More and more we have the opportunity to read that Public Safety Communication Center personnel are being accused of
negligence in the performance of their duties. Before you say it, I will, the number of
these public safety professionals is miniscule in comparison to the number
involved in protecting the safety of first responders and citizens in our
country, but, as the New York Times might say, a house thats not burning is
not news, so, those that are negligent ARE news, and it reflects poorly on
everyone.
More disturbing is the way that the administration in these organizations
goes out of its way to defend, at least initially, the negligent actions. The recording and documentation
capabilities of every public safety communication center mandates that every
staff member follow S.O.P.s to the letter. Any administrator who doesnt see the
recording and documentation equipment as their first line of defense against
litigation of any type is missing the boat. With a strong quality assurance program
in place, along with audio tapes, records and reports, there should be no claim
of extraordinary circumstances. A
few years ago such extraordinary circumstances were cited in the deaths of
individuals in a motor vehicle accident. It was proven that the communication center involved in handling the
incident managed to provide inaccurate information regarding the location of the
incident; lacked proper information in a resource file with regard to phone
numbers; and sent an inappropriate response to the incident. Two citizens died at the scene and the
response from the administration of the organization cited the medical examiners
report of the deaths occurring upon impact of the motor vehicle with the bridge
structure. The official response
to charges of negligence of the communication center staff was that no response
could have saved the occupants of the motor vehicle since the deaths were upon
impact. There was no official
review of the actions of the communication center personnel, no review of
policies or procedures and no punitive, remedial or corrective measures
taken. Lets put our heads in the
sand and hope this never happens again; but what happens when it does
re-occur? What a golden opportunity
the above mentioned organization missed! To miss an opportunity to recognize flaws in its system of delivering a
life saving service should be a criminal offense.
Recently, two public safety call-takers were accused of negligence in the
death of a woman whose son called 911 and was told, by two different
communication center staff members, not to be playing on the phone. The initial reaction by the
administration of the organization was not to rush to judgment on the two staff
members; this after the youngster in question and his attorney were on national
television and the audio tapes of the calls were broadcast during the
interview. The specifics of the
incident, along with audio and some video of the interviews were worldwide news
on the internet. It was clearly an
incidence of someone operating with complete disregard for policy and procedure,
yet instead of a no comment to queries, the official stand of the organization
was not to rush to judgment. The
incident was put into proper perspective a few weeks later when the two
call-takers were arrested. The case
is currently on-going.
Once you take a deep breath and step back far enough to see the big
picture, you can see how easy an organization can lessen the damage of
litigation with regard to negligence of its staff. Its similar to building a house; you
cant begin with an upper story and forget the foundation and lower floors. There has to be
something to build upon and documentation
that those building blocks were of the best quality. A Standard of Care has to be
recognized, identified and adhered to. It has to be flexible enough to change with the times and has to be under
constant review by the organization. Standard Operating Procedures and/or Guidelines have to be in place; some
rigid and some allowing for some interpretation in specific cases. The common denominator in all of this is
TRAINING! All the documentation of
Standard of Care, SOP or SOGall the recording, documentation and quality
assurance means nothing without accurate documentation of training of staff
members. This means entry level
training that covers all facets of the operation, along with continuing
education of staff, to the point of redundancy! It takes a unique person to make
continuing education something more than a OH NO, not again issue, but it is
such a necessity that the dividends of such a program will more than justify the
investment.
If such programs of performance justification and training are in place
within a Public Safety Communications Organization and/or Division, no offers of
defense for staff members are necessary. There will be clear lines of communication from pre-employment interviews
through orientation and entry level training and on to all phases of continuing
education. Ive heard those
responsible for training in organizations say, but what are we going to use
for a training topic this week (month, quarter, year)??? Given the varied types of incidents
encountered in any communication center during the normal days activity, that
question need never be asked. The
quality assurance program mentioned above will provide not only topics for
training, but the review of staff performance necessary to ensure adherence to
policies and procedures that will hence result in the utmost protection of
responders and citizens. If you
look at only the main, broad topics you may encounter, i.e., EMS, Fire, L
aw Enforcement, Haz/Mat and Emergency
Management, any training officer worth their salt could fill a training calendar
for a years time. After you break
down these broad areas, the availability of topic increases by volumes; add to
that the human areas of stress management, sleep depravation, rotating shifts
and the like and you can go on for just about forever.
One of the most common complaints encountered from staff is, .oh no,
not that again I always countered
that by simply putting them to a simple test of displaying their skill in that
area. If they could perform up to
the standards set by the organization without faltering, then the training was
either cancelled or modified; if not, it went on in spite of the
complaints. More often than not,
the training continued as scheduled; but if performance standards are not in
place, you cannot train. If you
have nothing in writing to compare performance to, you are hanging out in space
with regard to everything from everyday operations to offering a defense for
those accused of being negligent. Once a claim is put in place those who are making the claim of negligence
will want documentation of all that has been mentioned here, i.e., everything
from selection and hiring practices, to initial entry level training, to SOPs
and continuing education training. If you have them you will most likely be able to defend the organization
against litigation. If the staff
member has violated the SOPs and ignored the standard of care in place, they
will have no defense. If all is in
place and the staff has operated within the guidelines of them, chances are both
will be held harmless. Therein lays
the dividend that justifies the investment.
FRANK A. “SKIP” WELSH