SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Study Suggests Women Less Likely to Get CPR From Bystanders
Women are less likely than men to get CPR from a bystander and more likely to die, a new study suggests, and researchers think reluctance to touch a woman's chest might be one reason.
Only 39 percent of women suffering cardiac arrest in a public place were given CPR versus 45 percent of men, and men were 23 percent more likely to survive, the study found. It involved nearly 20,000 cases around the country and is the first to examine gender differences in receiving heart help from the public versus professional responders.
"It can be kind of daunting thinking about pushing hard and fast on the center of a woman's chest" and some people may fear they are hurting her, said Audrey Blewer, a University of Pennsylvania researcher who led the study. Rescuers also may worry about moving a woman's clothing to get better access, or touching breasts to do CPR, but doing it properly "shouldn't entail that," said another study leader, U Penn's Dr. Benjamin Abella. "You put your hands on the sternum, which is the middle of the chest. In theory, you're touching in between the breasts."
The study was discussed Sunday at an American Heart Association conference in Anaheim.
Get touchy and save women's lives.
Also at Penn Medicine and the American Heart Association. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Other study mentioned in the AP article: Sexual Activity as a Trigger for Sudden Cardiac Arrest (DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.025) (DX)
Related study: Sex-Based Disparities in Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest in the United States, 2003-2012. (DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003704) (DX)
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2017, @09:45PM (4 children)
Physician friend of ours saved a fellow restaurant patron (stranger) once by performing an emergency tracheotomy with a disassembled ballpoint pen - others' correct attempts at Heimlich had failed and the person was already unconscious from lack of air at the time.
Of course he was sued for it. Vowed that he will just stand back and watch them die next time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:37AM
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)
That is truly insane. Did the judge throw the case out? How much were they seeking in damages?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 15 2017, @07:32PM
It went further in the process than it should have, being a licensed MD he had malpractice insurance, and being professional corporate lawyers handling the malpractice case they engaged based on minimum cost to the insurance company rather than principles - I believe they postured back and forth for over a year and the insurance company finally settled for some amount that paid the plaintiffs lawyers for their efforts, but not much more. Of course, throughout this process the MD has to give multiple depositions and make appearances and listen to all of the utter twaddle that is our adversarial representation system.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday November 15 2017, @11:56PM
This is fucked up, but probably for a different reason than you think. After the emergency tracheotomy, the person would have needed hospital treatment and further surgery to fix things up. In order to get their HMO to cover it, they would have had to sue the guy who performed the tracheotomy, not to damage the guy but to get the HMO to pay out. This is also why e.g. children hurt in the home may have to sue their parents to get it covered by the HMO.
So the problem is probably because of the fucked-up medical "care" system in the US, not because the person whose life was saved was an asshole.