Does this mean Version 5 of PHTLS says that can clear C-spine? I would have
thought a penetrating injury classes as a 'distracting injury'? Or have I
got the wrong end of the stick?
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: N Meardon <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: The New GMS contract, GPwSI's, Immediate Care and the
Countryside Alliance
> Version 5 of PHTLS advocates that spinal immob is not mandatory in the
absence of neurol deficit with penetrating inj. Also still strong on
permissive hypotension - where does ATLS stand with respect to that?
>
> Thanks
> Anton
>
> In message <[log in to unmask]> Jel Coward <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
> > In article <[log in to unmask]>,
> > [log in to unmask] writes
> > >It's just a question of emphasis, Marcello. ATLS has already moved away
from
> > >rigid (excuse the pun) c-spine control in penetrating trauma, where it
is now
> > >recognised that too much "fiddling about" at the scene can be harmful.
> >
> > Hmm - not sure about that - recent ATLS didn't send that message,
> > although I did ask the question - 'Is cervical spine control killing
> > people because it stops the public from bundling folk into their
> > vehicles and bringing them to a hospital?'
> >
> > ...I didn't get an answer ;-)
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Jel Coward
> >
> > The UK Wilderness Emergency Medical Technician and Command Physician
course is
> > 9th-15th November 2003 at Glenmore Lodge, Aviemore, Scotland
> >
> > http://www.wildmedic.org
> > http://www.wemsi.org
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > 'There's no such thing as bad weather - just bad clothing"
> > Anon Norwegian
>
|