UNDERSTANDING or BLAMING THOSE #*$^%!! DISPATCHERS!!!
The Communication Center of a Public Safety Agency is a unique environment. It is usually the first to be blamed for an incident going wrong; and seldom given any credit for the efficient and effective mitigation of an incident. Many agencies neglect to include their communication center personnel in debriefings following sensitive incidents, forgetting that they were the first to encounter and deal with such sensitivities. Yet, day after day, the communication personnel of thousands of communication centers operate in the vacuum of “hearing” without the benefit of “seeing”!
FOREWORD
The Communication Center of a Public Safety Agency is a unique environment. It is usually the first to be blamed for an incident going wrong; and seldom given any credit for the efficient and effective mitigation of an incident. Many agencies neglect to include their communication center personnel in debriefings following sensitive incidents, forgetting that they were the first to encounter and deal with such sensitivities. Yet, day after day, the communication personnel of thousands of communication centers operate in the vacuum of “hearing” without the benefit of “seeing”!
The Communications Environment
When public safety communication center personnel are initially trained, what are they taught? Perhaps the training begins with what to say when they answer the phone; how to use the radio; how to prioritize incidents and, most important, what restaurants and stores in the area make deliveries. Have you ever thought about how different an environment the communications personnel operate within on a daily basis; an environment of telephones and radios, devoid of the sense of sight, eye contact and body language? Do any training officers explain in detail the challenges presented while operating within this environment? Can information be misinterpreted when heard without utilizing all of our senses? If so, what can we do to make up for it?
Have you ever read a letter or email and interpreted it as something it wasn’t? Did the writer seem angry, passive, uninterested; and, if so, how in the world could we tell without being there to “see” them? Recently I received a letter from my bank, stating that I had exceeded the number of transfers allowed under new federal guidelines governing Internet banking. It went on to explain that up to ten (10) transfers were allowed per month and, if I were to be in violation a second time, penalties would be imposed. I stared at the letter for a long time; as well as at the signature at the bottom, the signature of a local woman to whom I had been acquainted for a number of years. My initial reaction was amazement, followed closely by anger and concluded with laughter. The letter was saying that the twelve (12) transfers I had made between my savings account and a checking account I held jointly with my eighty-eight (88) year old mother, which totaled $68, could be considered as a threat to national security. I called the woman and told her, quite facetiously, that if my mother and I couldn’t continue to transfer money freely, the terrorist cells we were financing with that $68 could face hard financial times. After we filtered through my sarcasm, she informed me that all banking institutions were mandated to track instances such as this and make notification to depositors. She then asked why I was so upset. Well, I was upset because I had misinterpreted the written word as something it really wasn’t. I read it as being accusatory when it was simply being informative.
Similarly, the word spoken face-to-face carries strong meaning due to the senses of sight, hearing, eye contact and body language. Body language and eye contact brings a sense of sincerity to the conversation; the speaker may utilize the sense of touch for emphasis. Gestures may be used to describe size, direction or color. Even the sense of smell may come into play at times, i.e., it is human nature to pay more attention to someone speaking to you if they are giving off a pleasant fragrance, and, conversely, perhaps not paying attention and wanting to terminate a conversation that is with someone giving off a less than pleasant odor; the key words being “fragrance” (a positive) and “odor” (a negative).
Does this mean that all telephone conversations or radio transmissions are without emphasis? No one who’s answered the telephone in a public safety communications center to find someone screaming or crying at the other end can say that phone calls are without emphasis. Neither are radio transmissions from firefighters, police officers of emergency medical personal. The Public Safety Communication Professional has to possess the ability to achieve common ground with people and do so without the luxury of sight, body language or touch.
If you were face to face with a very emotional person trying to report an emergency to you, you could do many things to calm them down. You can use eye contact to let them know you are hearing them; you may use the sense of touch as a means to re-assure them you are listening and they have to slow down and speak less loudly, and, when all else fails, you may have to rely upon a slap across the face as a last resort. Now, place that person is at the other end of a telephone conversation! What can you employ to take the place of the sense of sight, eye contact or touch? How do we replace eye contact? We can’t reach out and touch them to let them know we are there. How do we deliver a ‘slap’ across the face via telephone? The questions can be answered in one word: Feedback!
Think of feedback as providing and requiring. The next time you’re in a training mode, and, please, be in a training mode often, for your own safety, have someone be a caller and someone be a call-taker. Instruct the caller to be someone reporting an emergency and instruct the call-taker to answer the phone as an emergency line, but once the caller begins a report, simply say nothing and then provide no “feedback” on the call. Discuss time lost and whether or not information was transferred accurately. The results may surprise you.
Feedback is the replacement for all of the senses lost when communicating via telephone and radio. It can be accomplished very simply by providing the caller with simple questions and requiring them to provide answers to those questions. So, when faced with a situation of ‘dead air’, it is very important to document there is a real, two-way conversation going on. Get the ‘feedback’ machine going by shaking up the other person and forcing them to talk to you. “Anyone there???”, is a good one to start with. Conversely, when you are faced with someone who won’t stop long enough for you to document ‘where’ his or her emergency is, you have to break that ‘hysteria’ threshold. Don’t allow the caller to draw the call-taker into their hysteria. Make them provide feedback to you. Ask a simple question over and over, in the same tone of voice, at the same speed and without changing wording. “Where is your emergency?”. This will get the caller’s attention and allow you to get further information.
Requesting feedback and having the caller provide it is the equivalent of the ‘slap in the face’ mentioned earlier. Depending upon the circumstances, lowering your voice until the caller asks you to speak louder; or raising your voice until the caller just stops talking, will break through so feedback can be initiated. At times the caller will want to give you every bit of information about the emergency before you can document where it is. How do you verbally ‘tackle’ this runner? One way is to ask, as they continue to run, “…was that 13 Main St., or 30 Main St.?…”
This makes them stop, or at least slow down, to repeat the address. You are “requiring” them to “provide” information.
Can words, especially adjectives, cause misinterpretation on the telephone? Think of how people may describe the noun “truck”. Big, oil, gas, gasoline, pick-up, delivery, fire, dump, milk, hand, monster, tow….how many more can you think of? Have you ever initiated a response to a motor vehicle accident involving a truck, or, more than one truck without finding out what kind of truck? “Well, the caller said “truck”.” Good enough? Well, maybe in 1918, but not in today’s society. The definition of the word “truck” has changed many times since the early history of our country. James Fennimore Cooper referred to ‘truck-wheels’, or, part of a gun carriage, in chapter three (3) of “Wyandotte” in 1843. Herman Melville, in chapter nine (9) of “Moby Dick”, referred to the “…main-truck…”, or, the wooden ball on top of the ship’s mast. Trucks may be garden carts, wheel-barrows, wagons, flatbeds or trains, wheeled assemblies of railroad cars and trolleys…and, in the Fire Service, apparatus with aerial appliances are sometime referred to as “trucks”, depending where in the country you happen to be at any given time. To initiate response sans complete knowledge of type of vehicle is a recipe for disaster. So, require the caller to provide feedback. “What kind of truck?”, “Is there any printing or signage?”, “Any placards?”, “Numbers?”, “Tractor-trailer?”, “Number of passengers?”
Realizing that EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch) is not universal (sad thought), how about the ambiguity of responding to the “sick person”? No EMS crew can feel comfortable heading to that incident. Usually the simple question of, “…well, what seems to be going on with them right now…”, can provide a wealth of information. A person can be sick because they are experiencing a cardiac event…High Priority!, or, because they ate a piece of Aunt Tilly’s fruitcake…not such a high priority, well, maybe. If you don’t have an EMD protocol, GET ONE….it’s what your communication center exists for…SAVING LIVES!!!! If you are still working for an agency that insists you don’t need one, don’t leave your EMS crews hanging out in the wind. Take the initiative to get complete information by starting up the FEEDBACK machine once again. Require the calling party to provide you with at least what they can see, or, even better, if the patient is the caller, ask the same specific questions you would ask your child when they try to bluff their way out of school for a ‘sick day’. You don’t have to be a doctor, nurse or Einstein to develop these questions. Try, “…have you vomited…?”, “…are you pregnant…?”, “…are you allergic to anything you know of…”, “…when did you eat last…?”
Now, before all the Fire House Lawyers start jumping up and down about the liability of performing EMD without certification and/or protocol, asking specific questions to a caller is your job, you are not providing pre-arrival instructions, you are simply providing your EMS personnel with the most accurate assessment you possibly can to ensure they can do the job they are trained to do once they arrive on scene. More important, what type of liability are you under in today’s world without an EMD protocol somewhere in the chain of delivering emergency services? I continue to be amazed that the legal profession hasn’t begun to devour agencies that fly by the seat of their pants on this issue. How do they defend themselves against the “standard of care” that exists in the majority of communication centers across the country?
As if everyday (?) fire, law enforcement and EMS calls for service weren’t enough, let’s for a minute see how feedback can enhance the outcome of an incident involving Hazardous Materials. Have you ever let a response profile go as an “…odor of gas…”, without defining the word “gas” to the ultimate degree? How about, “…vehicle leaking gas…”? Of course, I’m old enough to remember when they were simply, “…wash downs…”, but the list of hazardous materials has certainly changed in years subsequent to washing down gasoline into a storm drain or sewer system. Is your center aware of every item of hazardous materials in your jurisdiction? Is there a way of achieving that information?….ask me….I’ve got some wonderful ideas that will make you a hero in your city, town or county. Research the incident in Kansas City, MO, that claimed the lives of six (6) Firefighters on November 29, 1988 to see if it’s important. Read on and learn!!!
The fire department was dispatched to a vehicle fire at a construction site just prior to 0400 hours. Upon arrival two arson fires were discovered involving some 30,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil mixtures. The explosives were being stored on-site in two type 5 mobile magazines that closely resemble cargo trailers. And, since the explosives were parked on the site, the warning placards had been removed as a standard practice (DOT placards are not required when the vehicle is not actively in transport). The firefighters were apparently either a) unaware of the presence of the materials in the trailers even though information received with the initial call indicated that explosives were on-site, or b) under the impression that “Blasting Agents” would not explode because they were too “insensitive”. Shortly after their arrival, one of the magazines exploded killing all six firefighters. Was “communications” aware of the danger? Probably not…if “communications” was more active in “being aware” of things such as this, would the firefighters have been alive to return from this incident? Is the memory of six firefighters enough for you to
re-evaluate your protocols?
To expand upon “what” should be done, we have to delve into the question of “who” should be doing it. What type of person can handle the fast paced world of the modern public safety communication center? The days of using the communication center as a means of ‘punishment’ are, or certainly should be, far in the past; so should the practice of using the communication center as a ‘rehab’ facility for those on ‘light duty’. To do so is to say, “…we really don’t care what type of information our responding personnel are provided with as they respond to
an incident…” Develop, if one isn’t already in place, a well thought out recruitment policy, fine tuned screening and hiring practices and a comprehensive orientation and initial training process. It’s always been my thought process to look for those who have, or soon will have, a passion for the profession. Those people who don’t seem to be looking at public safety communications as a ‘stepping stone’ to other positions in the Fire Service, Law Enforcement, EMS or Emergency Management. These “passionate” people are the ones who will develop the strong links necessary to strengthen the chain of events involved in any one incident.
Those people who display a sense of compassion for humanity are the people who will eventually operate efficiently and effectively within Public Safety Communications. I was told by a retired Chief from Florida once, that the difference between being ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ was, “…efficiency was doing the right thing….while, effectiveness was doing the right thing right…” You may think that the word “right” in this instance is one of those indefinable “weasel” words that we’re cautioned about using; while, in reality, it’s very easy to understand. If ‘efficiency’ is answering the telephone when it rings in the communication center, then effectiveness is answering it in a way that identifies the answering point as a pro
fessional Public Safety Answering Point, ready to listen and obtain the information that will assist the caller, providing them with the services required to solve a problem and perhaps save lives and limit damage to property. Combine this with providing the responding emergency personnel with the best information possible to protect them and keep from turning rescuers into victims and you have the ultimate in ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’.
By displaying the confidence of a well trained professional, your personnel will ‘legitimize’ the request for emergency services, projecting to the reporting party the feel that someone is listening, caring and will respond to their needs in a timely manner.
By recognizing the need for personal, one-on-one contact with the caller and taking steps to get as close as need be, the Public Safety Communication Personnel form a ‘bond’, or establish a certain intimacy, with the caller that brings with it the ability to obtain (extract?) the information necessary to strengthen the chain, protect the caller and the responders and move closer to mitigating the emergency.
In summary, I’ve either worked with, or provided training to, far too many Public Safety Communication Centers who feel it’s OK to develop response profiles and act upon them, without benefit of obtaining the most detailed information available. Some of these agencies have been born of a need to “regionalize” services into one, central communication center. This is a noble thought, but one that cannot be achieved without matching the personnel to the amount of activity being generated by the “region”. I’ve heard far too many times, “…we can’t know every location…it’s their town, they’ll know where it is…”, or, “…that’s all the information I have…” (See Kansas City F.D. above) Try defending yourself against that in court or living with the question that perhaps you could have provided additional information that would have saved the lives of responders!!!
So when you think it’s ALL the information you have, is it really all the information you could have obtained? Most times it’s all the information you WANTED to obtain, because your agency SOP’s didn’t mandate anything else. If that’s the case, “…what the hell are we here for…” That’s my quote…and it’s in capital letters and screaming at you to do better. Don’t rely on how good you were yesterday….strive to get better every day. The Police Officers, Firefighters, EMS and Emergency Management Personnel in our country need and deserve better.
FRANK A. “SKIP” WELSH
LINK PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION TRAINING