Wilderness First Responder vs Wilderness First Aid

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if someone who has been WFR certified could comment on whether or not the course content and the certification offer practical advantages over just getting the 2-day Wilderness First Aid training. WFR costs a lot more ($700 vs $250) and takes 5 days but also seems to be a lot more comprehensive.

I probably won't be a rock guide for a living but do go on many trips solo in the backcountry and do intend to be a certified SPI. Would Wilderness First Aid be the more practical course to take or it won't really cut it?

Thanks.

More training is better than less training. You may quote me on that. :)

You'll get people telling you the WFA is useless, but I found it quite informative. I didn't take the WFR because it is a ten-day course, from what I can tell (80 hours). If you have the time and money, take the WFR.

More training is better than less training.

Take the WFR if you have the ability. You will come out of a WFR course feeling confident and you will be a lot more competent than you will be from taking a WFA course. Not only do you get a deeper dive into the topics and more of the whys, you also get a ton more practice. In my opinion, the most valuable things you get from the WFR or WFA course are the scenarios. With the WFR course you get 3-4 times the amount of scenarios you would get with a WFA course.

The WFA course is a great introduction to wilderness and practical medicine, but if you want to feel like you are capable of actually performing when you need to, take the WFR.

Just as a reference, medical professionals (Doctors, nurses & EMTs) still take a 5 day course to earn a wilderness endorsement, while the WFA is only a 2-3 day course and is commonly co-offered as a WFR recert.

If you don't need it for work just get the WFA. Not only does the WFR cost more up front, but you have to re-certify every 2 years which will cost more. IDK if there is a re-cert for WFA, or if you just take the whole class again but it is only 2 days and costs less than a 3 day WFRR.

I will summarize the difference here as I have a WFR, have done a WFRR, and had to take a WFA for a job I had (while I was WFR certified...)

WFR is 10 days (not 5) and you do probably 50+ scenarios instead of a dozen maybe in the 2 day WFA. You cover a lot more obviously, but really most of it is common sense.

Basically, Wilderness Medicine boils down to making a decision to evacuate or not and knowing how to improvise with what you have. If you would be guiding somewhere that is absolutely remote wilderness it may be worth doing. If you are looking to be a typical "cragging/toproping" guide just do the WFA.

A WFR is the standard for most outdoor education and guiding programs out there.

The scope of the WFA is more basic patch-ups and a general overview of best first-aid practices. I took one in college and it served me well until I decided to start working in the backcountry.
The WFR will cover this, plus a wide variety of more complicated scenarios. The focus is largely on learning how to read symptoms and use these to make a good diagnosis (critical for determining evacuation protocol in an extended expedition scenario). I found the biggest benefit of the WFR was drilling vitals and patient assessment.

I'd say that the WFR is worth the extra time and money over a WFA. Also, it is traditionally an 80-hour course, so any 5-day you are seeing is probably just a re-cert.

I'll also put in a shout-out for Desert Mountain Medicine. If you can take one of their classes you should. They were the first course (plus two re-certs)I took and by far the most comprehensive and useful (I've now taken courses from 4 different companies). Nadia Kimmel continues to be one of the best instructors I have ever had the pleasure of working with.

desertmountainmedicine.com/

I don't know if you have already looked into this but WFR vs WFA had a big tradeoff for me as a raft guide.

WFR= I could be a "Captain" and do single boat trips = MORE WORK
WFA= Ppl that only had WFA were "Crew" and could only be on trips with a Captain

Lookup WAFA that is a 40 hour (which in the UT rafting world qualifies you to be a captain lol)

I've taken something WFA-like and then am a current WFR. Knowledge is great, but it's true that you can get a lot of that from just reading someone's WFR book. Major advantage of WFR to me was the amount of time doing scenarios (2-days vs 9-10).

P.S. You also come out of WFR with a child and adult CPR (and probably AED) cert.

WFR hands down if you can afford the time and money.

If not, WFA is better than nothing.

oh biggest WFR advantage - ability to clear the spine...

Stagg54 wrote:oh biggest WFR advantage - ability to clear the spine...

This is indeed a biggy.

Spidey Rocks wrote:Hi Guys, Just wondering if someone who has been WFR certified could comment on whether or not the course content and the certification offer practical advantages over just getting the 2-day Wilderness First Aid training. WFR costs a lot more ($700 vs $250) and takes 5 days but also seems to be a lot more comprehensive. I probably won't be a rock guide for a living but do go on many trips solo in the backcountry and do intend to be a certified SPI. Would Wilderness First Aid be the more practical course to take or it won't really cut it? Thanks.

Had the same question a few months back after taking the SPI Course.

WFR is the superior course.

WFA could be applicable (for SPI employment) but it really depends on the terrain (roadside cragging vs. backcountry) and the guide service (their policies, their insurance requirements, etc).

From the conversations and advice I got, I was lead to believe that if I'm going to take a course, take the WFR.

Don't quote me on this but when I had my AMGA SPI a WFR was required (I could be wrong here). I also used to raft guide and like another said I was qualified to be a trip leader where others were not. I also got a 20 raise per trip for being a WFR oR WEMT. While you can get a lot from a book the hands on training and practice in the 80 hr course is the real value.

My advice is do the WFR. You will not regret it.

You could always do the 4 day WAFA (Advanced First Aid) and then the WAFA to WFR Bridge. The WAFA is a solid class if you can find it. I think it's offered through WMA but not by WMI.

I'll second what's already been said here - as far as potential employment, anything that doesn't require WFR is likely fine with CPR/First Aid anyway. As in, if there's a special requirement for first aid training, it is very likely WFA won't cut it and you'll need WFR.

WFR should be an 80 hour course, so double-check the class you're looking at. It might not be a WFR course, or it might be offered by an organization that's not going to be widely recognized and accepted - for any situation that requires WFR it is likely going to require that it be an 80 hour course and/or from a specific list of nationally recognized organizations.

The hands-on practice and scenarios are the most valuable part of the course, and you get far more of that with WFR, and there is time in the course to really get an understanding of each topic rather than just memorizing steps. WFA felt rushed and very basic to me.

WFA is better than nothing, but honestly if you can't afford WFR, I recommend that you save up and wait until you can.

Finally, the instructor quality really makes or breaks the course, so do your best to research not only the organization but the specific instructor and find the best one you can.

Em Cos wrote:I'll second what's already been said here - as far as potential employment, anything that doesn't require WFR is likely fine with CPR/First Aid anyway. As in, if there's a special requirement for first aid training, it is very likely WFA won't cut it and you'll need WFR. WFR should be an 80 hour course, so double-check the class you're looking at. It might not be a WFR course, or it might be offered by an organization that's not going to be widely recognized and accepted - for any situation that requires WFR it is likely going to require that it be an 80 hour course and/or from a specific list of nationally recognized organizations. The hands-on practice and scenarios are the most valuable part of the course, and you get far more of that with WFR, and there is time in the course to really get an understanding of each topic rather than just memorizing steps. WFA felt rushed and very basic to me. WFA is better than nothing, but honestly if you can't afford WFR, I recommend that you save up and wait until you can. Finally, the instructor quality really makes or breaks the course, so do your best to research not only the organization but the specific instructor and find the best one you can.

as much as I hate it Em is right. A lot of places only accept SOLO or NOLS/WMI. Unfortunate really as the class I took from CDS outdoorschool far blew away the NOLS course, but since they are not as well known...

At the very least make sure that whatever class you are taking teaches to the WMS (Wilderness Medical Society) standard. That should be the standard, but again unfortunately the big names and money win out again.

Make sure that whatever you get will be accepted by your future employer.

I'd still rather a WFA who really knows their shit than a WFR who THINKS they know,

just sayin'

it's always the situation and the individual..not the the paper who makes some one live....every time

A WFR is the minimum for an SPI.

Ben Glanton wrote:A WFR is the minimum for an SPI.

The way the AMGA site reads it seems like you just need a first aid certification, but when you go to upload your certs it says "WFR".

I think the extra scenario practice that you get from the WFR makes it worth the extra time and money. I got mine through NOLS/WMI (it was required for my grad school program) and haven't had to put it to serious use yet, but you only need to use those skills once for it to be entirely worth the cost.

Hi Guys,

Thanks so much for everyone's input. Really appreciate your taking the time to give your two cents!

After considering everyone's input and examining what I know to be my learning style, I have elected to take the WFR. Now comes the fun part: find ways to pay for it :)

Call me anal and slow but I'm one of those people who needs to read and then be shown how to tie a figure 8, given the opportunity to do it 10 times on my own, make mistakes along the way and get un-stuck, teach someone else to do the same, before I really feel that I've mastered a concept/skill :)

So the more practice and details and hands-on scenarios, the better. Sounds like WFR is the way to go regardless of whether or not my future employment requires it. The challenge I see is remembering the stuff I'll learn. I tend to forget things I don't use but I suppose even if 10% of the materials gets stored in my long-term memory, that is 10% that I wouldn't otherwise have. Thanks again, guys!

john strand wrote:I'd still rather a WFA who really knows their shit than a WFR who THINKS they know, just sayin' it's always the situation and the individual..not the the paper who makes some one live....every time

absolutely true in almost every area where there is a certification...