OnlineBookClub.org

I noticed some points in this book which are out of the standard and accepted practices as per my knowledge. Few of them are, giving CPR even before securing cervical spine (just because there is no breathing, and even before checking pulse) , ending primary survey after the assessment of circulation and including AVPU assessment in the focussed assessment, but not in the initial assessment, etc.

If anyone of you who read this book is with some professional medical knowledge and a practice, did you notice any more flaws like this? Are you happy about the accuracy of the content of this book?

I am not a medical professional, but i found the information present as accurate as possible. Since the target audience is not primarily medical professional, I think we should applaud the effort of the author.

I’m not trained in the medical field and as such I feel I cannot expertly judge the accuracy of the book but from my limited understanding and from the little research I have done I feel confident in saying that I find the authors work extremely accurate without a doubt. A very comprehensive work indeed.

The content did not seem inaccurate to me, although I am not an expert on the subject. Concerning Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, as the author mentions: "The only way to learn this technique is to take a CPR course — It cannot be properly self-taught". So, knowing that it is a book that seeks to give basic information about the subject, it is not a problem for me.

Yes, I am satisfied with the accuracy of the book's content. I am no professional in the medical field, but I found some familiar concepts and terms whilst reading the book to be precise and non-confusing. One example I can use to illustrate is when the author stated that fevers are usually a sign that there is an infection in the body.

lumenchristi wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 11:16 I am not a medical professional, but i found the information present as accurate as possible. Since the target audience is not primarily medical professional, I think we should applaud the effort of the author.

Yes, it is clear that the target audience of this medical handbook is laymen. I agree that the author's ability to write using simple language and explain health concepts in a manner that is free from confusion, commendable. I also think that the information presented in the title is accurate, and this is based on not only the content itself but also on the credibility of the author.

regentisbetter wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 18:20 I’m not trained in the medical field and as such I feel I cannot expertly judge the accuracy of the book but from my limited understanding and from the little research I have done I feel confident in saying that I find the authors work extremely accurate without a doubt. A very comprehensive work indeed.

At first, I feel the same way as you -- I don't think I should judge the accuracy of the handbook's content because I, myself, am not a medical professional. However, after I realized that we are the title's target audience, my viewpoint changed, and I realized that we CAN confidently judge the author's book. And to share what I think on the matter, I believe that the information packed in the title is as accurate as it can be.

Orion in the Rye wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 20:04 The content did not seem inaccurate to me, although I am not an expert on the subject. Concerning Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, as the author mentions: "The only way to learn this technique is to take a CPR course — It cannot be properly self-taught". So, knowing that it is a book that seeks to give basic information about the subject, it is not a problem for me.

I like what you mentioned. As someone who has been taught CPR, I committed a lot of mistakes (as pointed out by the volunteer trainer). So it is important to note that some practical applications discussed by the book will have the reader need outside expert guidance. It is also safe to say that some information that can be easily applied or practiced do not need instruction from other people.

I find myself quite happy with the accuracy of the book. Apparently, it's more for a lay man than for medical practitioners, so, their might be a little bit of difference from what will be taught in medical school. However, I think most regular people don't necessarily need to do it the standard way, they just need something that works.

There was not any inaccuracies in my eyes. I think the author did a great job with the information provided. My thought is that the book was written more for a non-professional person to gain knowledge about topics they may not know much about.

I did not find any inaccurate information in the book. Williams was able to give content that is needed by his target audience. The book should get a perfect rating.

It is not completely Inaccurate but some of the techniques such as CPR can not be learned through a book even for a Layman, i would better suggest to take a coarse if anybody wants to learn instead of reading the book

The book's target audience is not only subjected to people in medical field but to the general public also. So, as per my opinion, I think the points depicted on medical terms are correct for easy comprehension.

I am not a medical professional, but I am happy with the accuracy of this book. One thing I've discovered is that standard medical practice for one region is not always the typical standard medical practice for another region, and so there can be some variances in how different individuals proceed with the treatment of medical conditions. And this book did suggest that you seek further training from a medical professional, such as a certified CPR trainer.

As a person that has had a year of nursing under the belt, I would say that the information is mostly accurate and that certain things are more important in emergencies than ehat you may have been taught. One needs to yse discretion in these matters. I found the book to be a gem.