First Responders in a Post-Incident Internal Review Process

Abstract 

This paper aims to discuss the stressors that first responders are predisposed to in a post-incident internal review process for possible wrong-doing. Besides presenting possible wrong-doing as a result of quick decision making when faced with emergency situations, the paper also analyzes the consequences of such actions. To better understand the extent of the problem, a literature review has been carried out as a way to present arguments that are not only extensively explained but also whose authenticity can be proved. From the literature review, it is evident that the internal review process and actions taken by legal teams and other chosen committees often trigger traumatic thoughts in respondent, leading to negative mental health outcomes such as depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In the conclusion, it is recommended that the necessary stakeholders put in place measures that ensure a smooth review process, hence reducing the adverse effects of stress among first responders during such procedures. 

First Responder Stressors 

Although first responders are often implicated as heroes who help mitigate the effects of disasters and emergencies, there are irreparable mistakes by such individuals while on the line of duty, most of which cause stressors such as civil liabilities, condemnation by the related stakeholders, being fired or even in some cases facing lawsuits. In viewing journalists, teachers and doctors, volunteers, and other professionals as first responders, an array of possible wrong doing in the line of duty by these professionals is dynamic. For example, journalists could wrongly report a given terrorist attack or a natural disaster, hence possibly face lawsuits related to defamation. While the post-incident internal review process, in most cases, influences the responders’ levels of anxiety and stress because of possible liabilities, the inquiry process is instrumental in influencing organizational and legal processes that could better emergency response by such institutions in the future. 

One of the major stressors that influences anxiety among first responders during an after-action review undertaking is wrongdoing related to failure to accord the individuals served by responders to the duty of care. A breach of duty of care is a mistake that could happen in the form of delay of the ambulance to arrive where it is needed after receiving a 999 call, delay by the coast guard to dispatch a search and rescue team after an incident that requires such intervention is reported and in cases where police negligently cause damage other than professionally responding to a situation that their input is highly relevant (Mahmud et al., 2016). The stress is prevalent among this demographics because even though they are required to swiftly act, wrongdoing often results in legal and other types of liabilities, most of which act to the detriment of the responder if not the organization they work for(Albris et al., 2019). 

In some cases, internal review processes are long, convoluted, and tedious, aspects that could take a toll on the responders, especially if they are engaged in one or more undertakings in the review process. Regehr et al. (2005) assert that other stakeholders and the public’s assumption are that the responder will always deal with the situation as it is deemed right. In most cases, failure results in condemnation. Often times, there is a possibility that review processes such as a postmortem inquiry and other dynamic investigations internal to a given organization could confirm wrongdoing by a responder. Besides such a situation being uncertain, in cases that a respondent is found to have made a mistake while on the line of duty, the possibilities could include community sanctions, legal ramifications on the given employee, and professional condemnation. The fear that an outcome of the review process could lead one to be labeled as unprofessional is not only stressful but also a state that negatively affects responder’s morale. Most importantly, in a situation where a responder is under review because of an incident that they responded to but did not have favorable outcomes, even when the review process is conducted in the organization, information about the process and the employee situation could be obtained by the media and the general public. When highlighted in different spaces and the person’s competence is questioned, the person is subjected to highly stressful situations. An example that could put the above into perspective is one incident that caused an uproar in the near past. It was non-response by a police sheriff during a school shooting in Parkland Florida. The Police officer was not only criticized by his boss for failing to access the building and not confronting the attackers, but he was also called a coward by the president of the United States. This is not an isolated incident but a case that exemplify possible wrongdoing by first responders and the implication, which is often stress, especially when the respondent is fully aware of their mistakes (O’Neill & Alonso, 2018). 

Public accountability review is one of the follow-up undertakings after an emergency response that responders site to be highly stressful (Regehr et al., 2005). In the aftermath of a crisis, other possible review undertakings include organizational and operational reviews. Such is often done by the members of a given organization to gauge their performance, especially in relation to their effectiveness in responding to the different emergencies. In healthcare organizations, postmortem reviews are prevalent. The main objective of this review procedure is to promote public health while at the same time, improving service provision. Often times, events leading to inquiries are also witnessed. Such processes are especially stressful because they bring back traumatic memories to respondents, make them repeatedly question their decision-making process, and even in some cases, lead them to regret choosing such a career path(Regehr et al., 2005). 

The court system is one of the legal agencies that is sometimes called upon to undertake an after-action review process to rule out the possibility of wrongdoing by a respondent. Actions initiated through the criminal and civil court are often part of the review process. In this particular space, stress could be sparked when the responder is required to testify in a court of law. An example of a highly stressful inquiry court process is the coroner’s inquest. Besides being an aspect that brings back bad memories, in places such as Canada, rules guiding such a process are not well structured; hence, the possibility of the first responder being wrongly convicted is highly probable. In some cases, first responders feel that the court and the public assume that they are guilty until proven otherwise (Regehr et al., 2005). Because of such notions, in most cases, responders suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. The mental state of the individuals affected is exacerbated by the fact that individuals still have family and workplace obligations while undergoing the tedious and sometimes costly review processes. This is one of the biggest causes of stress for responders. In other circumstances, depending on the outcome and nature of an event, responders could be subjected to public commission reviews. Besides the above, depending on the country a first responder works in, they could be subjected to dynamic review processes. In Canada, for example, there is a Civilian Commission on Police Services that investigates Civilian complaints. Additionally, there is a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) whose jurisdiction is policing dynamics in Ontario. 

In conclusion, a post-incident internal review process is one of the most significant stress sources for responders. Their nature, one that could result in legal liabilities for first responders, causes extreme stress. Moreover, because when first responders are in the review process they are implicated as guilty, the situation influences them to question their professionalism and decision making. While organizations, legal systems, specialized committees, and other stakeholders undertake the reviewing process with the objective of improving service delivery to the general public, this is often not the desired output. Given the detrimental effects of stress on responders during the review process, organizations need to institute highly vigorous training programs that help first responders deal with such stress. Sensitization of the media and the general public on the situations under which such people work and the pressure to act right within a short period of decision making is necessary. This way, individuals will appreciate responders more than criticize them when mistakes occur. Most importantly, organizations have to make internal review processes friendly to responders, most of who are always traumatized by their work environment experiences. 

References 

Albris, K., & Lauta, K. C. (2019). Causing wrong while doing good: on the question of liability for volunteers in emergencies. Environmental Hazards, 1-14. 

Mahmud, M. S., & Rahman, M. S. Do the emergency services have a duty of care towards individual members of the public? A critique under the English tort law. 

O’Neill, O., & Alonso, N. (2018). Emergency Responders and the Dangers of "Masculinity Contests" ^ H047UQ. Retrieved 10 November 2020, from https://store.hbr.org/product/emergency-responders-and-the-dangers-of-masculinity-contests/H047UQ 

Regehr, C., & Bober, T. (2005). In the line of fire: Trauma in the emergency services . Oxford University Press.