Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:24:58 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ILPI <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Subject: Re: Boston College incident follow up
In-Reply-To: <01d001cc35f3$2560fce0$0201a8c0**At_Symbol_Here**ZavonHP>
I concur that realistic,
repetitive training can go a long way to ameliorating panic reactions in
emergency situations. Alas, the resources and institutional
commitment for this sort of thing are lacking in most academic
situations, and for some folks it just won't ever sink
in.
One low-cost method that may be effective
is to place a site-specific poster-size emergency checklist in the most
visible common area of the laboratory/suite. Focus on the most
important response issue (fire/explosion, for example) only.
Hopefully, the workers in the area will better retain their key
emergency response skills (or eventually learn them through osmosis) or
perhaps they may even turn to the poster in an emergency (911 called,
fire alarm pulled, evacuation, personnel accounted for etc. etc.).
As a small example of what I mean, see the fire checklist I have
posted at
http://www.il
pi.com/safety/extinguishers.html#Using
I have never personally seen laboratory safety training materials
discuss that the trainee or his/her coworkers may freeze, panic, or do
something completely wrong in an emergency situation. A coworker's
inappropriate reaction can not only be distracting or disorienting, it
can compound an already bad situation. I encourage everyone to
include this topic in their training
courses.
Recent events (UCLA, Yale etc.) aside,
I have never personally seen serious academic institutional/departmental
followup response with Lessons Learned from minor accidents, major
incidents, or near misses. Having a protocol for a formal
analysis (What happened? Facts instead of departmental gossip.
What went wrong? How could this be avoided? What SOP's should
change? etc.), ensuring that the analysis is distributed to all
possible stakeholders, and archiving it on an easily accessible web site
is a great way of making sure that history does not repeat itself.
I have the impression that this kind of analysis is the norm at
places like DuPont, but, sadly, in my own personal experience, academic
institutions often fail to do so either out of liability/publicity
concerns, leadership inertia/vacuum, or both. Formal
accident followups should be SOP and the importance of these should be
stressed in academic safety training
courses.
Finally, those archived incidents make
great case studies that should be utilized in laboratory training.
After giving the full spiel, take the time to pull out a couple of
case studies and ask the trainees what should have been done, what could
have been improved etc. Interactive training forces the trainees
to think about the issues and the instructor achieves instant feedback
on how effective the training has been. This makes training a much
more interesting experience for both parties. If you are
fortunate enough not to have any site-specific cases to use, a wealth of
them are available at
http://www.aiha.org/insideaiha/volunt
eergroups/labHandScommittee/Pages/LaboratorySafetyIncidents.aspx
The unexpected dangers reported at
http://pubs.acs.org/cen
/safety/index.html also afford additional
scenarios.
Rob
Toreki
=======================================================
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand
names
On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Peter
Zavon wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 David C. Finster said
to the DCHAS-L Discussion
List in part:
I would
"second" Brad's comments about the need for training
and education that exposes
students to simulated events and
that is heavily based on repetition. Truth is:
people panic
when
confronted with unexpected events and, in knowing this,
it's almost laughable that
one of first "rules" we teach in a
panic-inducing situation is "not to panic." Yeah, right.
So,
I tell students to
go ahead and "panic" (for a BRIEF moment!)
to get that out of the way and then "go back to your
training".
Since panic is a visceral reaction that
prevents reason and logical
thinking, it seems to me that telling
people "not to panic," either in
training or at the time of a
frightening event, is one of the most useless
instructional
activities imaginable. Repetitive simulated practice that
other have
endorsed is the way to go. That is likely to prevent panic
by
reducing the novelty of the situation.
"Don't panic" as an
instructional step is on a par with "Be more careful" in
counseling
someone whose apparent lack of attention is thought to have
caused an
"accident." Both phrases make the speaker fell better, but
neither
conveys actionable guidance.
Peter Zavon,
CIH
Penfield, NY
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post