Talk:Wilderness first aid

A
A lot of information in this article ignores the fact that WFA is the discipline practiced by those with WFA training who are part of the injured person's party, or who come upon the scene by chance.

(These are almost always dedicated amateurs, since most of the pros find it worthwhile to get a higher qualification. And it is about chance bcz those who are sent to the scene are not there to practice first-aid, but first responders or WFAs working as assistants to a Wilderness First Responder (WFR).)

Such info as how to phone for anti-venin is irrelevant to the practice of WFA, and promotes confusion about what it is, rather than providing info about what it is.

I recommend a thorough edit by a WFR, or an MD, PA, or APRN specializing in Wilderness Medicine, since these will understand better than WFA practitioners where WFA ends. --Jerzy(t) 01:54, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * I'm a WEMT, I'm getting to this article after finalizing the first aid wikiproject -- St.isaac 18:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CPR
Edited an hour of CPR to twenty minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.209.98 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 September 2004
 * I can't decide if I agree with changing it to 20 minutes from an hour. One one hand, yes, its very unlikely to be successful beyond that time. But if help can arrive within an hour, it would certainly be the most prudent course of action to continue, after all it is probably worth that person's life to just try. As well, I was always told that people (particularly relatively inexperienced practitioners) should be taught to continue as long as they are able for the sake of the rescuer's mental state (ie, so that they don't develop CISD / remorse from thinking they didn't do enough). At the same time the "as long as they are able" part must take into account the fact that if they are in a true wilderness situation, performing CPR for hours on end will make you so exhausted it may affect your safety when travelling after the incident. I don't know if there's a way to tactfully add that sentiment to the page, rather than having a set time limit. --Vanchuck 19:55, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * CISD stands for "Critical Incident Stress Debriefing", and per context here, perhaps also "Critical Incident Stress Disorder". --Jerzy•t 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a good way to set a limit. Someone will always be along to claim that the party didn't do enough, or they didn't do it right, or they didn't have the right certificate, or ... whatever. The team has to do enough that they all feel they've done enough, and they should discuss stopping before they do (the conversation they had three days before about the theory of when to stop is merely the starting point.) htom (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP is not a how to manual.  Geo Bard  Rap 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger between Wilderness first aid and Wilderness medicine
I have several reservations about merging these two articles. Whoever tagged them neglected to say the direction they wanted the merger to go forward. I think either way with the current development of the two articles it doesn't make a lot of sense.


 * Merging WFA into WM.
 * Merging could reduce benefits to people considering trips to remote locations. (Business or Leisure)
 * Wilderness first aid focuses on current hazards; Wilderness medicine is somewhat erratic including past events, qualifications, organizations, training, specializations and related fields.
 * Wilderness medicine is much less developed than Wilderness first aid, so the majority of the Wilderness medicine article after merging (assuming little loss of info) would be on Wilderness first aid.

WikipedianYknOK 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging WM into WFA.
 * Wilderness medicine as it states goes back to the Napoleonic Wars and should eventually should contain a larger amount of historical information.
 * Merging would reduced possible development of Wilderness medicine since at best it would be a section on history of Wilderness first aid.
 * Not all Wilderness medicine is within the scope of Wilderness first aid.

I'm going to have to say that I oppose this; while there are parts that overlap, there are probably more parts that do not. I think of wilderness first aid as "what to do until you get to town", while wilderness medicine is "what to do after you've gotten to town -- and find no phone, no doctor, no good water, and half of your party is turning purple with large green dots." htom (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WFA is a subcategory of WM. Moreover, the WM article is not exactly covering the topic with precision.  Geo Bard  Rap 23:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge
The two topics seem separate, seem to me to be separate fields of practice. rkmlai (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that WFA is a subset of Wilderness Medicine, I think it's important to leave it separate in that it's a specific entity. The best way I can describe it, is that if I want to do research on bananas, I don't want to have to delve into a page on fruit if I want just information on bananas (and not apples or mango's). I know it's a shabby analogy, but I hope you get the point. Wilderness First Aid is a course that is different from WFR and WAFA and needs to be differentiated with as much information on just that topic alone.

Again, just thoughts put in writing! :-) ~ C. Castleman (CWS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.226.125 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AED strike from article
I've just struck this from the article; it seems not relevant to wilderness first aid; schools, gyms, government buildings, malls, and airports are not normally part of the wilderness, and wilderness first aid does not apply. This is why now most "CPR" certification courses are accompanied by (with AED). The Automated External Defibrillator (AED), which incorporates CPR, has a success rate of between 80-95%. AED's are now becoming more and more common and are in most schools, gyms, government buildings, malls and airports.

If you are performing CPR, you can only stop:
 * 1) when a competent health professional takes responsibility for the patient; or
 * 2) when the rescuers are in danger; or
 * 3) when you are physically unable to continue.

If we have a group of a dozen, and one CPR patient, we probably can go on with manual CPR for more hours than are going to be useful to the patient. The above advice merely guilts the survivors, who are going to have enough to deal with from the death.

In my opinion. Discuss. htom (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of these irrelevant and incorrect* statements. (*Incorrect, because other rules say that if you're alone, you stop CPR after a specified time so that you can fetch the nearest assistance.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Lightning
"The only time CPR has a higher chance of working in a wilderness situation is on victims of lightning strike" As far as i am aware there is limited evidence for this being true although it is a common misconception. CPR is of course vital in cardiac arrest due to lightning, as for all cardiac arrests.Tannim101 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not cited and highly dubious. I deleted it.  Geo Bard  Rap 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Philmont
Is the philmont scout section really relevant for this page? Tannim101 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. But there is so much that needs to be deleted I am not touching it. At least it is not uncited bad medical how to advice.  Geo Bard  Rap 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about all the proactive corrective edits buuuut....
\ GENERALLY I would like to apologize in advance for the drastic templating of this article but it seems to be a highly egregious violation of multiple policies. It may even be in violation of civil, even criminal statutes [???] statutes prohibiting the dispensing of medical advice which is taken quite seriously in many jurisdictions. GOING FORWARD:


 * We can merge all the templates to the top of the article for aesthetic reasons but if we do so I suggest we use Superscript such as with to isolate the exact points of essay-like error, advice-giving error, how-to error and other precise locations within the text.


 * We could delete or userfy the article and create a new article from scratch which gives an encyclopedic view of the topic


 * We can rename the article "How to Treat Wilderness Medical Emergencies" of "Wilderness First Aid: A How-to" or "Wilderness First Aid: A Field Manual" which is essentially what it is trying to be.


 * We can then put out an RFC to relax policy and allow WP articles to dispense medical how-to advice [????] although (a) that is probably illegal and (b) might get us sued (c) might harm some hiker who googles up bad advice some sockpuppet puts on the page


 * We could then relocate that article to Wikibooks, which actually has already been done


 * We could put up an explanatory page sort of like a disambig page with a link to the Wikibook OR to Medline or some other peer reviewed First Aid website


 * We can put up a banner that warns people not to use WP for medical advice and list emergency rx resources - in other words, allow a departure from ordinary WP policies to allow people who are seeming quick online emergency instructions to use WP not for advice and info but in this special topic area, as essentially a directory page. Maybe we should think that option over?

Refs
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_%28medicine-related_articles%29"  Geo Bard  Rap 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible template or notice for page top
WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE

Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date. The overwhelming majority of such articles are written, in part or in whole, by nonprofessionals. Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms.

The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor.

None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.

Advice vs training from WV
Difference between advice and training

Advice is case-specific. It is not allowed.

Training is not case-specific. It is general. It is allowed. [edit] Examples

If someone comes to the Wikiversity help desk and says "I have these symptoms. What should I do?", then if you reply, you are giving advice and opening yourself up to a lawsuit. This is because you are relating your medical knowledge to a specific present case.

If you write a page on Wikiversity about the general characteristics of and treatments for a medical condition, this is general. However you must still be careful that it is not falsely construed as advice.

Point by point
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.


 * It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since July 2011.


 * This is quite important for such technical stuff. Lots of how to advice with no citations.

Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citations, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since July 2011.

It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since July 2011.

It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since July 2011.

Its embedded lists may contain items that are not notable, not encyclopedic, or not helpful. Tagged since July 2011.

It reads like a review and may need a cleanup. Tagged since July 2011

. It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. Tagged since July 2011.

It may need reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Tagged since July 2011.

It needs to be updated. Tagged since July 2011.

Its factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Tagged since July 2011.

It has been nominated to be checked for neutrality. Tagged since July 2011.

It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2011.

Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since July 2011.

It may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since July 2011.

Its tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. Tagged since July 2011.

It is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Tagged since July 2011.

It may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help make it understandable to non-experts. Tagged since July 2011.

It may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Please rewrite it according to the fiction guidelines. Tagged since July 2011.

It needs attention from an expert on the subject. Tagged since July 2011.

It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2011.

It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Tagged since July 2011.

It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2011.

It contains lists of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. Tagged since July 2011.

It may require cleaning up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2011.

It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject. Tagged since July 2011.

It should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. Tagged since July 2011.

It is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. Tagged since July 2011.

Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. Tagged since July 2011.

It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Tagged since July 2011.

It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since July 2011.

Its truthfulness has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax. Tagged since July 2011.

It uses bare URLs or very simple external links in its references or external links section. Such references are threatened by link rot. Tagged since July 2011.