Date post: | 13-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gavin-reed |
View: | 227 times |
Download: | 0 times |
PROTECTING EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
Tom LaTourrette D.J. PetersonBrian A. Jackson James T. Bartis Ari N. Houser
Community Views Of Safety And Health Risks And Personal Protection Needs
2
Presentation Overview
• About the project
• Service-specific issues
• Terrorism response
• Cross-cutting issues
• Concluding observations
3
Responder Community Input is Essential to Improving Protection
• Structured discussions with responder community members
• Sought to obtain emergency responder community views about– Current and evolving activities– Hazards of greatest concern– Critical protection needs– Factors limiting progress in reducing injuries
• Intended to complement surveillance data to gain insight into responder perspective
• Provide input to the national effort for improving personal protection of emergency responders
4
Project History
• 2001: NIOSH opens National Personal Protective Technologies Lab– August 2001 RAND on-board
• 9/11: Priorities reordered– RAND & NIOSH agree to focus on lessons learned
from terrorist attacks
• 2002: RAND returns to task in a community that has fundamentally changed
5
Fire Service Priorities:Fireground Protection
Thermal protection adequate, but critical problems remain
• Stress: Physical and thermal
• Isolation/threat awareness
• Communications
• Personnel accountability/location
• Equipment status/service life
6
Emergency Medical Service Priorities:Assaults & Infectious Diseases
• Assault protection (vests and training) is very uneven
• Basic medical protection (gloves, goggles, gowns) not appropriate for field use ("find us a glove that works...")
• Multiple delivery systems detract from coordination and focus– E.g., difficult to find basic fatality and injury data
7
Law Enforcement Priorities:Assaults and Vehicular Accidents
• Formidable hurdles to ensuring protection– Typically first on scene ("blue canaries")– Protective gear must not interfere with tasks or
community interactions– Protection must be immediately accessible
• Armored garment shortfalls– Tradeoffs between protection and acceptance
• Vehicle injuries– Safe design & behavior
8
• Equipment worked as designed but fell short in multi-threat, extended campaigns
• Equipment not always available or maintainable
• Inconsistent risk assessment and communication
• Terrorism response fraught with uncertainty
– What is the threat; what are hazards?
– What response procedures will be used?
– What protection is appropriate?
• Sense of urgency initially fueled poorly-informed acquisitions
Terrorism Response is a Major Concern
9
Protection Problems Exist at theSystems-Level
• Need interoperable communications– High-traffic capability– Many agencies maintain multiple systems
• Improved hazard assessment capabilities
• Human factors influence protection– Operational framework not always well-defined– Knowledge and risk management difficult– Responder wellness and physical fitness
10
Procurement and Logistics AreIncreasing Concerns
• Acquisitions are often poorly informed
• Standards & certification are essential
• Space for new protective gear is very limited, in stations, in vehicles, on personnel
• Maintenance is an increasing concern
• Interoperability highly beneficial for large incidents, but impediments are high
11
Concluding Observations
• Routine emergencies pose significant threats to responder safety
• Terrorism response adds new & unfamiliar threats—CBRN & massive damage
• Many findings regarding protecting responders in terrorism apply to disasters in general
• Continued technical advances are critical
• But so are training and education