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