs of circulation, not unconsciousness.  According to AHA, signs of circulation include "the rise and fall of the chest and abdomen, as well as skin color".  The AHA also states you should bare the chest of someone you're going to perform CPR on - of which the AHA also state that "It would be very difficult to visualize these signs of circulation without a bare chest."  A proper 5-10 seconds to assess unresponsiveness and signs of circulation should be good enough to prevent unnecessary CPR, however there will be a sliver of patients who may not be dead that receive CPR.  

There is a strong push toward more compressions in between ventilations.  Cardiocerebral resuscitation has been mentioned and used in some services with a higher success rate than CPR.  You may want to get used to this hard and fast method of CPR or CCR, it's not stopping now.


----------



## medicdan (Oct 15, 2008)

el Murpharino said:


> I believe they're telling "lay rescuers" to look for signs of circulation, not unconsciousness.  According to AHA, signs of circulation include "the rise and fall of the chest and abdomen, as well as skin color".  The AHA also states you should bare the chest of someone you're going to perform CPR on - of which the AHA also state that "It would be very difficult to visualize these signs of circulation without a bare chest."  A proper 5-10 seconds to assess unresponsiveness and signs of circulation should be good enough to prevent unnecessary CPR, however there will be a sliver of patients who may not be dead that receive CPR.
> 
> There is a strong push toward more compressions in between ventilations.  Cardiocerebral resuscitation has been mentioned and used in some services with a higher success rate than CPR.  You may want to get used to this hard and fast method of CPR or CCR, it's not stopping now.


http://handsonlycpr.eisenberginc.com/
Above is a website written and sustained by the AHA, and is says


> When an adult suddenly collapses, trained or untrained bystanders – that means a person near the victim – should:
> 
> 1) Call 911
> 2) Push hard and fast in the center of the chest.
> ...


----------



## el Murpharino (Oct 15, 2008)

So by viewing this website you're automatically trained in CPR?  I'm pretty sure that this would be of use only in conjunction with a CPR class.  I'd hope that this website does not serve as a training module for rescuers.  In fact, the same website says the following in the FAQ's:

"The AHA continues to recommend that you take a CPR course to practice and learn the skills of CPR, including giving high-quality chest compressions."

"Hands-Only CPR is recommended for use on...adult victims who are found already unconscious and not breathing normally, and for any victims of drowning or collapse due to breathing problems"


----------



## BossyCow (Oct 15, 2008)

I think part of the 'dumbing down' of the AHA layperson CPR is the supposition that ALS is going to be on scene  in a few minutes. Also, with the fear of disease transmission and the likelihood that the person having that MI in front of you is a stranger, the willingness of the bystander to perform something as intimate as mouth to mouth is drastically reduced. 

Like most AHA changes, we'll just have to see what the results are after doing it this way. One thing is for certain though.. there will be changes


----------



## Sasha (Oct 16, 2008)

I think the simplifying is in hopes to increase the likelihood that someone will actually DO something rather than stand and stare because they cant remember the exact compression ratio or dont want to put their mouth on someone elses. Can you blame them? I dont particularly want to put my mouth on someone elses either.

I had heard the compression only CPR was for a witnessed arrest, with the theory that there is enough oxygen on the hemoglobin to sustain life for a minute or so while ALS arrived if it got to be circulated.

I dont particularly believe that would work, after all it is just a theory. And what if ALS is delayed? You can circulate the blood all you want but not breathing is 100% fatal.


----------



## redcrossemt (Oct 16, 2008)

Sasha said:


> I had heard the compression only CPR was for a witnessed arrest, with the theory that there is enough oxygen on the hemoglobin to sustain life for a minute or so while ALS arrived if it got to be circulated.
> 
> I dont particularly believe that would work, after all it is just a theory. And what if ALS is delayed? You can circulate the blood all you want but not breathing is 100% fatal.



I'm not sure it's just a theory. Gordon A. Ewy had his literature review "Cardiocerebral Resuscitation: The New Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation" published in the April 2005 issue of Circulation. Ewy et al concluded that chest-compression-only CPR is more effective for most sudden cardiac arrest situations in adults. There are cases that demand ventilatory support immediately, such as pediatric arrests (most likely cause of cardiac arrest is respiratory arrest) and drowning victims. They also state that while additional research is needed, they estimate that ventilation is mandatory after about 15 minutes of cardiac arrest without gasping / agonal breaths.


----------

