Talk:Oxygen therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conditions

Is it really necessary that we list every condition treatable by each device? I think the article would be improved if instead we just described the type of condition that merits treatment by a device, rather than a specific problem. We don't need long lists in definitions; is "haemorhages" worht mention in the SFM section? This isn't to say that there aren't certain conditions that I believe are worth mention with certain devices, such as asthma with the nebulizer.

Furthermore, it might be nice to have a brief description of hyperbaric chambers, if someone more knowlegdeable could throw one up.Shaggorama 10:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Doppleganger

A doppleganger of this article has been written under the title Oxygen first aid. The article is significantly more comprehensive than this stub, and addresses some of the recommendations posed on this talk page. There is currently a move request placed on the article to move it here. your input would be appreciated.Shaggorama 11:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that mention of venturi masks should be made for completness ref:http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0204/education/56.html and will add this myself if no one objects at soon.

NPOV

this article has a clear EMS POV issue. I admit, I didn't really help this issue in my contributions. Yet, it is a matter that needs attention.Shaggorama 10:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But the NPOV tag has not brought any improvement. I'm taking it out. JFW | T@lk 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Move request: Oxygen therapy

Reason for request: (1) Existing "oxygen therapy" article is an extremely and comparatively uninformative stub. (2) Oxygen therapy is a more widely accepted medical term than "oxygen first aid," especially considering the majority of delivery techniques described on the page are NOT considered first aid (e.g. BVM).Shaggorama 11:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please merge Oxygen therapy into this article before I make the move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved; the content of the other articles talk page is given below. —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But the emergency trained person who wrote the oxygen first aid article has a legitimate viewpoint. The previous stub on "oxygen therapy" could certainly be expanded. My present tendency would be to add a whole lot more about generic oxygen therapy, but this would mean cutting out a lot of biased material which is limited to "oxygen first aid" perspective. The alternative would be to have the first aid bits as a subsection under a larger article on oxygen therapy. Blouis79 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to split the article and remove the parts that do not relate to oxygen therapy to its own article at oxygen first aid, if the difference is large enough; this is, however, not a move request. —Nightstallion (?) 07:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

emphysema, incomplete sentence?

Hello, under the "Administration" section, there is an incomplete sentence that reads,

A venturi device attached to the mask can be used to control to some degree the concentration of oxygen delivered, usually this is used to prevent respiratory depression in emphysema patients who have lost the.

What should be at the end of the sentence? I'm no expert in this stuff, so it would be nice to know. Thanks. --Kyoko 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

New UK guidelines

http://www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/Portals/0/Clinical%20Information/Emergency%20Oxygen/Emergency%20oxygen%20guideline/THX-63-Suppl_6.pdf

JFW | T@lk 13:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Contraindications

There is actually an existing contraindication for medical oxygen. Oxygen should not be administered when a person is suffering from paraquat poisioning as oxygen increases the toxity of paraquat. Reference Irish Pre Hospital Emergency Care Council (PHECC) Clinical practice guidelines 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabre151 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Survival

In the case of emphysema treatment, is there any statistics of survival duration (years and months) since the start of oxygen therapy?

Takima (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Risk of CNS seizures

The section Negative effects states:

In rare instances, hyperbaric oxygen therapy patients have had seizures. ... Such seizures are thought to be caused by hypoglycemia and the risk can be eradicated or reduced by carefully monitoring the patient's nutritional intake prior to oxygen treatment.

Central nervous system oxygen toxicity is well documented, but although hypoglycemia may be a contributing factor, it is not the principal cause. I am unaware of any source that suggests that CNS seizures under hyperbaric conditions can be "eradicated" by controlling nutritional intake. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the text to show oxygen toxicity as the principal risk factor with references. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Things to address

This page existed in the past - it was a copyvio related to the alternative medical uses of oxygen. There are, however, many important medical uses of oxygen (e.g. in patients with lung disease). This article therefore warrants expansion, as this can't all be covered on oxygen.

Things to address:

• What is the aim of giving oxygen? (think O2 saturation curve)
• In what conditions is oxygen used? (think cor pulmonale)
• Are there contraindications to oxygen, or long-term risks (think CO2 retention, think danger of smoking with a nasal cannula on)
• In what settings can oxygen be used (think home)
• How is medical oxygen prepared (think gas cylinders); how is it distributed in hospitals (think outlets above every bed) JFW | T@lk 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any references at this moment, just memories from pre-Wiki newspapers, but I think recompression chambers intended for treatment of decompression sickness ("the bends") have been used for hyperbaric oxygen therapy of not only extensive burns and wounds, but also to aid healing after brain stroke and heart disease. Experimental as far as I remember, but promising. This was/is a cooperation between Haukeland university hospital and NUTEC in Bergen, Norway. --Eddi (Talk) 02:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbaric O2 for decompression is hardly experimental. JFW | T@lk 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but for the other conditions I mentioned. I'll try to get some references. --Eddi (Talk) 03:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A center for hyperbaric medicine (Australia) with list of conditions treatedBlouis79 10:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is poorly written with a gross lack of understanding of even the basic terminology or working principles of O2 devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.115.22 (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Adverse effects

Added dubious as within the UK oxygen is now accepted to be harmful or not needed for many patient groups, what do other EMS systems currently say? is it relevant what EMS systems say? 92.29.87.26 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a reference to PMID:1007238 which points out a general class of contraindications ("all patients with unfavourable ventilation response to oxygen treatment"). The third paragraph links to retinopathy of prematurity, which requires careful monitoring of the infant's response to O2 therapy. The fourth paragraph of the section discusses the effect of oxygen on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which can cause problems of CO2 build-up if breathing response is not monitored. I also believe that paraquat poisoning is a relative contraindication as well, but I'll have to look for a decent source. If that is enough to justify "there are certain situations in which oxygen therapy can have a negative impact on a patient’s condition", then perhaps you could remove the {{dubious}} template? --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

At worst DISPUTED, not DUBIOUS. And the tag is misleading... the second half of the sentence is undisputed (the situations where it can be harmful). It is only in the sentence lead that there is a disputed fact. I'm taking out the dubious tagging, someone else can add text or tagging to indicate the actual issue. Dovid (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen versus Autism

Oxygen supplements might be the autism treatment of the future.

New insights provided by clinical psychologists active in the field of neurology, indicate that the ailment wich has up till now allways been asociated with genetic defects, might be a physiologic impairment of the main arteries, leading up to the brain. "Ruptured muscles make for a constricted blood flow" argues one clinical psychologist, "and a bottleneck effect may occur as the remainder of the muscles have more weight to carry, thus a bottleneck effect may occur that puts the hemoglobine under pressure and releases all the oxygen when blood flows past the obstructed area releasing the oxygen from the red blood cells." Accoarding to the specialist, the addition of supplement oxygen in autism patients may negate the effects of oxygen deficiëncies, wich include less oxygen for the production of adenosine triphosphate in braincell tissue. "Rigid behaviour patterns can´t stay out," explains the klinical psychologist, as the cells involved oftenly discontinue and disrupt their activities to protect against overheating, "braintissue goes to sleep mode to preserve itself from too much stress".

"Minor usage of oxygen supplements, of say, a few inhalations per our, would be prepherable to the current treatments for ADD wich is low dosage of amphetamine, wich increases the oxygen intake of the cells. Having less oxygen to begin with however, means that the dosage is oftenly increased to maintain the desired effects, leading up to a full blown addiction oftenly seen in the schoolyards of the US and the EU, where rythalin is solld to fellow pupills as a drug.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketejan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the experimental treatment of autism with oxygen is usually done under hyperbaric conditions. The article Hyperbaric medicine has a short reference to it, and its talk page already has some discussion that you may find useful. --RexxS (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

DJ deleted material that in his subjective view is trivia. A list, with proper footnotes, reflecting notable persons who used oxygen therapy. He view it as trivia. But this is consistent with what we do all across wikipedia articles - listing notable people who are from cities, or schools, or have names, or are from countries, or are singers, or are of an ethnicity, etc ... and we are not required to ONLY list that fact in that article, which is what DJ says. I would appreciate him reconsidering. If not, I would like us to discuss that at a page that deals with lists of this sort that are part of an article (not standalone lists).

Everything else aside, someone reading this article may well be interested in learning names of notable people who also used this. We should help them. Not presume they know enough to find the information in the articles of the individual people. We are supposed to be helping the reader.

Thanks. --2604:2000:E016:A700:4D12:7DAA:6E35:44DA (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Most people use oxygen therapy at some point in their life. We need significant coverage. Here is what I removed [1] It is undue weight here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[2]agree w/ its removal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Oxygen tank #Deletion: @2604:2000: Wikipedia has certain conventions about what content should be in articles and there's a summary of what editors have generally agreed that Wikipedia is not at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. You'll find that sections along the lines of "Notable people who had something to do with the subject of this article" tend to be rejected. The content of an article is expected to help a reader's understanding of the topic, and I don't think that knowing that John Huston, John Rudometkin and Chloe Temtchine had the need for an oxygen tank (or more likely, oxygen therapy) at some point helps anybody to a greater understanding of oxygen tanks. I appreciate that you might hold a different view, but you'll probably find little support for it among the editing community.

Even though trivia sections are tolerated in articles about places ("Notable people born in Neasden") and similar categories, because notable people are often part of the notability of a place. most areas of the encyclopedia simply don't find such lists relevant to the article's topic. There are lots of snippets of miscellaneous information that some readers might find interesting, but Wikipedia is not a collection of such snippets, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• The rules on trivia sections are laid out here : Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. In general they are pretty strongly discouraged, but are tolerated in some circumstances as a stepping stone to incorporating material into the main text. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument - but if I had to defend the notable residents section of geography articles, I'd point out that where someone is from would feature even in the 60-second version of their biography, it's a defining biographical detail. Administration of oxygen is not a defining characteristic of the lives of 99.9% of its recipients. I'd make the comment that this article could do with a history section which might include people for whom oxygen therapy was a genuine historical landmark. I'd compare with Jane Carstairs who is not notable in any way, apart from being the first patient of James Young Simpson to receive chloroform as a medical anaesthetic. That's a notable administration of a gas-based therapy - but it would still be better to mention her within the text of a history section than to have her in a bare list of notable recipients at the end. Le Deluge (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this criterion is too generic for this article. If people were notable specifically for their use of oxygen therapy, that might be grounds to list them in the article, but I can't think of anyone who fits this category. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Axl - if you read the articles on the singer on that list in the Daily Mail and the Huffington Post, etc, she seems to be largely focused on, on both sides of the ocean, for her use of an oxygen tank while pursuing her singing career, etc. That is the focus of those articles. 2604:2000:E016:A700:C5EF:6A7:2C9B:78EC (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs better source

I have removed this based as it is based on the Guardian

"A report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death published in 2017 found that many patients who need emergency oxygen therapy were not getting it through shortages of staff or equipment. Supervision of care and patient monitoring were commonly inadequate for people who need non-invasive intervention oxygen through a face mask. 34% of UK inpatients who need emergency help with breathing died while only 18% died in Spain and 10% in France. In the UK the death rate was 30% in 2011 and is rising. There were not enough staff to provide the recommended ratio of one nurse to two NIV patients. Lack of ventilators in hospitals is a common problem, even though a basic machine costs less than £2,000."

Additionally it makes no sense? The death rate in the UK is 30% who need emergency help with breath? What does that even mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay "353 patients during February and March" DOES NOT equal the UK.

This is why we do not use popular press for medical claims.

The picture of oxygen therapy the Guardian uses shows a mask NOT connected to oxygen? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

not precisely the exact reference, but it may help[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.ncepod.org.uk/2017niv.html appears to be the original report. Perhaps it makes more sense to use that, and list the Guardian link only as a |laysummary=. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO we should wait for a high quality secondary source. This is simply a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the wrong article. The source is solely concerned with non-invasive ventilation, which is a different treatment from oxygen therapy. NIV may deliver air, and is intermittent ("on demand") with breathing; Oxygen therapy is delivered nowadays either in a hyperbaric chamber or by continuous flow via a mask or cannula. Admittedly, we do administer oxygen on demand via a demand valve for first aid treatment of decompression sickness in the field, but that strictly isn't "oxygen therapy" either, IMHO. The source is a good one, and deserves a place in our articles once it has been reviewed, but this isn't the article that it's relevant to. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The content at National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death on this is pretty good now. The content above is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian article is a complete train wreck, and I have complained to the journalist on Twitter with no response. They have confused emergency oxygen with NIV. The NCEPOD report is purely about acute NIV. The report does mention that excessive oxygenation occurred in ~20% of patients who ended up requiring NIV, but that is not precisely the headline outcome.

I would support removing everything. JFW | T@lk 12:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have clarified the distinction with the editor who added the content. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What is at risk of catching fire?

High oxygen concentrations also increase the risk of fires in those who smoke suggests that the smokers experience an increased risk of catching fire. While this is undoubtedly true, is it actually what we want the article to say? When there is a higher oxygen concentration, the risk of fire increases for all flammable materials, not just people. I provided an alternative, but it was reverted without explanation, and now I do not understand what you are actually trying to say, but whatever it is, this is a strange way of expressing it.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Pbsouthwood Sure the BNF says "pts should be advised of the risk of continuing to smoke when receiving oxygen, including the risk of fire" As the oxygen is on a person's face, when they smoke the risk of catching fires and burns is significantly increased. Not just of the smoker but the smokers surroundings.

How about this[4]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Doc James: Not really, it is the in those who smoke part that comes over a bit weird to me. It is a strange way of not saying that the burning cigarette is the ignition hazard. Those who smoke are still those who smoke when they are not actively smoking, and a non-smoker doing something with a naked flame is at similar risk in a high oxygen environment. The BNF quote is accurate and to the point, the paraphrase confuses the issue a bit. While smoking or similar would bring the ignition source back into the picture. As an aside, is there some other risk than fire that the BNF are trying to highlight here? (besides the usual medical risks of cancer etc) that are increased while receiving oxygen? (use of the word including suggests more than one one risk). Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

While smoking works and have changed it to that. No that is the only risk I think . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Article now unambiguous. Even if the source may be a bit vague, it does cover the current content. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Great :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)