Many hospitals will have you retake your certification in CPR if they follow another method of CPR. A lot of people who’ve been trained by AHA have to retake the test in ARC and vice-versa. Is this fair? Which is the better course to opt for?
Accidents happen anywhere, anytime. Sudden cardiac arrests account for 50% of all deaths in America. Though the number varies slightly from country to country, the mean average is almost the same.
In the wake of this, we need more and more people to understand the role of CPR in saving a life. More and more people are opting to learn professional CPR both to practice and to stay alert in case of emergencies.
What’s saddening however, is that several hospitals recognize only one of these certifications – either from AHA or ARC. The question is, which one to opt for?
When it comes to resuscitations and medical procedures, there will always be divisive voices from the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross. The procedures stipulated by both organizations often differ slightly leaving one at a crossroads.
If you’re thinking of signing up for a CPR course pretty soon, here’s what you need to know.
Firstly, one cannot adjudge which one is the better of the two as both are premium institutions with a great deal of research going into the preparation of each of the programs these organizations offer.
We’ll give you the facts so you can base your judgment depending on your preference and reason for taking up the course. We hope this helps you make an informed decision.
What You Need to Know Before Taking Up a CPR Certification:
Both the American Red Cross society and the American heart Association are international leaders in CPR education. The major points taught to instructors for these programs are largely similar. Here are some points released by them collectively in a joint statement:
- Both the AHA and ARC are dedicated to saving lives and prepare and train their students with the most advanced medical science yet.
- Both the AHA and the ARC agree on the relevance and primary importance of the Chain of Survival which is based on the Early recognition of sudden cardiac arrest, immediate CPR, AED or defibrillation device and post CPR care
- Both the AHA and the ARC have curriculums catered and customized on the student’s ability and the area of emergency he/she will be dealing with or come across
- Both the AHA and the ARC rescuers are taught to check if the victim is in a non-responsive condition and to treat the absence of pulse and breathing as a sign of cardiac arrest
- While the sequence of Airway – breathing – Compression may vary, (with newer guidelines following Circulation – airway – breathing as more helpful) both follow the updated guidelines
Slight Variances in the Techniques Offered for AHA and ARC Instructors:
The ARC students are taught to check for a pulse for up to 10 seconds before attempting CPR so that they can understand the patient’s condition before attempting rescue.
ARC instructors are taught to give 2 rescue breaths to children and adults (drowning victims) before starting CAB.
AHA instructors are taught a universal approach of CPR for anyone who suffers cardiac
The AHA instructors are taught Hands – only CPR while this is absent for students of ARC. AHA also has eSimulation training for online emergencies which the ARC doesn’t offer presently.
The advantage for ARC takers is that they are trained in CPR for athletes, sports injury, pets and the like. This also commercially viable. They also have a preparedness program for disasters and emergencies which is a bonus.
In simple words, health care providers like hospitals and medical centers prefer AHA.
For other purposes and for sports/coach purposes and educational or workplace disasters the ARC training certification is preferred. It is also recommend for emergencies in pets and animals.
Both the courses offer online program manuals that are priced at $15 each approximately. The prices for classes are around $35 upwards for AHA.
“The Red Cross and the AHA both acknowledge that, while different, both approaches are scientifically valid and congruent with the 2010 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science with Treatment Recommendations.”