Emergency DrillsA Problem with Effectiveness

John Gloede

Amanda Voelzke

Moraine Park Technical College

ContentsIntroduction.....................................................................................................3Problem Statement..........................................................................................5Goals................................................................................................................6Possible Causes.............................................................................................12Evaluation Outcome for Drills........................................................................13

Positive versus Negative Drill Outcomes....................................................14Issues with Emergency Drills......................................................................15

Random Safety Drill Questionnaire................................................................17Questionnaire Responses...........................................................................18

Root Cause Identification...............................................................................19Rationale for Root Cause Identification......................................................20

Needs and Wants Matrix for Solutions...........................................................22Recommended Solution Plan.........................................................................23

Rationale for Step by Step Solution............................................................23Technical Issues Solution............................................................................23Preparation Issues Solution........................................................................23Participation Issues Solution.......................................................................24Issue of Evaluation Inaccuracies.................................................................24Conclusion of Solution................................................................................24

Implementation Activities and Timeline........................................................26Work Cited.....................................................................................................27

2

IntroductionExecuting drills is mandatory for public entities. Moraine Park Technical College participates in several different drills each year. There are emergency procedures in place for Medical, Fire/Evacuation, Severe Weather/Tornados, Lockdown, Code ADAM, Violence/Bomb Threat, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities/Natural Gas. For the purpose of this project, and based on the data we’ve acquired, we will focus on Fire/Evacuation, Severe Weather/Tornados, Lockdown, and Code ADAM.

3

Step 1: Develop Problem Statement

4

Problem StatementThe ideal situation is to have all students, faculty, other instructional and non-instructional individuals, and guests participate freely and willingly in emergency response drills.

There appears to be a lack of willing participation with the simulation of emergency response drills by all levels of occupants at Moraine Park Technical College.

It has been noted that occupants hide, disregard correct drill procedures, or find other ways to avoid drills (ex: faculty going to their office, students hiding in bathrooms during fire drills, etc.).

Although it may initially affect a particular group of people, it will in turn affect the community on a broad spectrum.

Consequences of this problem include people not being prepared for actual events, which could result in injury or loss of life. There may be a loss of physical or mental ability, which could affect employment and quality of life. Lawsuits may occur due to inadequate training and response.

Research will be conducted to see what students and staff know about emergency response and their attitude towards drill procedures.

5

Goals

6

Emergency Drill ProceduresAccording to MPTC’s Emergency Procedures pamphlet, there are steps to follow should an emergency occur. These steps are also followed during drills. Described below are the procedures for Tornado, Fire/Evacuation, Lockdown, and Code ADAM. Flowcharts were created for each one to analyze the steps for each emergency.

STEP 2: Analyze Possible Causes and Select Root Cause

7

Ye

No

Possible CausesAfter reviewing the completed evaluations from previous emergency drills at all three Moraine Park Technical College campuses, we listed possible reasons why the drills were not 100 percent successful. Using an affinity chart, we grouped issues into four categories: Technical, Preparation, Participation, and Enforcement.

8

Evaluation Outcome for DrillsEvaluations of previous emergency drills were analyzed so the results could be turned into quantifiable data. For each occurrence a tally was marked based on the issue. The issues included technical, preparation, participation. If the evaluation said there was a positive outcome, it is reflected in the data. If the comments in the evaluation were confusing or inconsistent, it was noted as inconclusive data.

MPTC Safety Drill IssuesTotal of ALL Drills

 Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend Total Occurrences per

Issue

Technical 13 21 8 42

Preparation 9 27 13 49

Participation 10 35 25 70

Positive Outcome 4 6 13 23

Inconclusive Data 7 22 10 39

Total Occurrences per Campus

43 111 69 223

9

Positive versus Negative Drill Outcomes

The table below shows the number of positive outcomes versus negative outcomes as well as inconclusive data. Negative outcomes consist of technical, preparation, and participation issues.

MPTC Evaluation Outcomes for DrillsDrill Outcome Per Campus

  Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend

Negative Outcome 13 83 36

Positive Outcome 4 6 13

Inconclusive Data 7 22 10

The pie charts below reflect the Evaluation Outcomes for Drills table. Its purpose is to compare the positive outcome, negative outcome, and inconclusive data. Based on the charts, there are a high percentage of negative outcomes for emergency drills at each campus. Looking at the first pie chart for all campuses, the positive outcome is only 10 percent. The negative outcome is 72 percent. This would indicate a substantial problem.

72%10%

17%

All CampusesNegative OutcomePositive OutcomeInconclusive Data

54%17%

29%

Beaver DamNegative OutcomePositive OutcomeInconclusive Data

10

75%

5%

20%

Fond du LacNegative OutcomePositive OutcomeInconclusive Data 61%22%

17%

West BendNegative OutcomePositive OutcomeInconclusive Data

Issues with Emergency Drills

Based on the previous pie charts, there appears to be a high level of issues that arise causing the drills to be inefficiently executed. The table below describes the different categories of issues. These issues are technical, preparation, and participation.

Issue Categories Definitions

Technical There was a malfunction with the technology (ex: the speakers or the alarm)

Preparation

The procedures were not followed correctly or fully because participants didn’t know the exact procedure

Participation Occupants refuse to participate in the drill

The bar chart breaks down the issues for each campus. The numbers represent the number of occurrences of each type of issue. Fond du Lac and West Bend campuses highest occurrence of an issue is a lack of participation. Beaver Dam campus highest occurrence of an issue is technical.

11

Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Issues with Drills at Each Campus

Technical PreparationParticipation

12

When the data is totaled for all campuses, we can see that overall participation problems make up the largest percentage of issues with drill efficiency. This would suggest, if we concentrated on fixing the issue with most occurrences, that our focus for Moraine Park as a whole would be to fix the problem of participation.

Technical Preparation Participation

42

49

70Issues for All Campuses

13

Random Safety Drill QuestionnaireTo better understand how much MPTC students and staff know about emergency drill procedures, a safety drill questionnaire was given to a select group of people from all three campuses. The table below shows the results of the questionnaire. The numbers in the chart reflect the number of students. A total of 221 individuals including students and staff were surveyed.

MPTC Random Safety Drill Questionnaire

Outcomes Per Campus

 Beaver Dam Fond du Lac West Bend Total MPTC

Campuses

Correct Response 19 21 31 71

Incorrect Response 42 19 69 130

Did Not Know 3 2 7 12

Did Not Answer 0 0 2 2

Did Not Take Seriously 1 0 5 6

14

Questionnaire Responses

The bar chart below shows how many people responded correctly, incorrectly, said they didn’t know the answer, didn’t answer the question, or if they put down an answer that was insincere because they did not take the question seriously.

Corre

ct Resp

onse

Incorr

ect Resp

onse

Did Not

Know

Did Not

Answer

Did Not

Take

Seriou

sly0

20406080

100120140

71

130

12 2 6

Random Questionnaire Responses

The following pie charts illustrate the answers given by individuals on each campus.

15

29%

65%

5%2%

Beaver Dam

Correct ResponseIncorrect ResponseDid Not KnowDid Not AnswerDid Not Take Seriously

50%45%

5%

Fond du Lac

Correct ResponseIncorrect ResponseDid Not KnowDid Not AnswerDid Not Take Seriously

27%

61%

6%

2% 4%

West Bend

Correct ResponseIncorrect ResponseDid Not KnowDid Not AnswerDid Not Take Seriously

16

Root Cause Identification

17

Rationale for Root Cause Identification

Using the 5 Whys approach, our finding is that individuals on campus are not aware of how people respond in a real crisis situation or they may feel overconfident in their ability to respond in a real emergency situation. This tool was used because finding the answer to why a lack of participation is happening on all three campuses is has to do more with the psychological reasoning rather than a physical ability. The reason why faculty and staff don’t want to participate may be different for different individuals but our reasoning is that if people felt the threat of an emergency was real and they needed to be prepared, any other factors that would discourage participation would be inconsequential. Individuals would want to participate so they could be prepared.

18

STEP 3: Identify Possible Solutions

19

Needs and Wants Matrix for SolutionsIn order to come up with reasonable solutions to the problem of emergency drill efficiency, we created a list of needs and wants which could be obtain through a solution plan. The “needs” are criteria that must be followed, mostly due to compliancy laws or to consider the solution to be a success. The “wants” are criteria that would help the drills reach optimal efficiency but aren’t necessarily required to be considered a successful solution. Each criteria listed is to have a certain percentage completed by a certain time. For example, within one semester, participation needs to be at 70 percent; within two semesters, participation needs to be at 75 percent.

Needs and Wants for SolutionsSemester 1

Semester 2

NeedsParticipation 70% 75%Speaker Functionality 90% 100%Annual and Biannual Drills 100% 100%WantsParticipation 75% 100%Willingness of Participation 75% 100%Disciplinary Action (Students) 50% 75%Disciplinary Action (Faculty/Staff) 50% 75%

20

Recommended Solution Plan

Rationale for Step by Step Solution

According to our research, the problem with effectiveness of emergency drills is due to the lack of participation on Moraine Park campuses as a whole. In order to address this issue, we suggest creating a solution plan that follows steps in a particular order. By addressing technical issues, preparation issues, participation issues, and issues with evaluation inaccuracy, participation in emergency drills should increase.

Technical issues need to be addressed first because if the equipment is not working, we cannot expect participation to by high. It is considered a critical issue. Preparation needs to be addressed secondly, because if people do not know the procedure to follow, participation will suffer. Lastly, evaluation inaccuracy should be mended. We cannot accurately determine issues and fix them without proper documentation.

Technical Issues Solution

If a technical issue occurs during a drill, which should be documented in the drill evaluations, a procedure to fix the problem should be in place. Adhering to a time frame is also important. For example, if the overhead announcement could not be heard in a certain room, the speaker should be checked by a professional within a week. The speaker should be fixed within two weeks.

Preparation Issues Solution

On the first day of class, each instructor could be given a paper listing the emergency drill procedures they will read to the class. During this time, instructors will notify students of the exact nearest exit in case of a fire drill and the exact nearest tornado shelter in case of severe weather. They will tell the students the lockdown procedure. This way, instructors and students will have a plan of action in emergency situations as well as being prepared for drills later in the semester. The procedures will be reinforced since it will be repeated during each class’s first meeting.

21

Participation Issues Solution

By addressing the technical and preparation issues, participation should increase. However, we would suggest going a step further by looking at solutions to encourage participation. A poster campaign, with the help of the MPTC Graphics Club, could promote participation in emergency drills by showing statistics about real life emergencies so the campus body can see the importance of being prepared.

If a student refuses to participate in these mandatory drills, there should be consequences. The students name should be written down and reported to the dean of students.

Issue of Evaluation Inaccuracies

During our research we found that the evaluations of the drills filled out by Moraine Park appointed staff contained confusing comments. An evaluation would note that there were student who did not participate, but then the documentation noted that the drill went well. We suggest revising the questions on the evaluation so they are less vague and encourage specific answers. If there is an issue that is documented, there should be a system in place to address these issues in a timely manner.

Conclusion of Solution

In order to fix the problem of participation, we should be fixing the issues with technology and lack of knowledge of drill procedures. Evaluation inaccuracies should be minimized for effectiveness of documentation of emergency drills.

22

STEP 4: Implementation

23

Implementation Activities and TimelineA Gantt chart is used to schedule and monitor tasks. Each task is represented by a bar and has a start and end time. It’s a visual way of seeing the length of time expected to start and complete projects as well as see what tasks need to be worked on concurrently. This tool is being used to show the implementation timeline of activities associated with the Emergency Drill Effectiveness Plan. The two-year plan will begin in August 2013 with the technical issue procedure form and conclude with rewriting drill evaluation questions in August 2015. Completed tasks will be black while tasks yet to be completed are gray.

Augu

st

2013

Janu

ary 20

14M

ay

2014

Augu

st

2014

Janu

ary 20

15M

ay

2015

Augu

st

2015

Technical Technical Issue Procedure Form

Preparation

Write Emergency Drill Script for Instructors

Implement Emergency Drill Script for Instructors

Participation

Poster Campaign

Enforcement Procedure

Evaluations

Rewrite Drill Evaluations

Work CitedBrassard, M., Boisvert, L., and Bienkowski, J. (2011). The Problem Solving

Memory Jogger. Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.

MPTC Emergency Procedures Pamphlet (n.d.). Moraine Park Technical

College.

MPTC Drill Evaluations (2012). Moraine Park Technical College.

Random Safety Questionnaire (2013). Conducted by John Gloede at Moraine

Park Technical College.