As you can read in this article, an investigative journalist in Jacksonville, Florida is on the hunt for AED units…or lack thereof. Reporter Jennifer Waugh is asking tough questions about the availability of AED units at schools in the Duval County Public Schools. It appears some schools have AEDs and others do not, and she wants answers.

Without strict laws that include punitive consequences for not having AED programs, we find many organizations simply decide not to buy and install them. As you can see here, the AED laws in Florida are some of the most progressive in the country, yet there aren’t any specific penalties stated for failure to comply. Similarly, after an informal survey of fitness facilities in California (a state with a requirement to deploy AEDs), we’ve found that as many as 60% of clubs visited DO NOT have an AED unit available; these poor rates despite a law requiring AED units.

Why the poor adoption? Because of the perceived cost and the lack of penalties and enforcement.

Ms Waugh is doing the right thing to bring attention to this matter. If the legislature lacks the back-bone to instill penalties for failure to comply with AED mandates across the country, reporters and others have a moral duty to bring attention and, perhaps, societal pressure to this matter. After all, a parent or gym member should know if a life-saving AED is available before sending a child to school or going to the gym for a workout.

Frequently, businesses, organizations, and even individuals are interested in acquiring life-saving AED units. Prior to purchase, as any astute person would do, they ask for legal advice and recommendations. The challenge, as you can read here, is that many attorneys simply aren’t aware of technology and solutions (such as Arch) that can help organizations easily meet a given state’s Good Sam protections. They read the state statutes and they briefly learn about what an AED unit is and does, but they don’t seem to offer advice as to HOW to accomplish a client’s goals.

My frustrations can be summarized as follows:

• Attorneys rarely tell their clients HOW to do something they want to do (in this case, purchasing a life-saving AED).
• Attorneys offer a high-level perspective of all the considerations and legal arguments. To which we respond: “Great…so…should we get one?”
• In my experience, we can inform a layperson of all the considerations until our voice runs dry and no progress will be made because we’re not answering their question.
• Attorneys come up with the 99 reasons not to do something, but rarely offer the one solution that might exist. This is done to cover their own hide.

This question could be answered in a much simpler manner.

“Yes. If you do certain things, like manage your AED per the manufacturer’s guidelines and aren’t negligent, you’ll be offered immunity protection. If you need help understanding the requirements or desire additional help, like how to “manage” your unit appropriately, there are cost-effective services to help. See: www.onlineoversight.com”

In the legal beat section, Illinois is the latest to require AED units at schools, though there is some opposition due to the expense of the devices. From the aforementioned article:

“The bill was developed after the 2009 death of 18-year-old Lauren Laman, a senior at St. Charles North High School. Laman collapsed during drill team practice and was pronounced dead. It was later determined she died as a result of a known heart condition. Although she was given CPR at the scene, an AED nearby was never used and could have potentially saved her life.”

The debate seems to be shaping between the pros and cons of:

(a) existing AED units that are not being used vs. (b) having more AED units available to the public to increase overall awareness.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that “a” is a challenge, however, we’ll only be able to compare it to “b” after further saturation and deployment of life-saving AEDs.

A new law taking effect this summer requires AED units to be located at public pools. The law was passed after the death of 5-year-old Connor Freed, who drowned at the Crofton Country Club pool in 2006.

Maryland is the first and only state requiring AED units at public pools, after the tireless efforts promoting the importance of AEDs by Conner’s parents. Read more here.

Today we got the following comment from one of our training classes in Houston and I thought I’d share it with the world to get more input:

“A follow up practice session with an instructor about 2 weeks later would be very practical for getting the methods for CPR and AEDs to have higher retention. It wouldn’t be the entire class but possibly 30 minutes or so of practicing the entire process of giving CPR and the entire process of using an AED while giving CPR.”

I really like the idea and its the first time anyone has mentioned a practice session shortly after the initial training, kind of like a pop quiz. Many have suggested a drill a year later, but I would venture to bet that a two-week checkin offers stronger retention. The unfortunate reality, however, is that training companies incur costs to get to our customers’ locations. Adding this short quick check-in would take little time, but would add on a few extra bucks to our customer’s quote. Is it worth the added cost? Only our customers can really decide….Let us know your thoughts!

Interesting article that I came across, comparing EMS response times and standards across the country. Also, the chat and comment section brings up some interesting conversation surrounding whether EMS response times are really the measure we should be after. That is, are EMS response times important or is the public merely conditioned to think they’re important? More research and opinions here. What is clear, is that federal and local standards, as well as the opinions of the thought leaders stress the interest and importance of lay-rescuers and AED units to help improve rates of survivability.

According to a new study, reported here, 7 out of 5000 school-aged athletes found serious heart abnormalities due to school-sponsored screening efforts. Screening programs have increased in recent years, in an attempt to “find” possible sudden cardiac arrest patients. There is a debate in the medical community as to whether screening programs are worth the investment. Costly equipment, time, and expert review can add up, making screening campaigns costly.

Depending on the condition identified, treatment options might be limited. What is undeniable, however, is that an AED unit will provide the best level of protection for those who are and are not diagnosed with a cardiac abnormality.

Where do you come in on the issue? Are screening programs worth the risk or are funds better spent on other programs, like saturating communities with AED units?

Nicholas Skipitaris, MD, director of electrophysiology at Lenox Hill Hospital is first in Manhattan to implant a new insertable cardiac monitor, the smallest cardiac monitoring device currently available.

Dr. Skipitaris implanted the innovative cardiac monitor in a 34-year old Manhattan woman. The device is approximately the size of a thick matchstick, making it more than 80 percent smaller than other ICMs. The device is used for patients who experience symptoms such as dizziness, palpitations, fainting and chest pain that may suggest a cardiac arrhythmia, as well as for those at an increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias.

As reported on the Lenox Hill Hospital website: “The LINQ ICM is a truly innovative monitoring device and a dramatic improvement over previous generations of this apparatus, which were cumbersome, required up to 30 minutes to implant, left a visible scar and did not transmit data,” said Dr. Skipitaris. “This device brings together the best of technology and science allowing us to treat our patients more efficiently and without interrupting their daily life.”

In addition to providing life-saving solutions to his patients and partaking in innovative surgeries, Dr. Skipitaris serves as one of Annuvia’s Medical Directors, overseeing AED programs across the country.