Nah I still treat pt's 100% of the time. Those damn monitors are far too hard to cannulate and intubate for me to treat them effectively - LOL.
Monitoring certainly dictates your treatment algorhythm during confirmed cardiac arrest. However should monitoring take over and negate pt assessment? I think not and believe that there is great danger in advocating there is "no point in doing pulse checks until you see an organised rhythm on the monitor" - as was suggested. In examining whether this approach is appropriate I would appreciate if anyone could answer this question. Are there any "disorganised" (your term, not mine) rhythms that can generate a pulse?
I believe the point that they were making was that it is pointless to check v-fib/asystole for a pulse. To respond to your first paragraph.. I meant in cardiac arrest, your monitor will dictate your treatment. Your patient assessment should lead you to the conclusion that they are in cardiac arrest, and then you will treat per your rhythm-dictated algorythm. Of coarse there are exceptions to every rule. If your patient's Hx indicates a possible special condition such as OD, hypoglycemia, acidosis, etc... You should probably change your treatment accordingly.