An email is circulating, stating that this "New" method of CPR ("Continuous Chest Compression") is better than the one that so many know or have heard of.

Here is a link:
Learn Sarver Heart Center's Continuous Chest Compression CPR | College of Medicine (http://medicine.arizona.edu/spotlight/learn-sarver-heart-centers-continuous-chest-compression-cpr)

Is it really better than the "traditional" method of CPR?

Is it really better than the "traditional" method of CPR?Hello Rick:

I watched the video. I'm convinced.

excon

I think part of the issue is that almost no one is properly trained in tradition CPR, and if you don't train and practice if you don't keep sharp, then you will not do head tilts and breathes properly anyway. And in real life when it is sort of nasty to do so usually, it is less effective often.

So I don't know that the new is "better" but it is better when done by the normal person in most cases in real life.

As a para phrase as our CPR instructor told us earlier this year. If we are good at the normal CPR, do it, ( two person team is better for it) if not, use the new method

The suggestion to use "Stayin' Alive" by the BeeGees as the rhythmic prompt reminds me of The Office episode where the office gang started singing and dancing around the CPR "manikin" on the floor.

Yes, this is a new method that can be used without BLS or ACLS certification.

Yes, this is a new method that can be used without BLS or ACLS certification.

Do you believe that it is better than the "traditional" version of CPR?

And in reality, can't "anyone" use traditional CPR, even if they are not certified?

In reality you can use CPR without certification as you would be covered under the Good Samaritan Act. You still can, however, be sued if something goes wrong.

I don't believe it's BETTER than traditional because there is no mouth-to-mouth. A person needs oxygen perfusion as well if they are not breathing.

Is this an accepted method throughout Australia?