This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This definitely needs to be reviewed. I'm training as a certified disaster service worker, under FEMA-approved training, but a review/rewrite by a real MD or EMT would be better. Ray Van De Walker

I am an EMT-B (VA) and have begun a rewrite. What was there wasn't bad at all, but needed to be fleshed out. The only thing I think was actually wrong was that first aid doesn't refer to what EMTs do. In some sense, this is true but EMTs generally use the term, probably because if we don't do first aid, and we're not allowed to practice medicine, then what do we do? Anyway, I've always used first aid to refer to anything done before MDs get involved, which can be anything from a band-aid to an emergency tracheotomy. Tokerboy 12:58 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Comment: user:clarka I have hacked at this now and again. but I don't put anything in that I'm not 100% sure of. See the EMT article for what EMTs do. First aid is what laypersons do. (someone write an article on CERT before I do, please!) I didn't want to overwhelm novices (particularly the poor guy doing first aid because Google pulled up the wiki article because someone is hurt _right now_, which is one reason for emphasizing Call for Help and the very carefully written Call for Help article) . . . but I wanted to link to more comprehensive material elsewhere as well. Emergency medicine is what EMTs and paramedics do. You are acting under the direction of an MD (either by licensure for EMTs or by direct supervision for paramedics) and you _ARE_ a medical professional. An emergency needle cricothorocotomy is NOT first aid, and I certainly do not want to give instructions for an emergency tracheotomy in wikipedia because I am NOT an MD myself. As you are licensed you are held to a higher standard of care, Good Sam flies out the window, and you should have malpractice insurance. Thanks for continuing to stab at it, but please try to keep it organized! :)

If the patient is conscious, it is important to ask for permission before proceeding. Touching another person under any circumstances without that person's permission is considered assault in most jurisdictions.

5 years ago I followed a first aid training course in Belgium. I don't remember anything said about consent (but I'm not sure). Is this a US thing? Care should be taken with legal matters as they may vary widely from country to country. D.D. 10:39 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Comment: clarka. Agreed but I think consent is required internationally as well. It is certainly better for the patient and good form, if not legally required.

Something else: in Belgium I AM allowed to touch persons without their consent in some special circumstances. For example to perform a so-called "civil arrest" (= immobilize a criminal until the police arrives -- I'm not sure about the English translation). D.D. 10:43 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

clarka: this has NOTHING to do with first aid. It is citizen's arrest or to put it accurately, a private person arrest. See security guard Thanks though.

I know it has nothing to do with it. I just wanted to point out that saying "Touching another person under any circumstances without that person's permission is considered assault in most jurisdictions" is not correct, because it also covers circumstances outside first aid (such as a citizen's arrest). BTW, thanks for the correct term. D.D. 12:56 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to take issue with the section on "ABC". First of all, the acronym should be used in the plural ("ABC's"), with the s representing severe bleeding. Second, to the best of my knowledge, the ABC's thing is just a CPR guideline, whereas the actual list of immediate emergencies is as follows: stopped breathing, no circulation, severe bleeding, internal poisoning. I was taught this list under the name of "hurry cases." It eliminates the "airway" portion of "ABC's", which is redundant with "breathing" except in the context of CPR.

Furthermore, the statement that severe bleeding should be checked for by patting down the body is absolutely ridiculous. Severe bleeding means copious bleeding - either the pool of blood that we've all seen in movies, or (in the case of a punctured artery) spurts of blood.

I'm going to change that section to talk strictly about CPR, and add a new section on the four hurry cases. - Smack 18:46, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are a lot more than "FOUR" hurry cases. Go read medical emergency. I have tried to avoid specific and in some cases copyrighted training recommendations.

Anyone who thinks that tourniquet is within the scope of first-aid should go read that article.

ABC stands for "Airway Breathing Circulation" without the "s" you suggest, which sounds like a local training mneumonic.

Airway and Breathing are different. You must make sure the person has a patent airway, typically through head-tilt chin-lift if they are on their back. Then and only then can you see if they're breathing. Circulation applies with equal force to both cardiac arrest and severe bleeding.

Severe bleeding can be missed in a hasty survey, but that statement needed reworking anyway. Internal injuries and bleeding can kill just as quickly as bleeding outside the body, and often first-aiders don't notice until too late.

Thanks for your input but be very careful not to add anything that you are not 100% sure of. This article continues to need reorganization and pruning into sub-articles. clarka 24 Aug 2003

Thanks for your input, but please indent it so that it doesn't blend together with mine.

This article is schizophrenic. It needs to be split into a proper Wikipedia article on one hand, and a Wikibooks module on the other. As far as the number of hurry cases is concerned, the article should list all of them, but the module should list only those few that are within the purview of casual first-aiders. Since I'm still on hiatus, I'll leave the splitting task up to someone else. - Smack 03:29, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fixed link to Wikibooks above. Started new First Aid textbook at [1]. Beginning synthesis of related articles. Added link to Wikibook from article. clarka 23 Sept 2003 (UTC)

I've removed these two links:

• [http://www.first-aid-product.com/ First Aid Kits & Supplies]
• [http://www.cpr-training-classes.com/ American CPR Training - CPR & First Aid Training]

They were added by an anonymous user (68.7.15.227), removed by me, then added by the user again. As far as I can tell they are links to commercial sites and as the user has contributed only those links to wikipedia, I think they are just spam. If the user wishes to add them to the page again could they please explain here their justification for doing so? Tjwood 17:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Triage should be treated like a dick, as it is a crucial step. -- Fighter 18:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Esseye has proposed a merge of WFA into the First Aid article. I personally disagree; the two have different certifications and skill sets, both for general first aid users as well as skilled EMTs and other practicioners. The lack of equipment, additional environmental hazards (e.g. the high probability of hypothermia in a cold weather incident), and difficulties of evacuation/rescue make the two different topics entirely, although not unrelated. (As an example, in the WFA course I took, we responded to a scenario with eight trained first aiders, taking two to three hours of constant work. The incident was a single person with a broken leg (Closed fracture of the right fibula), which is barely even an emergency in the city.) Do not merge. ByeByeBaby 05:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems the merge happened anyway. I resplit it. I agree the merge was a bad idea. St.isaac 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page:

"Wikipedia is not an instruction manual

While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things."

I think this page is in pretty clear violation of that policy. Plus, the first aid advice is for a variety of different things that do not belong on this page; stuff should instead just link to the "bites and stings" page or whatever, and put the detail there. Otherwise you have problems with redundant material.

The part of the page on what first aid and wilderness first aid is is fine. It's the "specific conditions" section with detail about treatment of individual conditions that has a problem. It should be integrated into the bulleted "conditions that often need first aid" list with maybe a sentence after each item explaining what it is and linking to that page. There is no reason to duplicate the information here. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Last, I have a concern about the quality of the medical advice being given. I think it's done in too cursory of a manner and is thus potentially dangerous. Some parts could be interpreted as advising untrained people to provide treatment that is far above their standard of care. Another example is the 'when not to give CPR' section, that is so vaguely worded that anyone could stop CPR any time by these guidelines. "When the patient is stiff and obviously dead" is wrong: no one is dead until warm and dead. Somebody following just this advice without other medical background could easily really hurt someone. This type of thing proves that wikipedia first aid page does not have enough space to be giving good medical advice. But it can link to an external page that does, like, oh, say the red cross or something. -- Delldot 14:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow- that was exactly my impression as I read this article today. The "stiff" phrase jumped right out when I skimmed the article. Take a look at Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a better article (also see the WikiBooks link there). There is a lot of duplication, such as the info from Emergency Action Principles. This article should really be a lead for the rest of the articles in the First Aid category.

This should be cut down to:

• Lead-in with definition and short history
• Overview of skill levels: Certified first responder, Emergency medical technician, etc
• Overview of skill sets with references to the detailed articles.
• Resources for general First Aid

Any other thoughts?

-- Gadget850 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken out the "Specific conditions" section with specific medical advice and moved the subsections into the bulleted list under "Conditions that often require first aid". With blurbs. Useful information I moved to more appropriate pages (for example, pages on altitude sickness, bite (medical), antivenom, and heat syncope. The page still needs a lot of work. For example, encyclopedia articles do not generally address the reader in the second person or give advice. Maybe this material would be better incorporated into the wikibooks first aid project. -- Delldot 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a short history. Looks like there is already a lot in WikiBooks, which would be the more appropriate place for much of this. We should also have a short section on legal issues and the Good Sam laws.

Although Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, Wikibooks can be! If you find how-tos that can't stay in wp, please send them over to wikibooks:First Aid; the text has come a long way, but we still need lots of content. If you'd like to help out, please do! Mike.lifeguard 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to consist of guesswork and outdated information, D for example stands for "Disability" and not "Deadly bleeding", and once you start CPR you have to continue until paramedics arrive to take over, regardless of how long so if you start it you need to make sure you can follow through. and a person can only be prenounced dead by a layman if there's damage that can't be associated with life, like if the head is separated from the neck or all the internal organs are lying next to the body otherwise it's up to a doctor to make the call. This whole article needs a complete rewrite. 78.156.214.135 ( talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the first aider seems to have been over-estimated in some cases; and vastly under-estimated in others. I propose a major re-write of the article to reflect this. The list of conditions I think should really reflect the responsibilities of a normal first aider, and therefore shouldn't really have childbirth, toothache, cramps, or diving disorders. The section regarding antibiotic treatment for wounds is irrelevent as far as first aid goes; and heamorraghe & bleeding are the same thing so there's no need to list them twice.

The section on techniques needs to be added to; although I would strongly advise the removal of tourniquets - they are NOT a first aid measure, infact, siting a tourniquet is not even that common a procedure in the ED/ER due to its dangers.

The section on CPR is particularly worrying - "if the patient is stiff and is obviously dead". I presume this refers to rigor mortis - that's not something which a first aider is likely to see, and is certainly not something which they would immediately recognise. It should be removed. "after twenty minutes of CPR with no pulse or breathing" - again, not a recommendation I have ever taught or been made aware of (I am a first aid trainer/examiner with several large UK organisations) - we generally teach that CPR should be stopped if 1) The casualty regains signs of life 2) The rescuer becomes tired 3) The situation becomes dangerous 4) Professional Help arrives and tells you to stop.

The primary survey section is a little misleading regarding attempting CPR before calling the emergency services. The Resuscitation Council (UK) 2000 guidelines reccomend it ONLY in cases of trauma, and pre-hospital traumatic arrest is not that common (in the UK, at least, the vast majority of out of hospital cardiac arrests are medical, 2/3 alone are due to MI).

First Aiders do use the PRINCIPLES of secondary survey; but they aren't taught to follow such a strict procedure as is set out in the article. The secondary survey is only carried out by first aiders in VERY rare situations anyway, as by the time they've done a primary survey, phoned for an ambulance, and provided critical interventions (CPR, pressure on wounds, treatment for shock etc...), help will have arrived. There is no merit in a first aider carrying out a secondary survey as defined in the article in the vast majority of situations.

I'll be happy to do a re-write taking these things into consideration, if that's what people want? -- John24601 22:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also be happy to update this page. I'm a first-aid instructor in Canada, and we don't have EMTs here...perhaps a separate EMT page is better-suited for EMT stuff? I also would like to edit the "when to stop CPR" part, as it is in a wilderness first aid context, and is incorrect for general first aiders. For example, a first aider who stops after 20 minutes is definitely vulnerable to lawsuit, from a first aid perspective. JamieJones 16:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: First Aid

I agree with above editors. Quite clearly, this article goes beyond the content it should contain. Instead, brief outlines of what is first aid and links to other articles would be most appropriate. Also, a very clear link to the First Aid wikibook at the top of the page would be most appropriate. On this talk page, we should also add a notice that this article is about the concept of first aid, and not the procedures of first aid, which may be found in the wikibook. Andrewjuren 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should not aim to provide detail on every first aid manoeuver. What is should do is outline the principles (using a reliable WP:CITE), historical development of first aid (e.g. St John's Ambulance), popularity and accessibility of training programs and the benefits in terms of prognosis (on which studies must be present). JFW |  T@lk 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm only a volunteer driver for a small, mostly volunteer ambulance corps in the States, but how about "subject" instead of patient or victim? Very generic and nicely vague. And, as basically a lay person, with just American Red Cross basic first aid and cpr, I agree with not printing how-to's. Nobody should be encouraged to think that just reading such material will prepare them properly to handle emergency situations. Volygirl ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we do not use the term "victim" in this article. According to wiktionary, a victim is an aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime or disaster. Often, in first aid, the patient is not a victim (because of self-inflicted injury or accident) and, as a rule, that word is not used in Canada to describe patients. This is generally because by being labelled a "victim", many patients will have an undesired emotional response and can become combatitive. I understand that it is commonly used in the United States (and still by police forces here). Can anyone comment on how this compares in other countries? Andrewjuren 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Casualty seems to be the preferred term in the UK. Personally I don't like the word, but everyone here seems to use it. -- John24601 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In my US Wilderness First Responder course by NOLS we were taught not to use the word victim because a victim is dead. We were told to use the word patient instead. That being said, my urban EMT course instructors used 'victim' all the time. -- ColinLittle 03:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I always use victim. First aiders, are *not* physicians. They're not nurses, and not first responders. They do not have patients. They do not diagnose disease. That is why I always use victim when teaching first aid courses. This is consistent with every first aid instructor has used in my presence, and what the literature I use reflects. As far as I know, victim is preferred over patient; Wikipedia should reflect that. It *might* be worth a mention at the top that some people use victim and patient interchangeably, but that the article will use victim. I've never heard that victim means the person is dead. Are people who are injured but not dead not considered victims of an accident or an act of violence? I think it would be more useful to make the distinction that first aiders are not healthcare personnel. Mike.lifeguard 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And might I add that I teach in Canada. You're absolutely wrong, Andrewjuren. I've only ever heard "patient" from BC lifeguards. Never in any other province (although I'll admit that I haven't taught in all of them). You'll notice that Lifesaving Society literature (for example, Alert) doesn't use "patient". Mike.lifeguard 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lifeguarding though, does more often deal with people who may be "victims" (e.g. of a drowning). First aid deals with various other things as well: would you say that someone was a "victim" of a hypoglycaemia or heart attack? Patient is I agree a little pretentious, but "casualty" seems to be an acceptable word over here in the UK, and when I was teaching in Canada 5-6 years ago, it's what was used there too. -- John24601 07:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The first aid literature uses victim as well - its not just in lifeguarding. As for using casualty, though, I would think that is more likely to mean someone who is dead (ie a casualty of war) than victim, and should therefore be avoided. Again, I recommend putting a note at the top that these 3 things are used interchangeably, but that the article will stick to one. That consistent term should be "victim" for the reasons I've already stated. Mike.lifeguard 19:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a paramedic in the United States, and I have observed that people with medical training beyond simple first aid (paramedic, nurse, first responder, etc.) use the word patient, while lay people, police, and fire use "victim." When learning how to be a first aid instructor, and in all first aid classes I have taken we were told that first aiders are not medical professionals, like nurses, doctors, and paramedics, so they do not have patients, they assist victims. 65.96.38.93 ( talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am an instructor for the red cross and have had numerous discussions with them about their symbol/emblem. This usage definitely is against our policies. I know you meant well, but the red cross is pretty strict on this. For more information, see "We often see the red cross emblem used as a decorative symbol on signs, in advertising or to indicate first aid stations. This may not seem like a problem, but it is wrong. Use of the emblem by commercial enterprises dilutes the impact of the symbol at home and abroad besides being against the law. No organization -- except the Canadian Red Cross and the medical corps of the armed forces during times of armed conflict -- may use the Red Cross emblem in Canada. This use is legislated by the Geneva Conventions Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Canadian Red Cross Society Act." Thanks! JamieJones ^talk 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. delldot | talk 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didnt know about this. I always thought that 'first aid kits' had Red Cross symbols on them and they was supposed to have that, to indicate that its "health/aid/recovery/fix-injury". If the Red Cross symbol cant be used, then what symbol can I use to indicate that it is a first aid kit? TV must represent this wrong very often. Red Cross must be assiocated with first aid by alot of people. To me there is a mental connection between that two. Frap 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've spoken to a number of people about this, sometimes on behalf of the red cross. I've even got them to try and compromise...but as a part of the red cross, i understand their unwavering position. It's to help protect their perceive neutrality, so that combatants don't start thinking "those guys aren't neutral...blast 'em". Makes sense. Yeah, it really annoys the red cross when the symbol is used all the time, which it is. Sometimes, a green cross is used instead. Although it maybe proprietary for a first aid company, i'm not sure. Yeah, every connect the red cross with first aid/health/etc., but it's preciously guarded. The law even says not matter what background or what colour red, whereas normal copyright you get very specific about colour, background, etc. Red cross regularly goes after corporations that misuse their image, but as you say, it happens alot so sometimes that haven't got to everyone. JamieJones ^talk 13:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• You could consider using a Star_of_life. Andrewjuren 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Red Crystal is forbidden to use too in same was as Red Cross? Have Red Cross suggested any symbol to use on medikit. Maybe a red circle? I think maybe Star_of_life is good idea. Frap 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just curious as to how Johnson & Johnson fits in, as their first aid kits have the red cross with a registered mark. [2] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have emailed people at the Canadian National Red Cross, because either 1) they have some special understanding with red cross or 2) red cross doesn't know and will probably go after them. But you're right, it is weird, esp. for a company so well recognized. I'm on it is the best i can tell you for now. JamieJones ^talk 00:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

kudos to the national red cross for their quick answer. The answer, to me, seems unbelievable, but it comes through me directly from red cross:

"Thanks for your vigilance on the emblem use

issue. There is a recently updated section of the Red Cross website that deals with emblem abuse ( http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id+AD0-000340+ACY-tid+AD0-019) That may be helpful for you. The ICRC and IFRC web sites also have good emblem sections (www.icrc.org and www.ifrc.org respectively).

Basically no-one except the Red Cross or the Canadian Armed Forces can use the Red Cross emblem in Canada. There are some companies that we authorize to use it (such as program sponsors) but we control these cases carefully. This is generally the case in any country that is signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

The one exception to this rule in the United States is, interestingly, Johnson +ACY- Johnson. This is because J+ACY-J 's trade-mark was approved before the American Red Cross was able to secure the trade-mark in the US. This exception applies only in the US. If you check their web site carefully it says that the communication is intended for US visitors. J+ACY-J cannot market products in Canada with the Red Cross."

JamieJones ^talk 12:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured it was something like that, but could not find it on the J&J site. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"An alternative symbol of first aid-a white cross on a green background-is recommended by the International Organization for Standardization and used in various countries including Canada. The Standards Council of Canada can provide further information about this symbol"

"Some believe that the Red Cross emblem is an internationally recognized symbol of first aid. IT IS NOT. The Society cannot grant permission for its emblem to be used at first aid or emergency locations when it has no control over the location or its personnel. Doctors, dispensaries, private clinics, pharmacies or first aid products that are not provided by the Canadian Red Cross are not entitled to display the emblem."

-- from the Red Cross National Office in Canada

--> JamieJones ^talk 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I saw what you said, I decided to make a SVG ( Scalable Vector Graphics) image depicting a white cross on a green background. The image is in public domain. http://www.openclipart.org/incoming/first_aid_anonymous_01.svg -- Frap 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The images are great. I don't know much about the star of life so i assume it's public domain? And since many of us were confused about the red cross emblem and associated it with first aid, maybe I could put a short piece on the first aid page about it? JamieJones ^talk 12:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2 pictures, hopefully they do the article good. The Star of Life is as far as I know public domain, the image says it was made by an US Gov employee, therefor public domain. -- Frap 14:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps fixed already, but Wilderness_first_aid links back here. --Jidanni 2006-04-15

Hey everybody. Am trying to get a wikiproject on first aid going. Please see User:John24601/Wikiprojectfirstaid if you are interested, and spread the word! -- John24601 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should split off the wilderness first aid article. It seems to be well written and possess none of the problems (like walkthroughs) that the rest of the article contains. The topic is complex and could be further discussed in its own article. We could leave a summary and a link. St.isaac 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, it can be hard to know which ones are spam, and which one are entered just to make profit from advertisements or if there are any bad sites or something. External links need be professional and reliable. I assumed goverment sites should be good, so I googled some and found some sites, maybe you can check if they are good and suited as link or better suited than some of the current links, I don't know. -- Frap

• http://www.fema.gov/plan/prepare/firstaid.shtm
• http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/menu/topic/firstaid.html
• http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/firstaid.html
• http://www.ready.gov/america/getakit/firstaidkit.html
• http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/safety/healthsafety_first_aid_kit.shtml
• http://www.fema.gov/kids/frstaid.htm

I cleaned up the ad sponsored sites and dirrect advertisments, and put in the CDC site and a European center for First Aid Education site. I expect the ad supported sites were added because people thought they would be useful (rather than being added by people who benefit from the money). But it's important to make sure we link to sites that have good oversite especialy for something health related. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the First Aid Registry for Certifications today....this is a relatively new site but offers a lot of capability to many different user groups. (Snappled, 8/5/2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappled ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

....And now it has been removed? The First Aid Training Book Online 1 & 2 from the Red Cross is also from a commercial site. Red Cross has been charging for all First Aid programs for decades? (Snappled 8/6/2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappled ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

With apologies, i would have put a comment here when i removed the link yesterday, but failed to noticed the talk page update. The site put up was not suitable for Wikipedia as it was clearly commerical. It is a long way from the first aid manual of the world's largest humanitarian organisation, who do charge for some courses, but put that money back in to charity work. OwainDavies ^{( about)}_{( talk)} edited at 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

@OwainDavies: What is the reason for the removal of First Aid Project for Mobiles FirstAi.de (multilingual) ?

It is a non-commercial project and provides helpful information.

There are several reasons i don't think this is suitable. Firstly, it's a mobile site, and Wikipedia isn't. Secondly, its fairly poorly written, and i would suggest has been written by someone whose first language is not english. Lastly, it contains a lot of how to information, without saying where that information has been sourced from, so it could be (and i would suggest in some cases is, inaccurate. For those reasons, i would suggest that the site is not suitable at this time. OwainDavies ^{( about)}_{( talk)} edited at 12:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FirstAi.de is not an entire "mobile website", it mainly offers first aid knowledge which you can carry on your cell phone. What is important is the knowledge, and not the media used to share it. By the way all the first aid information can be accessed online, see here. It's free knowledge and works in a similar way as Wikipedia. So far, people from all over the world are participating on the project (UK, USA, France, Portugues/Brazil, Germany, Czech, China, Lithuania, Vietnam, ...). If it is "poorly written" then feel free to correct it like all the people did before. Why don't you let people appreciate the work of others. The project might be suitable to many. There are already more than 100 000 people using it and participating on the project. As already said, if you think you have better knowledge and ideas, then feel free like all the people already working on it, to contribute. It's a non-commercial project with an honorable purpose, so please be kind leave the link and let the people decide by themselves. The product has been approved by national and international magazines as well, such as Softonic, iPod&More and ComputerBild. Thanks in advance. FirstAi.de Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.200.200 ( talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: First Aid

I have made significant contributions to the featured WikiBook on first aid (linked here), and that contains a good level of detail on most areas. You have answered your own question in terms of suitability as an external link - WP:EL, WP:V and WP:CITE policies mean that Wikis are not suitable external links, and whilst I think your project is a good idea, it is not suitable here. OwainDavies ^{( about)}_{( talk)} edited at 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear OwainDavies, we are not understanding your point. WP:V says "material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". We are not adding material, we are adding an external link (furthermore, it has been already published by an international press such as Softonic). WP:CITE says "A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source." An external link is no citation. WP:EL says "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Why do we have to justify our link (which btw works oppose to the 2nd link) when nobody has justified the others. Is it personal? We do not understand why you are doing that to us, did we do something wrong? Is it really the content which was appreciated by Softonic or is it the fact that the content is also available for mobiles? Thanks for your time. FirstAi.de Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.111.228 ( talk) 22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Why do we have to justify our link" ... well I would think WP:ELNO #4 & #12 cover the basics. FirstAi.de Team please read WP:COI, which is also summarized at WP:EL#ADV. Forgive me if this seems blunt. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had the fortune of coming across the Instruction Manual for a St. John Ambulance Military First Aid course (1996 Canadian version if it makes a difference, although I could prolly get a newer version also). I wondered if inserting a paragraph about the difference is worth mentioning in the scope of this article.

• Chemical Warfare
• Combat Stress reaction
• Personal Health care
• Self-Aid
• Exotic Locations

are the added chapters in the book that jump out at me in browsing.

What are your thoughts ? exit2dos2000 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the details of qualifications by country are of no real relevance to this article and should be deleted. Owain.davies 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are highly relivent and should remain.

Also I believe new additions to a TALK page should be added to the bottom of the page so as to stay in chronological order (and I have moved this to the bottom) exit2dos2000 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it's more relevant to talk about the types of first aid etc - the physical qualification by country doesn't seem very relevant. If you think it's needed - they should probably be on separate pages (as is currently the case with Emergency medical services) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owain.davies ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I think you should first notice the previous conversation here. I myself do believe that this is exactly the place to show differences between nations. If things grow beyond a managable size, I may reconsider, but at this point this article still seems a reasonable size without subdivisions. If reference to the types of first aid are required, beyond explaing its existance and use, would a link to its entry in wikibooks not suffice? exit2dos2000 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure Hyperbaric medicine is first aid. Isn't it the final treatment? Mark.murphy 08:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it is the final treatment, it certainly has a first aid specific element (no use of entonox for instance), and rescue divers are trained in the specific first aid treatment of the condition. Maybe it would be better titled 'Diving first aid', mentioning this, and that it is a pre-treatment to hyperbaric chamber decompression? Owain.davies 09:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why my external link to St. John's Ambulance was removed? As someone said in their revision rollback - it needs to provide further information - of which it clearly does. For example, the Wikipedia article and subsequent external links do not provide much information at all on child first aid, where as the SJA page does. -- leopheard 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did consider removing the link myself, but left it alone to see if anyone else did it. The link you posted was a straightforward commercial link. If you wish to link to more specific information (such as a specific paediatric first aid page), then link there, and make it clear in the descriptor that it's an information page. I think it was removed because it's just a link to an organsiation, and those are generally avoided (else we'd end up with a massive list at the end - and size is not necessarily an indicator of quality!). I suggest linking specific relevant pages (possibly as footnote refs linked to the text). I'd be happy with that, but it is a wiki, so someone else may disagree! Owain.davies 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw it deleted, I considered putting it back, but on reflection I can see arguments both ways. On the one hand, I think it is good to have links to industry leaders, particularly those in the voluntary sector, as they are the natural places to go to for people who wish to find out more about the subject, and in addition there may be value in having some description of them in the article itself. However, it is very difficult to establish which organisations should be included (e.g. if we include SJA then at the very least we have to include the Red Cross & St Andrew's Ambulance, and possibly British Heart Foundation and Resuscitation Council (UK)). Those examples are just from the UK, and as wikipedia is a worldwide entity we'd have to include those organisations from all the other major English speaking countries, and the list would soon become unmanageable. I also share Owain's fear that we'd just be promoting a load of commercial entities, which is not what we're about. 'Tis a tough one - anybody else got any opinions?-- John24601 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a further reading section perhaps? Or even a separate Wiki page listing all FA organisations - or perhaps just charities as St John's Ambulance isn't a commercial one? I know some Wikipedians are against lists, but there sure are a lot of Wikipedia pages out there which appear to be nothing short of a Yellow pages directory! -- leopheard 07:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

St John, whilst a charity, is still a profit making commercial enterprise with it's training and supplies division. This means that they operate in a commercial market, and could gain commerical advantage from the website. They are wikilinked within the article itself, and anyone interested can take the external link from there. Owain.davies 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying SJA is a "profit making commercial enterprise" I think puts slightly the wrong spin on the organization. Its prolly just splitting hairs (and I do not disagree with the links removal)... but... ALL funds raised by the training and supplies are allocated towards self-sustanance (ie office space Rent, paid staff, etc) and the support of the Brigade Divisions (volunteer) supply and training. To believe that it is a company to make a profit for investors is not correct, it is a charitable organization. Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C••} 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The links to BRC, SJA and SAA were all removed, and i have restored them. I believe that as sector leaders not just in the UK, but the two largest first aid training providers worldwide, they are inherently notable, and well worth a brief mention and wikilink to their own pages. Owain.davies 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people will visit this entry with the assumption that after 8-12 hours of training, they will be capable of delivering effective first aid to an accident victim (or accident patient?).

Conceivably, this is a false assumption. Or it might be true. I wish some editor here could cite "real world" studies that address this rather straightforward medical issue, which has fundamental relevance to the entry.

In a quick Web search I've found no answer, yet the question is rather obvious.

-JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.167.189 ( talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First aid is very much in the dark ages in terms of evidence-based practice which now dominates much of the rest of healtchare! The only area of first aid which has really been subject to robust research is resuscitation - if you do a lit search in journals like "Resuscitation" you should find quite a bit on the effectiveness of different levels of protocol complexity, teaching styles, frequency of training etc as they apply to effectiveness of lay first aiders in emergency situations. There is very little clinical research into the efficacy of other areas of first aid, and so pretty much none on its teaching! I agree it's an interesting area, and one I'm interested in researching myself - I've been kicking around some ideas for a study for a while, but I never seem to get round to it!-- John24601 ( talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't spinal injuries be in there as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.108.236 ( talk) 08:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That list is becoming just a tad ridiculous. SMC ( talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

iupoi;po-]o-i009n09p[il0=9po ko[k[][o[ jlkkpojop'l[ oj o;k'po —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.60.185 ( talk) 15:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We do need to spilt out wilderness first aid. It whould be seperatly expanded. All who object come forth.

K0Yaku August 7

OK, I'm doing the split. St.isaac 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Some of the text just put back in also seems POV. I look forward to the split, and support it! JamieJones ^talk 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)and due to goodness of reyan₠

wo lives in murlipura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.255.149 ( talk) 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It mentions Greeks using bandages but ignores that most greek doctors studied in ancient Egypt (once called Kmt aka Kemet). Remember that ancient African Egyptians were wrapping bodies (we call them mummies) and Imhotep was treating and wrapping patients thousands of years ago, and way before the people we today call Greeks. I will attempt to correct the article, but usually when I make such corrections, racists among the Wikipedia editor teams, delete my edits and block me for editing articles. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:EDC7:A73D:C147:9C56 ( talk) 10:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC). I like how the colorful history of first aid is shown.

The caption reads: "The universal first aid symbol (or the background may be red with a white cross)" but a white cross on red forms the Swiss national flag and is not recognized internationally as a first aid symbol, even if many manufacturers ignore this. The "may be" in this caption could suggest that a white cross on red is acceptable, which it isn't. The article "First aid kit" does not make this mistake ^[1] and correctly cites only the ISO 7010 white cross on green. Should the caption be changed to remove this IMHO misleading addition? PsyQ ( talk) 08:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This bullet point under the "Aims" section appears to be a run on sentence.

"Prevent further harm: also sometimes called prevent the condition from worsening, or danger of further injury, this covers both external factors, such as moving a patient away from any cause of harm, and applying first aid techniques to prevent worsening of the condition, such as applying pressure to stop a bleed becoming dangerous."
How can we make it better?

Brad paintball13 ( talk) 11:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

“Aims” is one of the headings in the table of content. This heading is vague because it has no subheading that gives hints what kinds of aims or how many aims the section has. In this section, there are three key aims of first aid have discussed. I think listing the name of the three aims as a subheading under the heading “Aims” would help the readers know what the first aid aims are before reading the section. I would like to add "Preserve life", "Prevent further harm", and "promote recovery" as the three subheadings. Chuchusha1 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Myself and another medical student will be working on this page for the next month or so as part of a wikipedia editing class.

My intended process includes the following: Print and read through entire article making note of weirdnesses and brainstorming other sections. Read talk page and archived page to see what are current and past concerns. Look for exemplars of similar things (CPR was also C grade... maybe carpal tunnel surgery or breast conserving surgery as was suggested by colleagues? Not sure what is really a parallel for structure) Make a list of potential new sections I know I specifically want to include some sort of triage/ABCs ish diagram, have a clear list of links to how tos, link stuff in the FA kit, separate the element components of first aid. I think I’m going to to look at up to date? Or maybe just google first aid / first aid encyclopedia to get more background. Suggestions and Comments welcome! 2019MMM ( talk • contribs)

Just confirming that I intend to work with @ 2019MMM: on this page as a team for this project :) Myoglobin ( talk) 16:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

a few thoughts re: article thus far!

- I'm a bit confused about what "first aid" is at all – is it something with a formal definition (by the red cross or any other institution), multiple formal definitions, or just an abstract concept that encompasses basically anything that involves front-line sort of medical care? The article seems to vacillate b/w first aid being more-or-less anything to discussing ubiquitous, essential skills one is trained in. I'm down for the article to encompass both formalized first aid and that administered by any layperson with some common sense, but making that distinction clearer might help.

e.g. in "key skills" section "a first aid attendant would determine adequacy of breathing and provide rescue breathing if necessary" seems to assume a decent amount of formal training. I can see how dealing with definitional ambiguity would be rough, and specificity poses the risk of overdoing it; breaking down BLS/ACLS what have you may undermine the ubiquity of first aid.

- Also under the "key skills" section - i'm honestly just a little confused about its purpose. I follow w/ the 3 P's (technically I'm pretty sure that's not an "acronym," so much as just a mnemonic... i know that's nitpicky!) in the section above, but then all of a sudden it feels like the article dives into being a pseudo-manual for BLS. If you want to keep the instructional aspect of it, maybe use the 3 P's as subsection formatting, and then also put the ABCs (and Ds) under the first P as a breakdown of what "preserving life" demands.

- first aid services section seems minimal – this might be a good place to discuss CPR/BLS/ACLS/lifeguards/"first aider" certs and the general ubiquity of first aid provision. Maybe even include a mention of good samaritan principles/laws here, to address the whole population of layperson first aid providers

- the section on first aid kit is oddly specific - does a first aid kit HAVE to consist of a plastic box or durable bag? (if yes, please reference!)

- the article brings up St. John and Red Cross a LOT; I realize that the Red cross is incredibly universal and historically significant, but maybe make it seem less like they are the only first aid providers in the world (unless they are and then make that clear)

- Some copyediting stuff

- I would maybe rename the "Early history and warfare" section to just History – the subsections get modern pretty fast and the warfare aspect seems more just a part of history rather than something that demands an addition to the section title

- the third P needs help – also a period

- the citations are generally good, and I like the decent mix of practical and historical info in lead

- took a quick look at the talk pg topic on first aid symbols, and appreciate the selection of associated symbols at the bottom

Slxiao1317 ( talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I like how the history of first aid is shown, I also like the highlighting of the three p's and the pictures that pertain well to the topic. I only spotted a few issues. In the beginning when you are talking about the different rules of first aid in various countries you should maybe add some links to those rules. Also maybe mention the downside of first aid where people have gotten sued for causing more harm than good. Lastly, there are almost no references under the training heading.