SYD: St John's course December

You betcha. Knowing that someone has a great chance of knowing what they
are doing, would give me some degree of assurance.

"Hang on, Nev. I'll perform this emergency tracheotomy on you. She's
right, mate. I've seen it done on ER!"

Hyperbole, I know - but it seems to fit the forum.

 

Antivenom aint cheap! This is a good reference.....
http://www.toxinology.com/generic_static_files/cslavh_contents.html

That's why you redo the training regularly. It is a skill that if you don't
use, it is more likely you will forget and or lose confidence in.

The pay is useless or the certificate? Why not ask for more training?
H

 

I have a cloth patch on my Firey jacket, but I had to get a
certificate before I could sew on the patch.

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:37:23 -0800 (PST)

That's because you are a boy, they reckon girls can do sew things on
to jackets without needing the long course.

Zebee

 

No... we're talking about certificates.

Being trained, meeting a minimum level and are capable and competent
isn't the same thing. [1]


G-S

[1] I saw some of the people who passed 'senior' first aid, and even
some of the ones who did level 3 seemed a bit lost. They ALL still
passed though (which is part of the problem I suspect). Not the
training, not the certification but the testing.

 

That part is all done on a computer database over here.


G-S

 

The sewing?

 

? I don't know what you are talking about, GS.

A certificate is what you get when you complete a course that has been
certified to a particular level. This applies to the trainer and trainee.

....are you saying that no certificate would make it better?

H

Obmoto: Those who pass a "test" for whatever level of licence are capable
and competent for that level, some of them seem a little bit lost, but, they
are still gaining skills.

 

Computers are sew handy.
H

 

<applause>

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I get where GS is coming from. For sure you have lifted the level of
most of the passees, but there are some people who get the certificate
who just don't get it and I'd hate to see them try and resuscitate
someone. They could possibly do more damage than good. There has to be
a cut-off level.

But playing devils advocate I guess trying is better than nothing if
you are watching someone possibly die.

Flip side again: You see someone working on a patient and they say "I
have a St Johns certificate" I'd be inclined to leave them to it. Too
many cooks and all that. But my Rescue Diver training which did
involve a St Johns course even if it was years ago, along with other
medical training I have had with car racing and flying proaby means
I'd do betterer than some of the recently certified people who have
just been handed the piece of paper just because they did the time.
It's a hard call.

 

Hmmm, it would seem that there are some different points of view going on
here. One is the volunteer who happens across an accident and assists,
another is a employee who has the role of first aid person and the other are
people who are part of volunteer agencies that require a level of first aid
training. There may be more, feel free to add in others.

The most common way to get experience/exposure for people is via courses run
by a number of organisations.

These organisations are recognised trainers (i.e. Recognised Training
Organisations, RTO) and the course involves theory, practice and assessment.
There is a line drawn in the sand as to what the minimum will be and that
the training, practice and assessment will be uniform, allowing it to be a
nationally recognised qualification.

Yes, absolutely. No arguments from me there.

I feel that everybody should have access to a first aid course that has a
recognised qualification attached. See below for more.....

First aid is an important skill and has many implications for the community.
The obvious one is saving lives. There is also the monetary benefit of a
live saved vs a fatality. There is also some very real risks. Due to these
risks, it would make sense to have proper training, practice and assessment.

I am yet to see how attending a certified course in first aid will open a
can of worms for anyone offering assistance in a volunteer capacity.

H

 

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying the piece of paper doesn't
guarantee that person is qualified if they simply do the course. I
reckon it would be great if we all had to do the course regardless.

But if someone was trying to revive me I'd prefer they had done the
course, even if they were pretty useless at it. It's better than
nothing. But if there is someone there that actually is better at it,
how do you qualify those levels? Like I said, if I was in a situation
where someone said "It's OK - I'm St Johns trained". I'd probably let
them go for it, because they are probably more recently trained than
me. But how do I know they are better at it? I don't think there is
really any solution to that question.

 

Are we still talking about volunteer status? There is nothing stopping
people from undertaking higher levels of training. What might stop people
doing that is the cost. It is also one of those skills that if aren't used,
you'll, well you know, forget.

The reality of being engaged in CPR and EAR is that it is very tiring and if
more than one person there, it makes sense to change roles often. This
would address your concerns as to what to do about who does what.

The "push hard, push often" mantra that has been deployed in recent years
w.r.t. CPR, acknowledges that people who don't practice it often get stuck
in the "I'm not good at this and what do I have to do'? Hopefully the days
of trainers that penalised people who don't measure out the "correct" place
and adopt the "correct" hand orientation are long gone.

There will be times that regardless of the level of training, the outcome
may not be what the volunteer (assuming we are still talking that level) and
the "victim" want. I think it is also important to consider what impact
that may have on the volunteer, the community, the victim's family etc.
This goes beyond mental health, where the life-long legacies of blood born
diseases are a reality. I do not consider legal issues to be a factor when
a volunteer offers assistance.

H

 

Could be, but not my world.

That is your opinion, an interesting one, especially if all competencies
fall into the classification of "bureaucratic bullshit".

You don't agree that OH&S is an important issue?

Not sure what this has to do with first aid though.
H

 

I'm particular about certification for any organisation that is offering a
course that claims to cover x, y and z.

I see what you are saying, however, you still ascertain that people needed
training to be competent. How is their competency established? By someone
who knows what they are doling? Being able to complete task to a certain
level? This also comes back to what is acceptable in house vs what is being
rolled out for an industry or nationwide.

Task orientated learning is great to address a certain issue and get basic
skills. It is not so great if things happen outside of those parameters. I
believe you comment on this regarding driving licences.

Yes, that is a much better idea. However, you mention your lack of
productivity when undertaking training, so who is going to pay for the "down
time" when all the people in the workplace are being trained?

Yes, training is expensive, there are costs related to cessation of
productivity during that training and it needs to be relevant to the
environment.

Why do you think there is a need for the certificate? Is it purely to keep
the government happy?

How so? If some one is competent they are competent and have attained a
minimum level in that skill, being confident with those skills is another
matter.

They have reached a minimum level of competence. It is somewhat unfair to
assume that a person is now magically able to do the same as "old salts" if
they have been doing it for half an hour. Is this why there is graduated
licences? It gives people to do certain things to a certain level and then
have the option of going further.

Yes, it may be difficult to see the relevance in some courses and I can
understand that. If your workplaces handles explosives and you are the OHS
rep, I can see significant benefit in understanding the statutes. It goes
back to why there is a need for such training, and do you really think it is
all about keeping the government happy?

I follow your argument on a cost-benefit concern, but why do you think the
training is required? Also, how do you get the knowledge if you have never
had the training?

The issue is a bit bigger than just you laying on the ground. It is of
concern that you have been injured at work and why. If due to a failure of
something, there is a chance that your work mates may be harmed assisting
you. Regular training allows those steps to safely assist someone to be
gone over. Part of making sure it has been presented properly, it is an
idea to have set standards.

I wasn't in your training, so I don't have any point of view on this other
than yours.

It is unfortunate that you had an experience that was less than your
expectations, there are things you can do. If you are unhappy with the
training, why not put your concerns to the training organisation? I wasn't
in your training, so I don't have any point of view on this other than
yours.

 

Computerized sewing machine have been made by Janome for a couple of
decades now... do try and keep up


G-S

 

I'm saying that a certificate isn't a good indicator of competence when
the testing procedure is flawed, as it is in many first aid courses.

Capable and competent implies a good knowledge of the skill set, being
'lost' implies poor knowledge of the skill set.

If someone passes the test but is still 'lost' then the certification
procedure needs to be improved.

In my experience much of the St. Johns certification procedure is lacking.

Given that the certification procedure is flawed it logically follows
that the certificates you place so much faith in are also flawed.

Does that mean that an uncertified course is better?

No, it just means that you can't assume anything about the relative
merits of either the certified or uncertified courses one way or the
other without any certainty.



G-S

 

Nope.

 

Can't be bothered going back through the thread, but someone made the
reference to driver training. They have the licence, but there is no
guarantee of their proficiency. And, like with first aid, there are
lives at stake.

Is there a good answer?

I'm all for people doing St Johns courses or any bloody thing that
gives them a clue. But I'd prefer to have an intelligent person with
common sense looking after me in an accident than a clueless fuckwit
with a bit of paper.