Talk:Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2020 and 27 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HaniyaSahi. Peer reviewers: Gloria Andrea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Different methods

It would be nice if this page could discuss not only modern mouth-to-mouth but also some of the obsolete forms of artificial respiration. I don't recall their names at the moment, but one often sees them practiced in old films and cartoons: the rescuer lays the victim on his back and then repeatedly lifts the victim's arms up and pumps them down on the victim's chest. Psychonaut 17:47, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While the original commenter is unlikely to be checking for a response two years on, in case others wonder...

The resuscitation method described by Psychonaut is the Holger Nielsen method of artificial respiration. It pre-dates CPR (stemming from around 1930s-ish [a source]), which arrived in its present general form some decades later. It is and should still be used in specific circumstances - inhalation of toxic fumes / acid ingestion etc., by the weakly breathing person, for example.

During the Second World War, UK military personnel were taught it alongside methods, such as breathing bag apparatus usage for mustard gas incidents and such (something I realise was more common to the First World War!). An example - contemporary - link recommending use of the Holger Nielsen method is this PDF: Cyanide Management for Gold Mining.

A web search including the search terms 'Holger Nielsen' will turn up information on this method and other 'obsolete' forms of artificial respiration.

This (PDF) article includes a pretty diagram mentioning some: Mouth-to-Mouth Ventilation^*

(^* A Reappraisal of Mouth-to-Mouth Ventilation During Bystander-Initiated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation : A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Ventilation Working Group of the Basic Life Support and Pediatric Life Support Subcommittees, American Heart Association, Circulation, Sep 1997; 96: 2102 - 2112).

Whitehorse1 09:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Close, but not quite right - the method he described with the Silvester method, used on a supine casualty (on their back) - Holger Neilson was used on prone casualties (on their front). There's a nice picture of sign giving both methods on the Cardiopulmonary resuscitation page. Owain.davies 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AR

E.M.T. Paul Cahill Ireland on my first venture in to Wikipedia land here. The reference to not giving breaths to a weakly breathing person needs to be corrected or at least expanded.In most ems systems people give rescue breaths when people are not breathing effectively, for an example in Ireland an E.M.T. would support an adults breathing if it feel below 10 breaths per minute and one of two other factors applied spo2 below,90% on 100% o2 or insufficient chest rise. ref www.phecc.ie .

I went on a St John's Ambulance Course, and what they said seems to back up the above. They said that AR should be performed either if the patient wasn't breathing, or if breathing was irregular (there was a technical term for it that began with "a", but I can't for the life of me remember it...)Paul-b4 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very poor pages

Even from my basic background, i believe the section on resuscitation to be very poor and should be treated with some caution. It needs a complete revision. When i have a little more time i will come back and add some in fo etc. Beware, it seems like the author has never performed A.R. or C.P.R., Paul Cahill

I agree with your concerns, and even if the section was written by a professor in resuscitation we should have a disclaimer, since this could in the worst case scenario be a matter of life or death. I have added such a disclaimer to the start of the page. TH 04:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. I have two main concerns - 1) There is alot of how to, and 2) There is a lot of factual misinformation, which starts with the title - it's artificial ventilation, not respiration. *sigh*--John24601 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the how-to wording, but left the information itself largely intact. I don't know if we should take out some of the specifics to avoid making it look like instructions. Any ideas? Michaelp7 23 April 2007

The bit about checking for a pulse - I think this has been dropped from first aid guidelines, as most people (especially plebs like me and even healthcare professionals) are not actually that good at finding pulses, especially in stressful situations (e.g. love one collapses, etc..) See the entry for CPR. Paul-b4 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rescue Breathing

I believe rescue breathing should be seperate from artifical respiration.--ItsJodo (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am wondering whether anyone has any information about what the time limit is as to when one can administer AR in relation to the lung complaint... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not050 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion moved from mainspace

The following comment left on the main page by IP user: (perhaps this article could adress the rate at which breaths are given, see references 2&3 below)

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

history of artificial respiration

I wrote a screenplay, set in 1882, in which a doctor performs mouth-to-mouth on a patient, quoting the Bible as justification: “And God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” It's almost common sense. Are there records of mouth-to-mouth being used prior to the 20th century? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. wbm1058 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Artificial respiration → Mouth to mouth resuscitation – Not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Artificial respiration (synonym of Artificial ventilation) is "any means of producing gas exchange mechanically or manually between the lungs and the surrounding air, which is not performed entirely by the person's own respiratory system"[1] (more defs). This article is solely about a sub-type manual method called "Mouth to mouth resuscitation" (seems to be most common term) or "rescue breathing" (a close second). With this move the term artificial respiration should to be redirect to Artificial ventilation. (some discussion here) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What about when the rescue breathing is provided by a bag such as those in lifeguarding kits. Is that still considered "mouth to mouth"? Sizeofint (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I would think a bag would come under Mechanical ventilation, as defined at that article's lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's generally poor form to move an article while an RM is open, as it confuses the process. And since you also retargetted the redirect at the old name, all the previous links to this article now go elsewhere, so it's probably an orphan. Not good. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also you left out the hyphens, so that needs to be fixed still. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation per WP:HYPHEN? —  AjaxSmack  02:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like it should be "Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mouth to nose variant excluded by title

Suggest title should be expired air resuscitation, with redirects. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a toss-up between WP:COMMON and "inaccurate". Mouth-to-mouth comes up as WP:COMMON 40-1 [2][3] and "mouth-to-nose" does come up as a sub-type of "Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation"[4]. "Rescue breathing"[5] seems to come up as a more common term than "expired air resuscitation". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rescue breathing is not much used where I come from, but at least it covers all the options far better than the highly specific mouth-to mouth. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The preferred use of a pocket mask to decrease risk of infection is also not covered by the title. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, such long-persisting vandalism

I just noticed some recent fixes and still some remaining problems, e.g. from this 2011 vandalism. I'll fix this one. Someone should take a good pass over this article if they have the patience for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Needs sourcing, but looks OK. No obvious vandalism found. Meters (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The History section is close paraphrasing of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition. Public domain, I believe, so not a copyvio, but we still need to acknowledge the source. I seem to remember there is a template somewhere for doing that. Meters (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

found it. Done Meters (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you copy "HUMANE SOCIETY, ROYAL" from another article? Can't be right. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I must have botched something. I'll figure it out. Meters (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to use the Sect1911 template to link to the Wikisource page https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Humane_Society,_Royal Meters (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

done, thanks. Mistakenly used the caps from the text rather than sentence case form the URL.. Meters (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Osmosis Wikipedia Editing Course June 2020

Hello, my name is Haniya Sahi, I am a second year medical student and I have chosen to edit this article as a part of my summer wikipedia editing course. Summarized below is my plan for the changes I will be making to improve this article and in the hopes of providing Wikipedia users with the most concise, up-to-date information that is easy to read and understand in an emergency situation that would require mouth to mouth resuscitation.

1. Go through the citations and References section of the article to ensure there is no plagiarism or copyright issues.

2. Create a section with a n easy to follow step by step guide for mouth to mouth resuscitation that can be used in an emergency.

3. create a section for mouth to mouth resuscitation for children/infants.

4. Include a section for emergent situations that would require mouth to mouth resuscitation.

5. Work on the flow of the article and the jargon used such that it is easy to understand for the general public.

I will be updating my plan as I work through the above mentioned changes proposed for this article. If there are any comments, or concerns, please feel free to discuss it below, I am open to any helpful tips or suggestions. Thank you. HaniyaSahi (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaniyaSahi, I formatted your post for WP:TALK and added space, hope its ok. Here is my two cents:

• 1 - sounds good
• 2,3,4 - the short answer is NO. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. You may want to review the basic tenants of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual. Articles should describe things (the who, what, where, when) - they should never describe "how" to do something and they should never give out medical advice.
• 5 - yes

hope this helps. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Osmosis - Peer review

The lead section is easy to understand. Also, The article has neutral content and reliable sources. On the other hand, I think that the article will be more complete with more information and reliable sources. Also, I'm according to Peter Southwood, about the mouth to nose variant that is excluded by title. Gloria Andrea (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)