Skip to main content

Simulation to Experiment and Develop Risk Management in Exceptional Crisis Situations: The Case of the Casualty Extraction Teams

  • 92 Accesses

Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL,volume 30)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on simulation as a tool for experimentation and development of risk management activity among first responders in exceptional crisis situations. To do so, we rely on a study on simulation training for specialized firefighter teams: Casualty Extraction Teams (CET). These teams are responsible for rescuing victims, particularly during post-attack crises. We are first interested in the characteristics of crisis situations. These are related to the adaptation requirements that the risk management activity of the responders must meet to be effective. Simulation training is important to develop this activity, under certain conditions. We then approach crisis management as a borderline case of dynamic situation management. This allows us to focus both on invariants in terms of cognitive mechanisms, underlying the effective risk management activity in this class of situations, and on a necessary variability related to the adaptation processes required according to the type of situation. We report the results of a study analyzing the design and implementation of simulation training for CETs. Finally, based on the results of this study, we propose several avenues to increase the relevance of this training and, more broadly, consider simulation training aimed at developing risk management activities in exceptional crisis situations.

Keywords

  • Simulation
  • Training
  • Exceptional crisis situations
  • Risk management activity
  • Firefighter

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_8
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-89567-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is important to note that the activity of risk management in crisis situations can be considered according to two main characteristics: its dynamic character (in relation to the requirements of adaptation for the individual) and its collective character (in relation to the requirements of cooperation for the teams). In this chapter, we focus mainly on the first of these characteristics.

  2. 2.

    A crisis is generally referred to as exceptional or “non-conventional” because it is a rare occurrence, and, as a result, most of the responders who must manage it are in a situation they have never faced before in the field. This type of crisis is also not (or hardly) predictable. Responders are not (or hardly) aware of the possibilities for effective action to manage it.

  3. 3.

    It is also based on the quality of interactions between responders.

  4. 4.

    MARCH for “Massive bleeding, Airflow, Respiration, Circulation, Hypothermia” and MIST for “Mechanism, Injury, Sign, Treatment.” With the MARCH method, the aim is to identify the casualties whose early death due to, for example, hemorrhage or asphyxia, could be prevented by extreme emergency care. It also involves performing technical procedures, such as the application of an arterial tourniquet or the use of emergency compression dressings to provide this care. Simultaneously, the application of MIST consists of providing casualties with a map indicating the causes of their injuries, the injuries found, their symptoms, and any treatment already carried out. This allows better communication with the actors who take over after the casualties have been extracted.

  5. 5.

    Linked to the choice of their timing or order of completion.

References

  • Adrot, A., & Garreau, L. (2010). Interagir pour improviser en situation de crise. Le cas de la canicule de 2003. Revue Française de Gestion, 203, 119–131.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Amalberti, R. (2001). La maîtrise des situations dynamiques. Psychologie Française, 46(2), 105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalberti, R. (2013). Piloter la sécurité: Théories et pratiques sur les compromis et arbitrages nécessaires. Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cardin, Y. (2016). L’analyse de l’activité comme préalable à la conception d’un environnement virtuel de formation : le cas d’une formation à la gestion d’incendies en milieu urbain chez les sapeurs-pompiers. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01278346.

  • Carli, P., & Telion, C. (2018). Paris City disaster: Response to the recent terror attacks and lessons learned. Current Trauma Report, 4(2), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-018-0119-1

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, C. (2003). Gestion des risques lors de la prise de décision en situation d’interaction dynamique : approches systémique et cognitive. In J. M. C. Bastien (Ed.), Actes des 2e Journées d’étude en Psychologie Ergonomique (EPIQUE’2003) (pp. 123–134). Inria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Zapata, C. P., & Wild, R. E. (2006). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 999–1015.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cuvelier, L. (2016). Agir face aux risques, regard de l’ergonomie. FonCSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniellou, F. (2012). Facteurs humains et organisationnels de la sécurité industrielle. Des questions pour progresser. FonCSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Terssac, G., & Gaillard, I. (2009). Règle et sécurité : partir des pratiques pour définir les règles. In G. De Terssac, I. Boissières, & I. Gaillard (Eds.), La sécurité en action (pp. 13–34). Octarès Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, M., & Salini, D. (2016). Éducation à la résilience : une démarche événementielle. In J.-P. Assal, M. Durand, & O. Horn (Eds.), Le Théâtre du Vécu - Art, Soin, Éducation (pp. 303–315). Raison et passions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flandin, S., Poizat, G., & Durand, M. (2017). Développer la résilience en renouvelant la formation à et pour la sécurité : une recherche en cours. In B. Barthe, O. Gonon, & C. Brun (Eds.), Présent et futur de l’ergonomie : actes du 52ème de la Société d'Ergonomie de Langue Française (SELF) (pp. 247–251). Resact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flandin, S., Poizat, G., & Durand, M. (2018). Improving resilience in high-risk organizations: Principles for the design of innovative training situations. Development and Learning in Organizations, 32(2), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-03-2017-0027

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J.-M. (2001). Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J.-M. (2004). La gestion de situation dynamique. In P. Falzon (Ed.), Ergonomie (pp. 517–530). Presses universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J.-M., & Amalberti, R. (2003). Adaptation et contrôle cognitif : supervision de situations dynamiques complexes. In J. M. C. Bastien (Ed.), Actes des Deuxièmes Journées d’Étude en Psychologie Ergonomique (EPIQUE’2003) (pp. 135–147). Inria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J.-M., & Amalberti, R. (2007). Cognitive control dynamics for reaching a satisficing performance in complex dynamic situation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(1), 22–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc, J.-M., Amalberti, R., Cellier, J.-M., & Grosjean, V. (2004). Adaptation et gestion des risques en situation dynamique. In J.-M. Hoc & F. Darses (Eds.), Psychologie ergonomique : tendances actuelles (pp. 15–48). PUF.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jouanne, E. (2016). Gestion de crise chez les Sapeurs-Pompier : déterminants socio-cognitifs de l’efficacité des équipes. Thèse de doctorat en psychologie, Université de Bretagne Sud, Bretagne. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01425954.

  • Karsenty, L. (2010). Comment faire confiance dans les situations à risque ? In A.-S. Nyssen, P. Mairiaux, A. Van Daele, A. Piette, & F. Laigle (Eds.), Fiabilité, Résilience et Adaptation, Actes du 45ème Congrès de la SELF (pp. 205–212). SELF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsenty, L., & Quillaud, A. (2011). Gestion de l’imprévu et construction collective du sens de la situation : Quelques leçons tirées de l’analyse d’incidents. In A. Garrigou & F. Jeffroy (Eds.), L’ergonomie à la croisée des risques, Actes du 46ème Congrès de la SELF (pp. 261–265). SELF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (1997). The Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In C. E. Zsambok & G. A. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, T. R. (2007a). Critical infrastructure in the face of a predatory future: Preparing for untoward surprise. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 60–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, T. R. (2007b). Anticipating rude surprises: Reflections on “crisis management” without end. In L. R. Jones & C. Roberts (Eds.), Communicable crises: Prevention, management and resolution in the global arena (pp. 27–46). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, G., Amalberti, R., & Chauvin, C. (2008). Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: The decision-making process of professional sea-fishing skippers. Human Factors, 50(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento, A., Cuvelier, L., Mollo, V., Dicioccio, A., & Falzon, P. (2015). Constructing safety: From the normative to the adaptive view. In P. Falzon (Ed.), Constructive ergonomics (pp. 95–109). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, R., Mollo, V., & Daniellou, F. (2015). Work debate spaces: A tool for developing a participatory safety management. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogalski, J. (2004). La gestion des crises. In P. Falzon (Éd.), Ergonomie (pp. 531–544). PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, S., Flandin, S., Goudeaux, A., Seferdjeli, L., & Poizat, G. (2019). Formation basée sur la perturbation : preuve de concept par la conception et le test d’un environnement numérique de formation en radiologie médicale. Activités, 16(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Gomel, C. (2017). Training to safety rules use: Some reflections on a case study. Safety Science, 93, 134–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 628–652.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the interim of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–451.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wybo, J.-L. (2012). Maîtrise des risques et prévention des crises : Anticipation, construction de sens, vigilance, gestion des urgences et apprentissage. Lavoisier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurie-Anna Dubois .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dubois, LA., Vandestrate, S., Van Daele, A. (2022). Simulation to Experiment and Develop Risk Management in Exceptional Crisis Situations: The Case of the Casualty Extraction Teams. In: Flandin, S., Vidal-Gomel, C., Becerril Ortega, R. (eds) Simulation Training through the Lens of Experience and Activity Analysis. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89567-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89566-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89567-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)