u/ConsiderationAny4119

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the rise of “pocket books” and influencer-style content being pushed by paramedics that contain outdated or questionable clinical advice.
I completely understand wanting to build a side income and share knowledge — fair play. But if you’re going to position something as an educational resource for clinicians, it has to reflect current evidence-based practice, not recycled or risky interventions.
One example I’ve seen recently is recommending carotid sinus massage for SVT. Yes, it exists. No, it shouldn’t be casually promoted as a go-to. The risks (especially in older patients or those with carotid disease) are not trivial, and current first-line management is a modified Valsalva manoeuvre — which is safer and actually has good evidence behind it. Presenting carotid massage alongside that, or worse, without proper context, is just poor practice.
Another one is people suggesting changes to stroke assessment — ditching FAST in favour of NIHSS in the prehospital setting. That sounds great in theory, but in reality it’s slower, highly user-dependent, and ultimately doesn’t change what happens next. The patient is still going to get a full assessment by a stroke team on arrival. Prehospital care should prioritise rapid recognition and transport, not adding complexity that delays definitive care.
We’re in a profession where clinical decisions carry real consequences. Publishing simplified guides with outdated methods or scope creep disguised as “advanced practice” isn’t helping anyone — especially newer clinicians who may not yet have the experience to critically appraise what they’re reading.
By all means, create resources. But if you’re putting your name to something educational, it should be accurate, current, and aligned with best practice — not just something that looks good on Instagram and sells a few copies.
Anyone seen similar? What’s the worst, “what they didn’t teach you in paramedic school” you’ve come across.