logo
An Emergency Physician Explains How to Recognize the Signs of Heat Stroke

An Emergency Physician Explains How to Recognize the Signs of Heat Stroke

CNET24-07-2025
Temperatures this summer continue to climb. If you're spending time outdoors, whether for work or recreation, it's critical to know the risks of heat-related illness. Heat stroke, the most dangerous of them, can set in quickly and become life-threatening without warning. Staying aware of your body, staying hydrated and even tuning into audio updates or reminders through wireless earbuds can help keep you safer in the heat.
It doesn't just happen to athletes or people doing intense physical activity. Classic heat stroke can occur simply by being in a hot environment for too long. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, people who work outside are especially vulnerable in the first few days of exposure because the body needs time to adapt to rising temperatures. As the heat intensifies this summer, understanding how to spot and respond to heat stroke could be the most important safety step you take.
In addition to workers, heat stroke is especially common among "infants, younger children, elderly and those with significant heart or lung conditions," Dr. Alex Koo, an emergency room physician with MedStar Health, told CNET.
People with certain medical conditions, those taking specific medications or drugs (including alcohol) and individuals living in hot climates or homes without air conditioning may be at higher risk for heat stroke.
Here's what to know if you or someone near you starts experiencing symptoms of heat stroke.
Heat stroke symptoms
"Heat stroke almost will always present with symptoms," said Koo. "As the body cannot dissipate heat faster than it is producing or receiving, the body will experience heat exhaustion first." While heat exhaustion isn't quite as serious, it still requires you cool down as quickly as possible. If left untreated, heat exhaustion can progress to heat stroke, which is a medical emergency. If your symptoms worsen, last more than one hour or you start vomiting, call 911.
Symptoms of heat stroke, according to the Mayo Clinic and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, include:
Altered mental state, including confusion, agitation and slurred speech (this may also result in "odd" behavior)
Headache
Hot, flushed, usually dry skin (or, alternatively, heavy sweating -- if brought on by exercise, heat stroke may include moist skin)
Loss of consciousness
Racing heartbeat
Rapid breathing
Seizures
Very high body temperature
Vomiting
Keeping hydrated by drinking enough water, both before you head outdoors and while you're out in the heat, is an important step to warding off heat illness.1. Call 911
Having heat stroke is a medical emergency that requires professional care.
If there's more than one person around to aid the person suffering heat stroke, have them call 911 while the other helps the person through the steps below.
2. Get to a cooler area immediately
If you're around someone who has heat stroke, move them to a cooler area such as a nearby air-conditioned room.
As quickly as possible, "try to help that person to a shaded, cooler area," said Koo. The goal is to cool down the body's core temperature.
3. Take off excess clothing
Removing long-sleeve shirts, pants or other clothing will help a person cool down faster. Koo said you should especially "loosen any tight clothing and have them sit or lie down on a cooler surface."
(If you run in layers to "sweat off weight," you probably shouldn't. It's dangerous and can lead to heat stroke. Consider cooling clothes that work with your body to keep you cooler and more comfortable.)
4. Hold ice, cold towels or cool water to the skin
If you or someone else is experiencing heat stroke, place a cold towel or water bottle on the neck, armpits or groin to help cool the body.
While you wait for help to arrive, you can even spray them down with cold water or put them in a cold shower -- anything to cool them off. Cold water immersion or an ice bath is one treatment for heat stroke that doctors may use at the hospital.
Don't force a drink on someone experiencing heat stroke, Koo said. "If the person is altered, confused, nauseous or seizing, do not try to force them to drink fluids. They could vomit and choke."
However, if "the person is experiencing heat exhaustion and [is] able to drink fluids" then they can be given sips of water or "solute-infused beverage, as electrolyte sports drinks." Koo added, "Avoid caffeine-containing and alcoholic drinks."
Other doctor-approved heat safety tips
Koo told CNET, "Keep up to date on the weather, checking the forecast for the heat index, rather than just the temperature of the day." Keep in mind that the early evening is going to be the hottest time of the day, not the afternoon.
He said to also "prepare [yourself] and your loved ones for a day out in hot weather by wearing loose clothing, ensuring everyone is hydrated prior, during and after fun in the sun."
Make sure you're applying and reapplying sunscreen and seeking shade whenever possible. And "Know the signs of heat exhaustion as the first indication that it may be time to move to a cooler environment," he stated.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

CNN

time5 hours ago

  • CNN

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

CNN

time6 hours ago

  • CNN

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

CNN

time6 hours ago

  • CNN

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

Vaccines Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store