Thoy

If there is any indication of alteration to mental status, I would agree with you - and I don't limit that to clinical findings of disorientation, or decreased GCS. If, for example, I have a patient whose family states that they are acting 'off,' I am probably going to include a blood glucose check in my assessment, even if they can answer my questions accurately. (Trust the people who know your patient!) Incidentally, in that case, I am probably going to do a BGL even the patient isn't diagnosed as diabetic - if I am investigating altered mental status, its a pertinent part of my assessment. However, if they are alert, oriented and acting normally, its difficult to see what I would be looking for with that blood glucose check. It isn't a comfortable thing to have done, and while the risks of an infection are very low, they do exist, especially in certain populations.

@@CoastWildernessMedicalTraining Thank you! Makes sense.

Thanks for your comments, Christopher. The structure portrayed in this video is consistent with that expected by the EMR licensing body here in British Columbia. I am not sure exactly what your complaint is around the use of pulse oximetry at this point in the call, but it is not examined until after ABCs have been verified. We certainly don't teach anyone to rely exclusively on the pulse oximeter when determining oxygen needs, but in this case, where there is no increased work of breathing, history of inhalation injury, and no injuries consistent with or other indications of shock, applying O2 based on pulse oximetry is entirely appropriate, and helps to target the right amount of oxygen to administer to achieve a target SpO2 greater than 99%. I appreciate your observation that at a fire scene, where there is a risk of CO poisoning or other inhalation injury, the SpO2 isn't a reliable indicator but... this scenario doesn't take place at a fire scene, so I'm not sure the criticism is relevant. A good idea for a future video, though!