What's in Name ?

Will Hamilton Wentworth District School Board choose Style over Substance ?

 

Dear HWDSB Trustees, I am  sure you are all aware that at this time the School Council at George R. Allan Elementary School is diligently exploring every possible funding option to raise the $150,000 required to replace the school playground which will be lost during the upcoming construction. In fact the Council is considering a $10,000 purchase of architectural drawings a requirement of a number of grant applications including the AVIVA grant. HWDSB has it made clear to School Council that there is no money in the construction budget to pay for replacing the playground and that cost must be borne by the school community.

The lack of available funds for playground equipment begs the question - If there is no money for playground equipment, where is the money coming from to pay for a name change? The obvious follow-up question is - What will the name change cost? The third question would be - Is an expensive and unnecessary name change an appropriate use of scarce dollars?

It is hard to imagine that a name change will cost less than $100,000 by the time legal costs, document costs, clerical expenses, signage and construction (including defacing the facade of one of west Hamilton’s most venerable buildings) and a myriad of other incurred costs and expenses are added up - name changes tend to be a little bit like renovating an old house, full of hidden and unexpected costs. 

 

In the current tight economic climate, where School Boards spend a preponderance of time contemplating resource allocation, it seems irresponsible to even consider taking on this unnecessary expense.  An old shipping container with a cardboard sign proclaiming “School” can be a wonderful place of learning but absent play, physical activity and physical wellbeing effective learning cannot take place - the evidence that supports this simple truth is unequivocal.  It is an interesting coincidence that internationally recognized research into the linkages between physical activity and learning is being led by a parent that has three children attending G.R. Allan.

Perhaps HWDSB would consider forgoing the optional name change of G.R. Allan Elementary School and commit the funds that would have been spent on a name change to the fundraising initiative for the new playground. Given that money is not available to pay for all of the items on everyone's wish list this option represents the best possible outcome for our children. Realizing the full potential of every child must remain of primary importance in all of our efforts. Prioritizing the funding for renaming a school versus providing appropriate and safe play space should be a straightforward decision for duly elected Trustees. 

Should you have any questions, comments or concerns please feel free to contact me directly by e-mail

Best Regards, Blake

Blake Hurst

Hamilton ON

blake.hurst@cogeco.ca

 

Until our Leaders Buy-In .......

 Survival Rates for Cardiac Arrest will continue to founder

Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) programs should be one of the most effective lifesaving initiatives in human history.  We won’t scratch the surface of the lifesaving potential of PAD - CPR/AED - programs until leaders at every level of society wholeheartedly buy-in.  I am continually disappointed by how few individuals in leadership positions attend CPR /AED training.  When the message from the top is “this is something we are doing as an organization but it’s not important enough for me to get personally involved” that attitude trickles down through the entire organization or community.  Of the over 100 CPR/AED classes I teach each year it would be safe to say that the most senior person(s) on staff attends less than 25 per cent of the time.

The difference in the attitude of everyone in the room is palpable when the Principal or the Owner or the Director or the Minister is down on his or her knees performing chest compressions alongside the rank and file.  Learning how perform effective CPR and deploy an AED to save another human beings life is not beneath the lofty station of  Government and Private Sector CEO’s, Elected Officials, School Board Directors, School Principals, Minor Sport Executives or Church Leaders.  A commitment to the well-being of the individual, demonstrated through grassroots participation, makes a powerful statement.  Think of a Corporate CEO or the Mayor of a large city pledging a dollar amount to mental health versus lacing up her shoes and running a half marathon to help raise money and awareness and then giving a talk at the award ceremonies.

The spread of effective community based cardiovascular emergency response programs is dependent on the hands-on involvement of leaders in every sector.  When leaders attend the training and learn firsthand how easy it is to perform effective chest compressions, deploy an AED and achieve a life changing outcome for a cardiac arrest victim the conversion from sceptical adult learner to PAD champion is instantaneous.  Once converted these influencers use their new found knowledge and passion to affect change in their own organizations as well as in other organizations that they influence.

Having leaders with hands on knowledge of resusciation is a critical factor in clearing the risk aversion hurdle that bogs down program implementation in many organizations and communities. I’ve sat in dozens of Board meetings listening to untrained Board Members engage in long winded debate about the risk associated with purchasing an AED and training staff in CPR. I’ve also seen one person that has recently taken a CPR course put the whole issue to bed with a brief testimonial of what they learned and experienced during their training. An enlightened leader can and will find a way to clear all of the hurdles - cost, training schedules, ongoing program maintenance, risk management – and move directly to the ultimate objective of being prepared to respond to cardiovascular emergencies.

When leaders do attend my classes I stress the role of the leader in a real life resuscitation scenario, which is not necessarily to get down on their hands and knees and perform compressions or attach defibrillation pads.  A good leader should take command of the situation and provide clear direction to the team – “Can you please go and Call 911” – “Can you please go out to the road to meet the Paramedics and show them where we are” – “Can you run and get the AED” – “Can you start chest compressions and can you two stay here to switch off when he gets tired”  - “Can you please keep everyone that doesn’t need to be here far far away” – “Can you go to the office and bring the copy of Jim’s medical information sheet for the Paramedics”.  Of course if the leader hasn't taken the training they have no idea what tasks need to be completed in order to save the victims life.  Either a corporation or  taxpayers are paying these individuals good money to lead and they should not be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities at the most critical times.  I have investigated many PAD saves where the successful outcome could be attributed in large part to a trained responder with innate leadership skills taking a step back from the patient in order to take effective command of the entire situation.

Nothing kills more people than cardiac arrest, 40,000 a year in Canada.  Until very recently survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have been dismal, less than 5% in most communities. Automated External Defibrillators and simplified CPR protocols are now at the centre of programs that are routinely achieving save rates north of 65 per cent.  Despite the proven game changing, life giving potential of the new protocols they have struggled to gain a meaningful foothold, particularly in Canada. Only when our leaders and influencers buy-in to community based resuscitation programs at both a micro and a macro level will we begin to realize their potential which is measured in lives saved.

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek - idiōtēs - Person Lacking Professional Skill

 

Recently I’ve been reading too many articles where community leaders, resuscitation experts (?) and advocates for cardiac response programs are trumpeting the fact an untrained responder, even an “idiot” (their word, not mine), can deploy an AED, not make the situation worse and maybe even make it better. While this simplistic idea may seem true on its face, there is a logical argument, supported by strong evidence, that untrained responders do in fact make things much worse. In his research Peter Ko showed that survival in a group of patients that received a shock from an AED but poor CPR was 8%, while survival in the group that received a shock plus quality CPR was 53%.

 

The goal of having dead people remain dead is being achieved with overwhelming efficiency, in the 85% to 95% range, in most communities. If the primary goal of a resuscitation program is not to make dead people worse off the untrained responder model is perfect. If the goal is to improve survival rates for cardiac arrest then every time untrained responders are the only people on scene it reduces the chance of saving a life and the patient  is made worse off by virtue of the fact that she is being given a smaller chance at survival.  The entire community is also worse off, family and friends remain dead while tax dollars are squandered on an ineffective program.

 

This is far more than an issue of semantics. When advocates for resuscitation programs present their case to funders - municipal councils, provincial or state governments, corporate executives, school boards -  and the funders push back on cost, as they are programmed to do, the first cost cutting measure put forward is to cut back on training.  

“The machine is idiot proof, even if an untrained responder applies the machine improperly or fails to deploy the machine at all the patient can’t be made worse off.” explains the advocate proudly displaying his advanced knowledge of defibrillation science

“Well by that logic” says the funder “why pay for any training at all. If the machine is so simple an idiot can use it we should just buy a dozen machines, hang them in our buildings and call it a done deal.”

The advocate, anxious to walk out of the meeting with something, accepts the offer of 12 AED and no budget for training and another ineffective PAD program is born. What funders need to know is that to build an effective program that maximizes the number of lives saved investment must be made in every link in the chain of survival. The evidence is clear and unequivocal, most patients that survive cardiac arrest benefit from the proper use of multiple links in the chain.  Funders can take comfort in the fact that if the trained responder model breaks down and an untrained person attempts the resuscitation they can’t make things worse, but it is far from ideal when that happens.

If your are an “expert” trumpeting the “idiot proof” operation of AED’s please reconsider your words or at the very least downplay this aspect of the machine. If you are an advocate for effective resuscitation programs in your organization or community please push for more training opportunities for all stakeholders and potential responders.

In Memory of Brock

http://globalnews.ca/news/939093/alberta-mother-raises-defibrillator-awareness-in-sons-memory/