AIBU to disagree with PTA buying defibrillator for primary school?

[Babylon1]

That's it really.

I'm on the governing body at local primary school and the PTA have decided they are going to purchase a defibrillator for the first aid kit.

This is really down to one member of the PTA having suffered a terrible loss due to congenital heart defect which was undiagnosed in a child. NOT a child at this school I hasten to add.

Now, as a governing body, we have a wish list of what we would ideally like the PTA to help purchase, and at the moment we are prioritising interactive whiteboards, a new reading scheme and some new phonics materials - resources that will be used EVERY day by the pupils.

The PTA are insistent in buying the defibrillator ASAP, and I am equally insistent that we neither want/need it for the following reasons:

1. The likelihood of it EVER being used is hopefully very very slim

1. There is an ambulance station with trained medics less than 5 mins away at normal driving pace. On blues and twos an ambulance would/could be present inside of two mins.

1. There has been no consultation with staff, yet 5 of them would be expected to be happy to be trained to administer the defibrillator if it

was required.

1. There has been no consultation with parents to ascertain if they would be happy for their DCs to be defibrillated at school by a non-professional medic (I certainly wouldn't be)

Before I would be in the slightest happy about this, I want a demo from the company providing the equipment on how easy it is to use, bearing in mind it is a paediatric defibrillator.

I want to know who will make the decision that the defibrillator is required - ie who is going to diagnose the child with a failing heart?

What happens if/when it goes wrong? Will the administrator of the defibrillator be held responsible?

So am I being unreasonable?? Really appreciate your thoughts here as I need to feed back to governors at next meeting.

oh, and I thought every teacher is trained in first aid and peadiatric cpr?
if not that is truly shocking and the money might be better spent on courses for all school staff/volunteers.

MousyMouse: yes I think this school probably fritters away money in fripperies. That's the thing with the public sector isn't it ? They have so much money and they just squander it.

"I didn't realise gasman was doing first aid in schools. The things you can do in a hospital setting are rather different to what you can do in a school hallway."

Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that makes you sound?

You are still missing the most basic point of all. The defib probably wont ever be used because the sort of arrests children have dont need a defib.

Your comment about gasman is incredibly naive. An anesthetist or a first aider at an arrest in the street? I know which I'd chose

I find it rather shocking though, that the school asks for help for essential teaching materials. should the school maybe budget better?

The nature of school budgets mean that after staffing costs are paid there is often less than 10% left to pay for everything else.

I thought every teacher is trained in first aid and peadiatric cpr?

Er, no. That would cost money. Although I did do a brief first aid course on my PGCE that was years ago and would now be out of date. We have a first aider at school that we can send for. (I'm secondary, btw, I don't know what it's like in primary).

As a side note, both my parents were anaesthetists in the US. Though not paediatric. Dad was general, Mom was general switching to obstetric for the last 20 years of her career.

Interestingly, it took Mom three attempts to pass her CPR training near the end of her career.

But again, a hospital setting ( and a theatre setting in particular) is VERY different to a school hallway or playing field, etc. the point of my first aid duties is to keep the patient alive until they get to that setting. And AED ups those odds. I shock as many times as the machine tells me to. I'm not determining voltages, I'm not determining sinus rhythms. But hey if you don't want me to (and no one seems to have any advice to offer what to do INSTEAD) then I just won't. After all, if strangers on the Internet tell me to, that is most definitely what I should do.

Mousy do you live in the UK in the 21st century ?

I find it rather shocking though, that the school asks for help for essential teaching materials. should the school maybe budget better?

Schools have fuck-all money these days due to budget cuts, that's why so many of them are becoming academies.

I thought every teacher is trained in first aid and peadiatric cpr?

First Aid courses cost our school something like £400 per person trained. In our school we are almost all trained in Resuscitation and Rescue (but that is because we have a school swimming pool) but we only have about 10% of staff trained in First Aid.

I dont think there is any point debating further with you anne. You are missing just about every point entirely.

I know what I'd choose as well. I'd choose the doctor, for sure.

Unless they just stood there and said not to even bother looking at the defib because odds are it wouldn't work. If the defib doesn't shock, what have you lost v what could be gained?

Because that's how you are coming across. "odds are it won't help. So do nothing. The kid is going to die anyway."

But we are not actually standing in a school hallway watching a child die we are on a thread discussing a real life decision about the best use of limited funds for a school. I wonder if many of the people posting here are really aware of what things are like in the public sector in the UK now. It really does come down to choices like that. But the choice is not between life and death. It's between what is most likely to benefit a school in all probability.

Then you are misreading the thread.

No-one is saying that if there was an arrest, and a defib to hand that they wouldnt use it.

What they are saying is that given finite resource, is it a cost effective, when you balance it against the other things the PTA could spend money on.

... Several experts on this thread have given very good reasons why the defib is very unlikely to benefit a school. Teaching equipment definitely will. That's it. As somebody said earlier, we are not in an episode of casualty we are in real life.

Folly, you're not debating. I asked you REPEATEDLY what you'd do apart from the CPR/defib protocol. You never answered, just told me that your years in theatre meant you didn't need first aid.

My question to you, again, is you're in the hallway with an unconcious, non-breathing child. The protocols say 999, CPR, AED. Obviously, there's a few slight differences in some cases (ie in drowning, rescue breaths before starting chest compressions. Which is the same for peds, actually, since we are talking about peds). But you're saying not to bother with the AED. Is that genuinely what you'd do to try you best to keep them alive to get them to that theatre setting?

Are you deliberately misreading the thread?

It is not about whether you use an AED if you have one. It is about whether you buy one when you dont have an infinite amount of money.

You do NOT need training to use a defib. I have this on authority from St John's Ambulance. They recommend it just to give people extra confidence in using it but you can use it perfectly legally without training. Otherwise they wouldn't bother putting them in shopping centres. I think it's worth having one. They are very easy to use and any teacher who refused to use them if a child were in trouble should leave the profession, frankly.

Anne I think you probably grew up on American TV. How likely is that situation ever to arise. Please listen to the experts. It is very very very unlikely. What is much more likely, in fact certain, that a school needs teaching equipment. In state schools in the UK at the moment that is the situation. I am guessing you went to a private school in the US ?

Messalina please read thread before posting

I think it is cost effective. They last for years, though the battery needs changing, usually every three years (I think - I'd have to check that). Like smoke alarms, they beep to let you know the battery is going. If the pads are used, then you need new pads, which aren't cheap (£50?) but if you've had cause to actually use the pads at that point no one is debating the cost effectiveness!

And I think it really does come down to that. If you have cause to use it, no one then debates the cost effectiveness, even if the resusitation was unsuccessful. But for the amount of people in a public setting such as a school, over the years it could be there, the actual cost gets smaller and smaller. You don't need to buy one every year. The training costs are covered by the training being covered in any standard first aid course, including first aid at work, and at least some of the staff will need to take that course and maintain certification so that's not an additional cost. Plus there will often be parents around who are also certified in their use - the more certified the better.

What is the cost of an AED per likely episode of use?

Daisysteiner has already calculated this up thread. It's over half a million pounds

That's exactly what the figures I gave should show (if my Maths is right!) although of course I did make lots of assumptions.

Virtually everything in the public sector comes down to cost. What else should it come down to?