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.

Tyler - I was taught that CPR very rarely starts the heart, its mostly about giving much needed oxygen to them? And of course it starts their heart

A defibrillator can make a huge amount of difference. We have a family member who had a heart attack in the prescence of a consultant cardiac surgeon and a senior paramedic, but no defibrillator they saved his life, but not his brain a man who ran one of the worlds leading bond houses now has the mental capacity of a six year old. With a defibrillator even in untrained hands there is an exceptionally good chance his brain would have been saved.
YABU defibrillators do save lives and it is not just about the children it is more likely that a member of staff will need it.

Soupdragon the point I was making was shouldn't the school buy 2 or maybe 3? People are guessing at the risks and using gut instinctbto say this is a good thing but having one at home is going too far. Why?

Stealthpolarbear for someone who claims to be for these things you arent half picking silly things to question them over

It's been explained many times that schools are a public place and public places should have one. People have also said they would get one if they could afford one, or are already saving up for one.

SPB, and the point I was making was that your point was daft.

Basically the Pta should spend.money on lifesaving but at home they have higher priorities like books, a tv, trips out.

Aaargh its about logical assessment of risk and I'm not convinced anyone has done this. Everyone's coming on saying "but they may save a life". Well yes, so may a whole host of other things and probably acting on higher risks.

If you google there are various studies looking at cost effectiveness of defibs. I think (from memory, so could be wrong) that they need to be used 1 time in 5 years to be felt to be cost-effective (though some of the studies are old, and I dont know whether the cost of AEDs has reduced over time.

Though to some extent that is less relevent here, because the school can decide how to use the money, using their own priorities, which might not be the same as a strict view of cost per QALY.

Tyler, last first aid course I was on, I was told CPR very, very rarely does much at all, sad to say. But of course you should try until the ambulance comes.

I thought the whole point of them was to get the heart into a normal rhythm before it can loose all electrical activity, whereas CPR brings oxygen to the system which can't be spread around if the heart is doing the hokey cokey.

Besides, if the emergency can't be helped by the AED it tells you to do cpr.

In primary schools?
Oh yes I agree its up to the Pta and as a.member the op hS a right to question that without being told yabu yabu yabu and what cost a life?

this is a mnetters dd. She has linked to the site previously.

Of the teachers/staff follow the process correctly then with the timings you've given an ambulance should arrive before they have managed to push the button almost.

Nothing should be a knee jerk reaction without a full and reasoned thought process.

With respect, you can't rely on ambulances actually being in the station! They may all be out on call somewhere else, and have to come back, or even be called out from another ambulance station further away! So ,unfortunately, you can't rely on that argument. I do understand your point though.

I'm a bit surprised that you think the £1500 would kit out 4 classrooms with interactive whiteboards - I thought they were more expensive than that.

There is no guarantee that there will actually be an ambulance in that station , we lived 2 mins from a ambulance station I had call 999 as Dd fighting for breath . Nearest available ambulance took 15 mins to get to us

And a defIb is very easy to use instructions are talked through

For context, you can get a defibrillator, an alarmed case to put it on the wall somewhere sensible, signs, and training for 12 people to use it for around £1200 round here. The ambulance service will replace the battery (lasts 5 years) and pads but they will ask that it is placed somewhere obvious so people in the local community can come and get it if they need to.

2 footballers have had cardiac incidents on the pitch recently. 1 had quick, decent medical attention and a defib on hand. He is here to tell the tale. The other isn't.

It's like saying allergy sufferers shouldn't be allowed epi pens as they might not need them. WHAT IF IT IS YOUR CHILD

I would like to see them in more public places . In US all schools have one and public areas . One life saved is just that but that life saved is not just the person your saving their family and friends a lot of pain to

Gasman said The number of children who go into shockable rhythms during a cardiac arrest are vanishingly small. Most children who suffer a cardiac arrest (especially at primary school age) do so for non cardiac reasons. Defibrillation would not help them.
OP needs to speak to local paediatrician and cardiac specialist to find out what their opinions are, though most would probably say that it might save someone and attitude in this thread seems to be that that is enough to justify having one.

Screening for all kids might be better but don't know what local hosp would say but if only one screening is needed in a lifetime it could be cheaper in the long run than buying and maintaining (presuming a teacher's time is used) an AED.

Do the batteries on an AED need charged/replaced regularly? Is that a heavy cost?

Xposts with purplewithred about batteries.

We must do things differently as the governors dont issue wish lists to the PTA. The PTA mainly choose what to spend the fundraising on and staff can request or make suggestions.

I dont think I would vote for this one and health is something i worry about a lot. The money would buy an awful lot of extras over something that may never get used. If it was suggested and opinion split, then perhaps get all parents to vote yes or no, they should have a huge say as most of the money being spent will have come from them.

Why don't you have a specific fund raising event just for a defib. If parents did deep you will have their opinion on the matter. I know I would.

"It's like saying allergy sufferers shouldn't be allowed epi pens as they might not need them. WHAT IF IT IS YOUR CHILD"

no, that analogy doesn't stand up at all. If there was a child with a known heart condition in the school then I'd be all for it. The analogy is that all children, known allergy or not, should carry epi pens, just in case. Should they??

I suspect, though I don't know, that the school would save more lives and improve their children's health investing the money they would spend on this enhancing their education provision on alcohol, diet, drugs, sex etc. But they'd be long term 'saves' so seem to have less importance attached.