An example of scenario-based training highlights the advantages of this unique teaching tool
Story & Photos by Les Baker

How many times have you performed extrication tactics on an upright, undamaged vehicle in a junkyard? Do you consider that appropriate training for effectively handling most motor vehicle collisions? This form of training is suitable for basic skill development and relevant job experience, but it’s insufficient for preparing responders to competently mitigate the wide variety of vehicle collisions that they’ll undoubtedly respond to our the course of their careers.

Organizations should subject responders to complex, real-world challenges that require them to develop and demonstrate potential solutions. These scenarios should start relatively simple, but get progressively more difficult and detailed as responders show signs of comprehension and demonstration of necessary skills. Further, the training should use the power of problem-solving to engage responders and enhance their learning and motivation.

An instructor’s role is primarily to guide and coach the team through the learning and assessment process. Unless there’s a safety issue, the instructor should allow responders to work through problems; after all, in some instances, not succeeding can provide many valuable lessons. Establishing an open climate is essential, and every student should feel free to express their ideas without being criticized.

Advantages of Scenario-Based Training
There are several advantages to scenario-based training, regardless of whether this training is specific to extrication:
• When encountering an incident with a unique set of challenges, responders have the confidence to make educated decisions based on experience that was reinforced during training.
• It’s always beneficial to discuss various topics during official and unofficial training sessions, but there comes a certain point where the actions must be demonstrated to gain confidence and to determine the best procedures.
• Responders become extremely proficient in both basic and advanced skills. These skills allow them to not only feel confident but also perform at a higher level. Smaller details can usually be overcome in simple scenarios, but when dealing with complex scenarios, every detail counts.
• Participating in complex scenarios prepares responders to deal with the shock that sometimes is associated with the first impression of an incident. This allows responders to immediately begin working toward the strategy and tactics necessary to successfully mitigate the incident.
• Scenario-based training is simply more fun. Responders learn more when they’re having fun, and scenario-based training teaches them to learn from their mistakes.
• Responders can make up for years of on-the-job experience by completing scenario-based training sessions. In this guided format, an instructor has the benefit of correcting any bad habits that may have developed.

An Example
I saw a great example of scenario-based learning and its potential benefits at a recent Stabilization University event in Elmira, N.Y. Responders were presented with a unique scenario that appeared difficult, complicated and time-consuming. The scenario consisted of a simulated patient in the driver’s seat of a four-door passenger vehicle that received major roof damage from a secondary vehicle. The secondary vehicle came to rest partially on the primary vehicle as well as a nearby tree.

By the conclusion of the training session, responders felt confident that they could handle the situation. They learned how many not-so-obvious tasks helped with the mitigation and concluded that the total time needed was approximately 20 minutes. Some of the lessons learned and reemphasized during the training:
• Preventing any initial movement of the secondary vehicle is paramount for safe operations in the hot zone. This can be accomplished with proficient placement of wheel chocks, wedges and strapping until more time-consuming and detailed stabilization can take place.
• Stabilization required more time and equipment due to the height of the secondary vehicle off the ground. Consideration also had to be given to the possibility of lifting the secondary vehicle and how stabilization could be adjusted during the process. Although not necessary for stabilization, strut systems were invaluable for possible lift operations. Prohibiting any movement also required the use of tie lines in each direction due to the height of the secondary vehicle. The tie lines required the identification of anchor points and the ability to use them as tension management during the lift operation. Although wheel-resting vehicles have the ability to move in multiple directions, the potential is limited. With this scenario, however, it would have only taken a small amount of force to create movement in almost any direction.
• Strapping the tire assembly to the load before lifting can create a few additional inches of clearance by eliminating suspension travel. This was completed on the primary vehicle, and if the roof was not captured with movement, it could have been completed on the secondary vehicle. The strapping of both vehicles could have eliminated up to 8 to 10 inches of lifting without obtaining clearance between the vehicles.
• Removing the wheel of the secondary vehicle allowed additional space to complete interior ram operations and create clearance between the roofline and victim. If the strategy involved other tactics, such as roof flap or partial roof removal, that additional space would have allowed the roofline to be displaced even more.
• Responders chose to remove the roof in conjunction with the lift operation while other options included a clam maneuver, roof flap, partial roof removal, complete roof removal, rear tunnel and passenger side tunnel. All were viable options and allowed for productive conversation about the steps to accomplish each tactic.
• Command functions, such as continued risk vs. gain analysis, hazard area identification, accountability, situational awareness, etc., were important to ensure the safety of the victim and the responders during the operation. This concept led to the discussion and eventual movement of the primary vehicle. It was determined to be a viable option if the stability of the secondary vehicle was in question. The decision was made to stabilize the patient in the seat, maintain cervical spine control and move the primary vehicle in order to complete typical extrication tactics.

In Sum
Scenario-based training puts the student in a situation, exposes them to challenges and asks them to apply knowledge and practice skills relevant to the situation. It also fosters collaboration and teamwork among students. Many times these scenarios draw criticism like, “That would never happen” or “Why would you even do that?” Responders should always have the mindset that anything can happen and usually does when you are least prepared. Although you can never be prepared for everything, scenario-based extrication training helps bridge the gap between training and the real world.

Les Baker, a 12-year veteran of the fire service, is an assistant engineer with the City of Charleston (S.C.) Fire Department and a volunteer with the Darlington County (S.C.) Fire District. He has an associate’s degree in fire science from Pikes Peak Community College. Baker is an adjunct instructor with the South Carolina Fire Academy, a member of the Darlington County Extrication Team and a co-contributor to www.navra.net.

Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE