The relationship between first aid and emergency health includes

The core answer is very clear - first aid is the front-end core intervention link of the emergency health system. The two are a symbiotic interlocking relationship of "immediate stop loss - system support - long-term prevention". No one completely covers the other, but together form a full chain protection network for sudden health risks.

When I was doing health education in the community last fall, I happened to encounter Uncle Zhang in the grocery store downstairs suffering from a myocardial infarction. The young man selling fruit next to me had just participated in the first aid training organized by the neighborhood last month. During the follow-up visit later, the emergency department doctor said that if no one dared to take action in those five minutes, he would most likely still be in a vegetative state even if he was rescued. This first aid directly cleared the most dangerous hurdle in the entire emergency health chain.

To be honest, I used to think that first aid was a single action of "rescuing a life in critical situation", which was incompatible with long-term emergency health management. It wasn't until I stayed with the city's emergency center for half a month in the past two years that I realized how narrow my previous understanding was. There are actually two mainstream voices in public health circles regarding the relationship between the two. One is the "pre-emergency first aid theory", which believes that the core resources of emergency health should be tilted towards the front end. Currently, less than 2 out of 100 ordinary people in China have mastered basic first aid skills. If this ratio can be increased to 10%, at least 100,000 more patients with sudden cardiac death can be saved every year, and there is no need to spend so much money on postoperative rehabilitation. ； The other school is the "system synergy theory", which believes that if first aid is praised too highly, it will easily lead to pitfalls. In the past, someone was rescued from cardiac arrest, but the subsequent emergency green channel was not opened, and the management of chronic diseases during the recovery period was not kept up. Half a year later, he had a second attack and left. The first aid was just the kick in the door, and the emergency health services behind him could not keep up. All the previous efforts were in vain. In fact, there is nothing wrong with these two views. They are just from different perspectives. One values ​​stop loss efficiency, while the other values ​​long-term returns.

For example, the little things we usually encounter, a child eats jelly and gets stuck in the throat. If you know the Heimlich, it will come out after two pats. Nothing will happen. If you don't know how, you will panic and run to the hospital, and you will be stuck on the road for ten minutes, and you may suffer from hypoxia and brain damage.； Another example is carbon monoxide poisoning when taking a bath in winter. If you open a window for ventilation and move the person to an open space as soon as possible, it will be more effective than any special medicine. If you wait blankly for 120, the person will be unconscious after half an hour. No matter how you treat it later, it is easy to leave sequelae. Oh, by the way, a parent complained to me before, saying that the school was wasting time by letting their children learn first aid. But last month, his child got a peanut stuck in the trachea in the kindergarten. The teacher used the Heimlich to save it, and then turned around and signed up for a first aid training class. Do you think this is interesting? You see, these seemingly inconspicuous first aid actions actually directly determine the cost and effect of subsequent emergency health intervention. It is really not an exaggeration to say that it is the "first gate" of emergency health.

The statistical report on health emergencies issued by the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2023 clearly stated that for sudden accidental injury cases where correct first aid measures were taken on site, the average subsequent treatment costs were 62% lower than those where no measures were taken, and the good prognosis rate was 71% higher. This number is really scary. It is equivalent to if you do the right first aid action, you will spend tens of thousands less later, and you will avoid suffering for half your life.

Of course, many people now complain that it is useless for ordinary people to learn first aid. If the rescue is not successful, they will have to take responsibility. I can understand this. After all, there have been cases of rescuers being held accountable before, but now different places are exploring different solutions. For example, Shenzhen issued regulations last year that exempted certified first aid personnel from rescuing in public places. There are also many places that include first aid knowledge as a bonus in the high school entrance examination, forcing parents and children to learn it. Which method do you think is better? In fact, there is no final conclusion. It is nothing more than finding a balance between "popularizing first aid skills" and "reducing concerns about rescue operations."

In fact, to put it bluntly, if you have really experienced a situation where someone around you has a sudden health problem, you will not be entangled in the relationship between the two. I have seen too many cases where people were not rescued because no one knew how to give first aid at the scene. I have also seen many cases where people did not even need to be admitted to the hospital because first aid was done well. Emergency health is not a unilateral matter for hospitals. The more first aid skills we ordinary people have in our hands, it will give ourselves and those around us an extra layer of insurance. This is more practical than any slogan.