Have you ever assessed a dog on scene of a MVC

If you contact a local dog training facility, they are usually ecstatic and willing to train you in Dog first aid. They gave us various sized dog O2 masks that fit over the muzzle. Good for smoke inhalation.
 
medic417 said:
Really how high a pressure is there at 2 lpm?
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think the exhalation caused by a cat's lungs is strong enough to go through an entire line on a NRB and into an oxygen cylinder, all while fighting against a constant flow of o2?
 
medic417 said:
How do we know it's not? In fact how are we sure that we are not harming patients with diseases from other human patients?
Click to expand...

So... umm.. do you contaminate the water supply by using the faucet?
 
I have on occasion come in contact with animals on MVA calls, we have never rendered care, would I? Sure why not. I dont see a problem with it as long as you dont have any human patients to tend to.

There living breathing things, they feel pain, if I have the oppurtunity to help within reason I will.
 
JPINFV said:
So... umm.. do you contaminate the water supply by using the faucet?
Click to expand...

Obviously you do not know much about plumbing codes. You are required backflow prevention in toilets and outside faucets and sprinkler systems. There is actually a movement to require a backflow at each meter to avoid possibility of any backflow into the public water supply.

Again 2 lpm does not equal much pressure. Are we positive it's enough to keep our patients creepy crawlies from going against the flow.
 
JPINFV said:
Liters per minute is a flow rate, not a pressure.
Click to expand...

Don't be a jerk. I know the difference. But based on the diameter of tubing and the low flow rate you will find a low pressure rate. So again are you sure its enough?
 
I'm not being a jerk... if you wanted to hook up a full tank to an empty tank and run it at 2 liters per minute, you will eventually equalize the pressures at 1000 psi. How about this then. Open up a nasal cannula. Hook it up to 2 LPM. put the prongs into your mouth, and try blowing into the prongs. Please report your results.
 
JPINFV said:
I'm not being a jerk... if you wanted to hook up a full tank to an empty tank and run it at 2 liters per minute, you will eventually equalize the pressures at 1000 psi. How about this then. Open up a nasal cannula. Hook it up to 2 LPM. put the prongs into your mouth, and try blowing into the prongs. Please report your results.
Click to expand...

Wow that's a scientific way to test:rolleyes:.
 
medic417 said:
Wow that's a scientific way to test:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
Kind of like your way you mean? Would you like to provide any proof to your claim that someone will be able to force air into an O2-cylinder that is flowing simply by breathing?

If you are going to make a wild claim, you had best be prepared to prove it, and the proof had better be more than "because I said so."
 
JPINFV said:
Do you have a better test or are you just going to be a Jenny McCarthy on this issue?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is and probably has been done test that shows that contamination does not occur. My point is that I am tired of people especially in EMS not having any scientific proof, they just do it based on tradition or speculation rather than fact. Vent can probably provide us with studies that show there is no risk of contamination, but your unscientific way of asking me to test proves nothing.
 
... in other words, you have no evidence that backflow from regular breathing will ever reach a tank nor do you want to do a simple procedure to see if it's even possible. Next you're going to be telling us that vaccines cause Autism because there's never been a double blind study showing otherwise. This isn't tradition... it's physics.
 
JPINFV said:
... in other words, you have no evidence that backflow from regular breathing will ever reach a tank nor do you want to do a simple procedure to see if it's even possible. This isn't tradition... it's physics.
Click to expand...

Again stop being a jerk. Just because it is difficult to blow air thru a nasal cannula does not prove that patients germs can not go against the oxygen stream. Again you are making a presumption w/o evidence. Based on your physics theory there is no reason for back flow preventers on toilet valves. So perhaps your theory is not as solid as you presume.
 
medic417 said:
Again stop being a jerk. Just because it is difficult to blow air thru a nasal cannula does not prove that patients germs can not go against the oxygen stream. Again you are making a presumption w/o evidence. Based on your physics theory there is no reason for back flow preventers on toilet valves. So perhaps your theory is not as solid as you presume.
Click to expand...

I can't believe we're even having this discussion. The air in the cylinder is under pressure. Basic, fifth-grade physics tells you that the gas under pressure will attempt to escape to the area of less pressure. The only way to put oxygen back in the cylinder is to create greater pressure outside than inside. That's physically impossible for human (and animal) lungs.

The same concept of positive and negative pressure is used to create isolation rooms for contageour diseases. While the surface and tubing of the NC or NRB might become contaminated, there is no way for atmospheric contaminants to enter the pressurized bottle.
 
JPINFV said:
Liters per minute is a flow rate, not a pressure.
Click to expand...
Bingo...

medic417 said:
Obviously you do not know much about plumbing codes. You are required backflow prevention in toilets and outside faucets and sprinkler systems. There is actually a movement to require a backflow at each meter to avoid possibility of any backflow into the public water supply.

Again 2 lpm does not equal much pressure. Are we positive it's enough to keep our patients creepy crawlies from going against the flow.
Click to expand...
First, are you making the argument that because a local government says something works some way, that it does? You'll find this is a very tough case to make.

Second, how do you know that 2 lpm doesn't equal much pressure? Did you do the math? Let's see it.

medic417 said:
Again stop being a jerk. Just because it is difficult to blow air thru a nasal cannula does not prove that patients germs can not go against the oxygen stream. Again you are making a presumption w/o evidence. Based on your physics theory there is no reason for back flow preventers on toilet valves. So perhaps your theory is not as solid as you presume.
Click to expand...
He's not being a jerk, he's logically arguing your claim. If you are going to make a statement then be prepared to back it up. Don't take these things personally.

The only possible way that a patient could contaminate an oxygen tank is if the patient's "contaminants" were able to travel against obscene resistance. Highly improbable.
 
EMSLaw said:
I can't believe we're even having this discussion. The air in the cylinder is under pressure. Basic, fifth-grade physics tells you that the gas under pressure will attempt to escape to the area of less pressure. The only way to put oxygen back in the cylinder is to create greater pressure outside than inside. That's physically impossible for human (and animal) lungs.

The same concept of positive and negative pressure is used to create isolation rooms for contageour diseases. While the surface and tubing of the NC or NRB might become contaminated, there is no way for atmospheric contaminants to enter the pressurized bottle.
Click to expand...

First I never said it entered the tank. But you have low pressure lines from the main O2 regulator, your ambulance O2 has two regulators 1 drops from the high to low then the second lowers it further in case you did not know. Plus you have the outlet from the low pressure regulator that directly contacts the cannula that is operating at very low pressure. What proof again that these can not become contaminated?

And from a D-tank you have the outlet of the regulator again low pressure. Same thing what proof do we have that no contamination can occur?

If the inside of the tubing can be contaminated by your own statement, then logically the low pressure fittings that the tubing is attached to could be contaminated.
 
spinnakr said:
First, are you making the argument that because a local government says something works some way, that it does?
Click to expand...

Well take your own advise and do the research. You will be scared to ever drink water again, heck you might not want to take a bath.
 
What proof do you have that it does become contaminated?
 
JPINFV said:
What proof do you have that it does become contaminated?
Click to expand...
It would appear that the oxygen tubing could become "contaminated", but not the oxygen source itself (the bottle.)

You do discard the delivery tubing do you not?
Using capnography, we investigated the backflow of expired gas into oxygen delivery tubing in 18 sedated patients receiving supplementary oxygen via a disposable facemask during spinal anaesthesia. At 5 cm from the mask, with an oxygen flow of 2 l.min−1, carbon dioxide was detected in the oxygen delivery tubing of three patients (18%) on coughing. With the patient wearing the facemask but the oxygen tubing disconnected from the oxygen source, carbon dioxide was detectable 1 m from the facemask (i.e. at the fresh gas outlet) in 14 patients. In a second group of 20 similar patients, no carbon dioxide was detected sampling at the fresh gas outlet with flows of 2 and 4 l.min−1. Assuming that detection of carbon dioxide indicates at least the possibility of contamination, oxygen tubing should be strictly single-use in this setting. Our findings suggest that filters are not required to protect gas supply outlets, provided that the patient's facemask is removed when the fresh gas outlet is disconnected.
Click to expand...
- http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118618855/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top