The disagreement between PHE and RCUK continues
Not sure which side of the arguement I land on. Having the read the systematic review, evidence for CPR being an AGP is v poor. But “expert option” features in hierarchy of evidence for a reason. My inclination is to follow RCUK
RCUK are deeply concerned by Public Health England (PHE)’s continued insistence on designating chest compressions as non Aerosol Generating Procedures (AGPs). Read our latest statement (published 20 April 2020):
30
662
895
10
34
104
Replies
@MarcusYalman
Need to follow that up Marcus. Assume from your tweet itself less validity than the papers suggesting CPR is an AGP!
2
0
0
@heli_med_james
Try looking at it this way?
@PHE_uk
take the position there is no convincing evidence chest compressions are AGP. However,
@ResusCouncilUK
take the position that there is no evidence that Chest compressions are not an AGP. In current climate, which is safest option for staff?
2
4
27
@heli_med_james
@SteveBray999
If compression only CPR is viable and moves air in and out as we are told then surely it’s the same risk as performing ET insertion, add this to rescue breaths being given and you must have AGP, the air doesn’t magically avoid Covid-19 because it came via you 🙄
0
0
3
@heli_med_james
I've never been at an arrest where someone has spoken/swore/gasped/vomited then gasped covering me in a fine mist of chicken Korma.
I've also never Neb'd a pt and they've definitely not coughed causing increased flow of "something" out of the ports of the mask.....nope never..1/2
1
0
3
@heli_med_james
2/2 Helicopters/Motorbikes very rarely crash but I still all wear lots of PPE?
1
0
3
@heli_med_james
I'm surprised the default position when there's uncertainty isn't to go for the safest of the two options, then fail it back when more evidence is available or consensus is reached...
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised
0
0
0