What are the requirements for first aid and emergency health training content

At present, the core requirements for the content of formal first aid and emergency health training in China are actually very clear, that is, it must be in line with the real usage scenarios of the target audience, set up in layers based on the audience's knowledge base, and the proportion of practical training should not be less than 70%. All content must fully comply with the specifications issued by the National Health Commission and the latest version of the international first aid guide. To put it bluntly, it must be useful, usable, and easy to use, and cannot be a pretentious exercise on paper.

When we provided training for an Internet park in Hangzhou, the initial plan also included handling snake and insect bites and altitude sickness in the wild. Later, we did a survey in advance and found that 90% of employees in the park encountered sudden health problems on a daily basis. They were nothing more than colleagues staying up late and working overtime to have chest pain and myocardial infarction, foreign objects getting stuck in the throat when eating, and not drinking coffee. Be careful about burns and stress reactions after people are trapped in elevators. We changed the content on the spot and changed the core to adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation + Heimlich maneuver + common burns and scalds treatment + emergency health protection in confined spaces. The feedback at the end of the course was very good. One student said that he used the shower cooling method he learned that night to treat a colleague who was burned by hot milk tea. In fact, this is like giving cold medicine to people. It only works if it suits the symptoms. If you talk about a lot of unused professional content regardless of the identity of the audience and the environment they usually stay in, no matter how exciting the lecture is, it will be in vain.

Speaking of content adaptation, there is actually a rather controversial discussion in the industry: Should relatively professional content such as AED (automated external defibrillator) use and severe trauma hemostasis bandaging be included in the training for all people? Those who support it believe that the coverage of AED in public places is getting higher and higher, and universal access to AED can really be used at critical moments. Those who oppose it feel that many remote areas cannot even see the shadow of AED, and it is a waste of time to talk about it. It would be more practical to talk about common local emergencies. Last year, I went to a village in southeastern Guizhou for training. I condensed the content of AED into a 10-minute popular science lesson. It mainly talked about how to induce vomiting after accidentally swallowing pesticides, how to deal with heat stroke while doing farm work, and how to move the elderly correctly after falling. The fellow villagers listened very carefully. After class, they even asked us if there was high blood pressure in the family. How to deal with sudden dizziness in the elderly? In fact, there is nothing wrong with both views. The core is to adapt to the scene. If you are training staff at subway stations and shopping malls, then AED is the core content that must be learned. If you are giving lectures to left-behind elderly people in remote villages, it is really better to teach them more knowledge that they can use.

In addition to the fact that the content must be tailored to the needs of others, the more important thing is not to just talk about it, but to practice with real swords and guns. I once met a colleague who was giving training to a company. He lectured on theory for two hours with a PPT. The trainees had never even touched a cardiopulmonary resuscitation simulator. Later, someone in their company actually fainted at the workstation. The employee who went to help couldn't even remember the position of the compression. In the end, he had to wait for the ambulance to arrive before he was rescued. Now the default rule in the industry is that the proportion of practical operations should not be less than 70%. When we do training, we will deliberately place the simulator in real scenes such as under the work station, at the elevator entrance, and beside the steps, so that the trainees will get used to not rescuing people on a flat mat in the training room. Misoperations will be pointed out on the spot. Take cardiopulmonary resuscitation as an example. If you hear the compression depth ten times, it should be 5-6 centimeters. It is better to have the trainer pat the back of the hand and remember it.

There is also a bottom line requirement that cannot be touched, that is, all content must be strict and compliant, and you cannot use wild tricks uploaded on the Internet to teach. For example, there are still many veteran trainers who still teach the compression depth of 3-5 centimeters according to the old guideline from more than ten years ago. This is not good. Now they have to adjust the content according to the 2020 version of the International CPR Guidelines. There are also folk-circulated wrong methods such as tilting the head up for nosebleeds, applying toothpaste for burns, and pinching people when they are unconscious. They must be specifically refuted. Otherwise, students will learn the wrong things and it will be unhelpful when they encounter situations. I have been doing this for almost 6 years, and my biggest feeling is that there is no one-size-fits-all template for first aid training. As long as it is suitable for the audience and can really be used to save people at critical moments, it is good content that meets the requirements.