Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B421 - Provision of Defribrillators Bill

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If all the other parties are willing to pay to train people, we'll gladly expand the remit of the bill. Our primary worry when drafting it is that it would get voted down for cost reasons; if people think that's not a concern then the Labour Party is more than happy to take it further.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by TopHat)
    My understanding of SADS is that CPR is not an effective response. I'd also refer both gentlemen to Chwirkytheappleboy's post. Sixth form colleges are included under "schools", by the Department of Education's definitions. We will extend the bill to universities if enough people are interested.
    :yy:

    But once again (sorry to persist, but I'm getting the feeling I may have missed something) how are these going to be funded for the rest of the UK if funding is only for schools in England?
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    If all the other parties are willing to pay to train people, we'll gladly expand the remit of the bill. Our primary worry when drafting it is that it would get voted down for cost reasons; if people think that's not a concern then the Labour Party is more than happy to take it further.
    Well there's no point in having them in many ways if you're not going to train people to use them is there?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, I think I missed you. Essentially, because of devolution, there's not much we can do about that. I'd assume that the devolved governments would be willing to cover it. I'd love to have extended that to "the United Kingdom", rather than "England", but there's devolution for you.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Well there's no point in having them in many ways if you're not going to train people to use them is there?
    As pointed out numerous times, schools are required to have at least one accredited medical staff, and we've updated the accreditation in 2.(1) so it includes defibrillator training. We've also pointed out 2.(1) is probably strictly speaking unnecessary, because I'd be highly surprised if it isn't already part of the accreditation process. There will be at least one member of staff in every school who knows how to use it.
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    As pointed out numerous times, schools are required to have at least one accredited medical staff, and we've updated the accreditation in 2.(1) so it includes defibrillator training. We've also pointed out 2.(1) is probably strictly speaking unnecessary, because I'd be highly surprised if it isn't already part of the accreditation process. There will be at least one member of staff in every school who knows how to use it.
    That wasn't my point. My point was that I would support you including costing for training in the Bill.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    Surely it would be better to carry out a widespread programme of CPR training. We have an excellent ambulance service in this country who carry defibrillators as standard, they have a target response time of 8 minutes, so should be able to administer defibrillation where necessary within 10 minutes. Would the time spent hunting down the defibrillator and the person trained to use it not be better spent administering CPR while waiting for an ambulance?

    There is also the problem that people may have a very weak heartbeat that is hard to detect and the use of defibrillation could actually have the opposite effect of that desired, by actually shocking the heart out of rhythm. The problem is there is no way to quantify how many people are killed by the unnecessary use of defibrillation as any post mortem will merely show the cause of death as a cardiac arrest, but not whether the defibrillation was the cause of the cardiac arrest.

    In the right hands defibrillation saves lives, in the wrong hands it can actually cost lives, and I fear that the more widespread its use becomes the more it will be used by those without the proper skills. You might be able to learn how to use a defibrillator on a 1 day training course, but learning when to use it is just as important, and that only comes with years of experience.
    As has been said in post #45, the defibrillator does the work for you If the person has a very weak but regular heartbeat the defib wont shock them, it only shocks 'shockable' heart rhythms.

    Perhaps widespread CPR training would be good, but I think it would be much more expensive, and anyway, how long does it take to call the person with the defibrillator and training to use it? You could still administer CPR while waiting for the defibrillator to arrive At the end of the day, if they get treatment in 5 minutes instead of 8 minutes, they are one hell of a lot more likely to survive
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    We wanted to make sure this would pass.
    So omitting the truth and hoping people won't notice is a good idea, eh?


    a line about defibrillator training being included in basic first-aid courses.
    Doesn't that (a) seek to minimise the issue (and cost) and (b) ignore the reasons that such training isn't included in basic first aid training?

    We feel that the majority of children's time is spent in schools
    If this is the quality of the analysis that has gone in to this proposal it is pitiful. A child could tell you that children don't spend the majority of theri time at school. Across the year, a child would spend only 15% of their time in school, and even less within range of a centrally-held defibrillator.

    Not only that, children are the group least likely to ever need such a device.

    There is no allowance for training, nor for maintenance of the devices (I'm guessing about £100 annually each) nor for eventual replacement (they don't last forever, you know). In fact have you even considered the typical working life?

    Where will the money come from?

    No wonder the last government nearly bankrupted us.

    Shocking!
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    QFA
    Hey Good Bloke, how's post-modding life treating you?
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Hey Good Bloke, how's post-modding life treating you?
    Hi! Pretty good, except that my heart won't take the shock of people proposing such ill-thought, badly put-together, poorly costed schemes.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    Surely it would be better to carry out a widespread programme of CPR training. We have an excellent ambulance service in this country who carry defibrillators as standard, they have a target response time of 8 minutes, so should be able to administer defibrillation where necessary within 10 minutes. Would the time spent hunting down the defibrillator and the person trained to use it not be better spent administering CPR while waiting for an ambulance?
    Following cardiac arrest, survival chances drop by about 7% every minute before defibrillation so it's best to have a defibrillator as early as possible to maximise chances. One person should administer CPR and another get the defib as quickly as possible, then it should be used as soon as it arrives.

    There is also the problem that people may have a very weak heartbeat that is hard to detect and the use of defibrillation could actually have the opposite effect of that desired, by actually shocking the heart out of rhythm. The problem is there is no way to quantify how many people are killed by the unnecessary use of defibrillation as any post mortem will merely show the cause of death as a cardiac arrest, but not whether the defibrillation was the cause of the cardiac arrest.

    In the right hands defibrillation saves lives, in the wrong hands it can actually cost lives, and I fear that the more widespread its use becomes the more it will be used by those without the proper skills. You might be able to learn how to use a defibrillator on a 1 day training course, but learning when to use it is just as important, and that only comes with years of experience.
    See my earlier post - no one is going to die from inappropriate use of an AED.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    However, it will make people more confident in using them if we train them. People may hesitate if they don't feel confident enough so training is about building confidence.
    I agree, and indeed the UKRC guidelines do recommend training to minimise delays, but I'm just saying it's not strictly necessary. More importantly, several people here appear to have been suggesting that using an AED without training could be dangerous, so I primarily wanted to point out that that's not the case
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So omitting the truth and hoping people won't notice is a good idea, eh?
    We haven't omitted any truth?

    Doesn't that (a) seek to minimise the issue (and cost) and (b) ignore the reasons that such training isn't included in basic first aid training?
    We've pointed out why the cost is minimal, and we've given several reasons why (b) is covered. As it happens, most people are in favour of spending MORE on this bill, rather than less, in expanding the training available. We'd be fully in favour of that.

    Not only that, children are the group least likely to ever need such a device.
    Children account for a sixth of SADS, as pointed out in the notes...

    There is no allowance for training, nor for maintenance of the devices (I'm guessing about £100 annually each) nor for eventual replacement (they don't last forever, you know). In fact have you even considered the typical working life?
    We pointed out why more money isn't really needed for training. The Nursing and Midwives Council almost certainly already includes defibrillator training as part of the process necessary to become a school nurse, and even in cases where they do not, we provided 2.(1) to double check. Most AED devices these days require no regular maintenance apart from battery checks. We also have provided allowance for replacement - if a school has no working defibrillator, it can re-apply under 3.(2).

    Where will the money come from?
    The opposition can't fund bills - traditionally, only the Government passes budgets. If this passes, it is up to the Government to fund it. I would note, however, that a) the cost we provided is probably an overestimate (as pointed out in the notes), and b) it doesn't even cost very much anyway.

    No wonder the last government nearly bankrupted us.

    Shocking!
    I'm genuinely dismayed by the antagonism in this bill. We've been falsely accused of lying, we've pointed out we're fully willing to support increased training if other parties seem okay with the cost (and the fact we didn't include it was a pre-emptive compromise from the start), we've explained how training works, we have provided allowance for maintenance, and we've fully costed the bill, even providing an overestimate to be on the safe side. This just seems like attacking us just for the sake of it.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    We haven't omitted any truth?
    Apart from all the details, and the fact there is no funding.



    spending MORE on this bill, rather than less, in expanding the training available. We'd be fully in favour of that.
    It doesn't surprise me that you want to spend more of my money on badly thought out ideas.

    Children account for a sixth of SADS, as pointed out in the notes...
    You talked about the potential to save 700 lives. Only a sixth of those lives are children's, it seems, which will be at school for only 15% of their time. The likely result is a possibility of saving 17 or 18 lives a year. It doesn't make such a good headline when you present the truth, does it?


    We pointed out why more money isn't really needed for training. The Nursing and Midwives Council almost certainly already includes defibrillator training as part of the process necessary to become a school nurse, and even in cases where they do not, we provided 2.(1) to double check. Most AED devices these days require no regular maintenance apart from battery checks. We also have provided allowance for replacement - if a school has no working defibrillator, it can re-apply under 3.(2).
    This isn't maintenance. A device is no use if it doesn't work when called into use.



    The opposition can't fund bills - traditionally, only the Government passes budgets. If this passes, it is up to the Government to fund it. I would note, however, that a) the cost we provided is probably an overestimate (as pointed out in the notes), and b) it doesn't even cost very much anyway.
    To airily dismiss £20-30 million as not very much says it all.



    I'm genuinely dismayed by the antagonism in this bill. We've been falsely accused of lying, we've pointed out we're fully willing to support increased training if other parties seem okay with the cost (and the fact we didn't include it was a pre-emptive compromise from the start), we've explained how training works, we have provided allowance for maintenance, and we've fully costed the bill, even providing an overestimate to be on the safe side. This just seems like attacking us just for the sake of it.
    You are seeking to pass a bill without a budget and then force the government to foot the bill. Correction, force the taxpayer to foot the bill. Please stop trying to spending my money on unjustified, improperly costed ventures.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If this is met with cuts to other areas of the education budget to offset the losses then I support it.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    If this is met with cuts to other areas of the education budget to offset the losses then I support it.
    Surely you'd want to see what was being cut to make way for it? Would you support it, for instance, if all purchases of whiteboard markers, or all purchases of printer ink, were to be given up to pay for it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Surely you'd want to see what was being cut to make way for it? Would you support it, for instance, if all purchases of whiteboard markers, or all purchases of printer ink, were to be given up to pay for it?
    Cuts in wages to all future staff employed would suffice. The costs of the defibrillators is rather low so spreading the cost of that over all teachers employed in the future will be easily doable.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    I find it unbelievable that some of the more right wing members of the house would grudge school children the opportunity to survive from a sudden cardiac arrest.

    Actually it disgusts me.
    Hey, us right-wingers are only concerned about the cost-effectiveness of distributing defibrillators to every school in the country :holmes:

    /sarcasm
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Cuts in wages to all future staff employed would suffice. The costs of the defibrillators is rather low so spreading the cost of that over all teachers employed in the future will be easily doable.
    Ah! So the entire cost burden would fall on those who work in schools? Nice. Doesn't this add insult to injury - get to save a child's life and pay for the privilege? How will a saving made in ten years time pay for this programme, which demands most of the money up front?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Ah! So the entire cost burden would fall on those who work in schools? Nice. Doesn't this add insult to injury - get to save a child's life and pay for the privilege? How will a saving made in ten years time pay for this programme, which demands most of the money up front?
    Like the government always does run a deficit.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Like the government always does run a deficit.
    But this is an opposition bill. The opposition cannot run a deficit.

    Has everyone lost all sense of reality?
Updated: April 11, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.