Competitor First Aid Training

[ajax]

This is something that was brought up in the timing argument and I thought it was most appropriate in this subforum.

Should sanctioning bodies require competitor first aid training? I think it should at least be offered. Racing has a lot of potential for a lot of head and neck injuries and one of the things first aid training talks about is how you can make someone's injuries worse by trying to help them. You don't need to be teaching people how to administer drugs, make a splint from sticks in the woods, treat schizophrenia, etc. but some basic first response things to know until professionals can come would be beneficial.

I have my own opinions about what I think competitors should know as far as first aid goes but I want to open up some discussion. Also, it would be nice to know if there are liability reasons why this cannot happen.

Paul

[dazed driver]

Whether they offer or not (I like the idea) it shouldnt be offered on rally weekends. Theres not enough time to do a good job. If they do start offering something, they should throw CPR and AED's in too.

[Doug Woods]

CARS requires all CARS licenced competitors to hold a valid St. John Ambulance or equivalent "Emergency First Aid" certificate.

Some points to consider:

1) CARS (the sanctioning body) does not conduct the training. They require the training from a recognized organization.

2) The training involves much more than medical procedures. From a rallying aspect, an important part of the training is how to organize and control an accident scene.

3) The CARS philosophy has been that, if an accident occurs, the following rally car is likely to be the first responder on the scene. It is recognized that the following competitors are not medical experts but that they have had training that will allow them to respond in a timely and logical manner.

I don't see how the threat of litigation could be a deterent to requiring first aid training for competitors. However, I would like to hear from someone like Bruce Weinman on this topic.

[jandreini]

When I was active as a competitor, I kept my certifications current simply because it was the right thing (& the smart thing) to do. With or without a rule, it only makes sense.

[Audi UrQ]

About 5 years ago (so I'm now out of cert), I successfully completed a 52-hour First Responder course given by the American Red Cross.

Notes:

1. Since I don't practice this stuff on a regular basis I can remember very little of it (i.e. regular refresher courses are needed).

2. As alluded to above, since moving someone and/or removing their helmet can make injuries worse (particularly in the case of head and neck injuries), I believe the practical application of first aid by largely untrained / minimally trained competitors is limited to:
a. controlling the scene of the incident to prevent further/additional injuries (should always be priority #1 anyway)
b. moving the person only in order to minimize the likelihood of further injuries e.g. car on fire
c. stopping bleeding
d. CPR in the event the person is not breathing and/or has no pulse [not always as easy to determine in a panic situation with the person strapped inside a (possibly upside down) rally car as one might possibly think, and would require removal of helmet and most likely removal of person from car, thereby potentially increasing likelihood of injury if assessment that CPR was needed proved to be incorrect]

Obviously getting advanced emergency medical care to the scene a.s.a.p. is a priority and there are procedures in place in the rulebook and event safety plan in place to ensure that this happens.

[Bruce]

Since you asked, Doug...

If a person responding to an incident - rally or not - is trained (First Aid, RN, EMT,MD, whatever) there is a correspondingly higher standard of care owed to the victim. The local Good Samaritan Law or its equivalent will also be affected by the level of training the responder has. What this means in a nutshell is that - in the US anyway - the more training you have, the easier it is to screw up.

That said, I can't imagine that this slight extra liability would rub off on a sanctioning body...or that simple First Aid would increase your personal liability a significant amount. The rules may require you to have the training, but they don't (and probably shouldn't) require you to DO anything.

An important part of any standard training should be to teach you what NOT to do.

Bruce
who doesn't represent any rally organization

[starion887]

An important part of any standard training should be to teach you what NOT to do.
Bruce
who doesn't represent any rally organization

Bruce,

Sadly, I suspect you are right on the mark in that training more teaches what NOT to do. Several items I have read about Good Samartian laws and the issues surrounding voluntary first aid (admittedly on the i-net, which is always infallible, right?) recommend training, and I assume it is for the reason you state.

And the situation varies from state to state. Below is a blurb on a recent (late 2008) ruling in CA that removes lawsuit protection for Good Samaritans in 'non-medical' situations. (I aasume this is a fair interpretation of this ruling.) I would be curious to understand how this type of law stands in Canada, and if it varies from province to province, as it varies from state to state in the US. IMO, this all should be factored in before adopting such a rule.

>>>>>>>>>>
Sacramento, CA (AHN) - In a 4-3 vote, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that good Samaritans who unintentionally harm victims they tried to help are open for a lawsuit.

The decision, in effect, places in question the state's 1980 Health and Safety Code, which provides that, "No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."

Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority decision, explained the code's intent was to grant immunity from liability for civil damages only persons who in good faith gave emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency. But the three dissenting justices argued the legislation clearly established its purpose was to encourage people not to ignore those in need of emergency assistance, but to show compassion and give the necessary help.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed against cosmetician Lisa Torti by co-worker Alexandra Van Horn, who became a paraplegic as a result of a vehicular accident on Topanga Canyon Road in 2004. Van Horn alleged Torti contributed to her injuries by pulling her out of the car, which is a non-medical form of assistance.

Van Horn also sued the driver of the car she was riding, Anthony Glen Watson. When the driver and passengers of the second car where Torti was riding saw Watson's car crashed a light pole, it stopped and they rushed to help Watson's two passenger move out of the wreckage. Van Horn, in her deposition, said Torti grabbed her arm and pulled her out like a rag doll.

Justice Marvin Baxter, said the majority opinion was illogical. In a dissenting opinion, Baxter explained, "One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victims... Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

[Bruce]

I'm with the minority on that case. I can't see it being applied widely. I suspect the facts were particularly egregious.

There is also a rule of law that says that once you start a rescue, you must continue it. The illustrative case: You see a person drowning in a lake, and you can't swim. If you merely walk away, you have no liability. But if you find a rope, throw it a couple of times, then give up, you might be liable for failing to CONTINUE the rescue.

And I would argue that knowing what not to do is a GOOD thing. An example is the EMT that's unfamiliar with racing. Arriving at an incident, his training tells him he must check vitals...and that darned helmet is in the way. Taking it off, however, we know is a bad idea. A bit of training also tells me that if a person is in the car after a bad crash, I should only try to get him out (without professional help, that is) if his life is threatened in some other way - like fire. In both of these cases, training can go against instinct and prevent further injury.

Sitting in front of a computer screen, these things seem obvious. In the adrenaline-fueled world of an emergency, however, everything is not so clear. BTDT

Bruce
20-year corner worker

[Doug Woods]

Sitting in front of a computer screen, these things seem obvious. In the adrenaline-fueled world of an emergency, however, everything is not so clear.

Agreed. And that is why those with first aid training are more likely to be able to help in an emergency that those without any training.

Not a certainty, of course, but a logical probability (as Spock would say).:rolleyes:

[weavus4]

Would people be interested in creating a first aid for rally class. I work with a non profit that would be able to bring this to a national level if we decide to create a syllabus of what information should be given. If you are interested in helping PM me or let it be known here. We can then plan a few meeting to discus what we would need to do.

Matt
http://www.specialoperationsfoundation.org/sos/