Advertisement

Ergonomics Systems Mapping for Professional Responder Inter-operability in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Events

  • Graham Hancox
  • Sue Hignett
  • Hilary Pillin
  • Spyros Kintzios
  • Jyri Silmäri
  • C. L. Paul Thomas
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

A European consensus was developed as a concept of operations (CONOPS) for cross-border, multi-professional chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) responses. AcciMaps were co-designed with professional responders from military, fire, ambulance, and police services in UK, Finland and Greece. Data were collected using document analysis from both open and restricted sources to extract task and operator information, and through interviews with senior staff representatives (Gold or Silver Command level). The data were represented on the Accimaps as a high level Socio-Technical Systems (STS) map of CBRN response using the themes of communication, planning, action, and reflection. Despite differences between service sectors and in terminology, a macro systems level consensus was achieved for the command structures (Gold, Silver and Bronze), and Hot Zone responders (Specialist Blue Light Responders and Blue Light Responders). The detailed tasks and technologies have been analysed using Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) to represent both complex response scenarios (macro) and detailed technologies (micro interfaces) for detection, diagnosis and decontamination. The outputs from these two systems mapping tools (Accimaps and HTAs) are being used in two field trials/exercises.

Keywords

Ergonomics CBRN NATO AcciMap Sociotechnical systems 

References

  1. 1.
    James K (2011) The organizational science of disaster/terrorism prevention and response: theory-building toward the future of the field. J Organ Behav 32(7):1013–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Power N (2017) Extreme teams: towards a greater understanding of multi-agency teamwork during major emergencies and disasters. Am Psychol. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/88335/1/POWER_AP_PRE_PRINT.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  3. 3.
    Palmer I (2004) The psychological dimension of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism. J R Army Med Corps 150(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander DA, Klein S (2003) Biochemical terrorism: too awful to contemplate, too serious to ignore: subjective literature review. Br J Psychiatry 183(6):491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kako M, Hammad K, Mitani S, Arbon P (2018) Existing approaches to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) education and training for health professionals: findings from an integrative literature review. Prehospital Disaster Med 33(2):182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkinson D, Waruszynski B, Mazurik L, Szymczak AM, Redmond E, Lichacz F (2010) Medical preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives (CBRNE) events: gaps and recommendations. Radiat Protect Dosimetry 142(1):8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Centre for strategy and Evaluation Services (2011) Ex-post evaluation of PASR activities in the field of security and interim evaluation of FP7 security research. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/security/pdf/interim_evaluation_of_fp7_security_ex_post_pasr_final_report_en.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  8. 8.
    Waring S, Alison L, Carter G, Barrett‐Pink C, Humann M, Swan L, Zilinsky T (2018) Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster. J Occup Organ Psychol. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joop.12217. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  9. 9.
    Power N, Alison L (2017) Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi-agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack. J Occup Organ Psychol 90(1):51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    House A, Power N, Alison L (2014) A systematic review of the potential hurdles of interoperability to the emergency services in major incidents: recommendations for solutions and alternatives. Cognit Technol Work 16(3):319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendonça D, Jefferson T, Harrald J (2007) Collaborative adhocracies and mix-and-match technologies in emergency management. Commun ACM 50(3):44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Home Office. CONTEST: the United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97994/contest-summary.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  13. 13.
    NATO (2011) Project on minimum standards and non-binding guidelines for first responders regarding planning, training, procedure and equipment for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_08/20160802_140801-cep-first-responders-CBRN-eng.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  14. 14.
    Healy MJ, Weston K, Romilly M, Arbuthnot K (2009) A model to support CBRN defence. Defense Secur Anal 25(2):119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bolic M, Borisenko A, Seguin P (2012) Automating evidence collection at the crime scene using RFID technology for CBRN events. Forensic Sci Policy Manage Int J 3(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart KA (2018) NPS, international special forces groups, NATO collaborate to counter CBRN threats. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/41344/Naval%20Postgraduate%20School%20%20NPS%2c%20International%20Special%20Forces%20Groups%2c%20NATO%20C.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  17. 17.
    Sferopoulos R (2009) A review of chemical warfare agent (CWA) detector technologies and commercial-off-the-shelf items. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a502856.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  18. 18.
    Pacsial-Ong EJ, Aguilar ZP (2013) Chemical warfare agent detection: a review of current trends and future perspective. Front Biosci 5(1):516–543Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salmon PM, Cornelissen M, Trotter MJ (2012) Systems-based accident analysis methods: a comparison of Accimap, HFACS, and STAMP. Saf Sci 50(4):158–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Annett J, Duncan KD (1967) Task analysis and training design. Occup Psychol 41(1):211–221Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stanton NA (2006) Hierarchical task analysis: developments, applications, and extensions. Appl Ergon 37(1):55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hancox G, Hignett S, Pillin H, Kintzios S, Silmäri J, Thomas PCL (2018) Systems mapping for technology development in CBRN response. Int J Emerg Serv. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/eprint/ZBSH8EQ76IFFWCDCSINB/full. Accessed 13 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.HRP Professional Services Ltd.WitneyUK
  3. 3.R&D Project Management DepartmentHellenic NavyAthensGreece
  4. 4.Rescue Services, South-Savo Regional Fire ServicesMikkeliFinland
  5. 5.Centre for Analytical Science, Department of ChemistryLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations