At a building collapse or other heavy-rescue incident, having a way to monitor the ongoing effectiveness and safety of rescue teams is potentially crucial to how well the incident is resolved.

When we adopt the Incident Command System at a structural collapse incident, we have a procedure that maintains operational, planning, logistic and, in some models, financial control of heavy rescue/urban search and rescue teams.

This system, however, does not provide a means of helping a rescue commander establish an effective layout plan for the rescue teams and other resources at the incident scene. It was to address this need that the Scene of Operations Command Organization methodology was designed in 1992. The soco system, which establishes a standardized format for teams working within specified sectors, has subsequently been adopted by many urban search and rescue agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Ongoing evaluating This system, initially designed only to maintain a disciplined approach at the "sharp end," has until recently not included a means of dynamically evaluating a team's performance throughout their task. To fill this need, an additional guidance criterion has been produced within the soco system to allow clear evaluation of teams during rescue operations (or during training).

This should definitely not, however, be misinterpreted as a simple "time-and-motion" approach. If the health, safety, efficiency and effectiveness of usar teams are to be maintained and improved, the importance of evaluation periods during an incident cannot be overstressed.

Each specific soco usar evaluation is independently numbered and based on how teams are monitored and how their performance can be flexibly altered to maintain effective progress. These specifically address the seven key functional areas:

1) Appropriateness and effectiveness of tactics.

2) Assessment and application of equipment.

3) Appropriateness of equipment servicing schedules.

4) Appropriateness of hazard awareness communications.

5) Assessment of health, safety and welfare needs.

6) Assessment of psychological depreciation effects.

7) Assessment of physical fatigue effects.

One would be correct in arguing that a team's performance should, as a matter of course, always be monitored during any incident. The officer in charge of a team should be constantly vigilant to the team members' actions and needs, but in many cases this doesn't happen within a recognized usar evaluation methodology.

Although soco is primarily designed for heavy rescue/usar, it can also be adopted for other types of incidents where rescue teams are working under similar protracted circumstances. Examples might include train derailments or multiple-vehicle accidents.

The steps of SOCO To begin understanding the benefit of evaluations, let's take a hypothetical scenario: A building has collapsed, trapping an unknown number of victims in a typical "pancake" formation.

The site has been sectorized into four areas numbered 1 through 4, and four usar teams have been tasked with search and rescue operations, one for each designated sector. For the purpose of this example, we'll call them Teams a, b, c and d.

To initiate the soco Evaluation System, the sector commanders are required, among their other observing duties, to specifically evaluate key areas within the prescribed criteria. Once an evaluation has been conducted, various changes (if necessary) can be made to the tactics being employed.

No evaluation should be conducted in isolation. So that a benchmark of progress can then be established, each sector commander should compare notes with each other. A good example of this is where teams have all been equally tasked with tunneling into the center core of the collapse. Assume that:

* Team a has achieved a tunnel into the core of 4 meters,

* Team b has achieved 5 meters,

* Team c has achieved 2.5 meters and

* Team d has achieved 8 meters.

This tactical evaluation will not only highlight the most successful team's tunnel penetration, but will also allow sector commanders to consider amending their teams, equipment and tactics if they're falling behind for no apparent physical reason.

Physical and psychological evaluations might reveal that Team d has extricated two live victims from the collapse, and therefore morale is exceptionally high. On the other hand, Team c may have recovered four fatalities and is possibly showing symptoms of critical incident stress disorder, causing their performance to lag the other teams'.

An evaluation of equipment servicing schedules can highlight the time being taken to service and the methods being used to return and exchange the equipment within the workings.

Effective servicing procedures can rapidly improve efficiency, teamwork and morale. A good analogy is when a surgeon asks for a scalpel and the nurse quickly places it into his hand, without the surgeon removing his eyes from the patient. The exchange of rescue equipment should be done in a similarly clean and concise manner. Evaluation during incidents of service schedules again allows for the best practices to become the incident's benchmark.

Effective evaluation of equipment being used in the rescue operation will identify the most efficient gear being employed. An example is the evaluation of "first-strike" shoring systems. Team leaders can evaluate the safety and speed of assembling first-strike pneumatic shoring operations in comparison with teams using traditional timber shoring methods. Another example is where different types of cutting equipment are being used to cut rebar in confined spaces.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the different types of shoring and cutting equipment can also provide the opportunity to assess the physical fatigue that operating the equipment places on the rescuers.

Evaluation of hazard awareness communication occurs when teams encounter and identify hazards during operations. It's imperative that any information about hazards be rapidly provided to the other teams and team members working at the collapse site.

Let's say that a team identifies a source of asbestos within the collapse site. The warning information to other teams should be recorded for clarity, time taken, accuracy and usefulness. Evaluating the communication method and the quality of information communicated could highlight some type of deficiency in the communication itself. It might also point out a gap in the team's technical knowledge, such as an inability to quickly identify which of the three most common types of asbestos they've encountered:

* chrysotile (white asbestos, un 2590 eac 2x),

* crocidolite (blue asbestos, un 2212 eac 2x) or

* amosite (brown asbestos, un 2212 eac 2x).

The evaluation of health, safety and welfare needs takes on not only what form(s) of risk assessment are being used, but equally what methods are being used to provide a safe working environment for the teams. A strategy to make a "safer environment" is perhaps one of the most dangerous to undertake, if it's not correctly applied.

This evaluation may highlight certain generic risks that have not been properly accounted for, such as when only one team has formed a strategy to evacuate the site in a safe, methodical manner if circumstances warrant. Remember, if time for evacuation is deemed short, the maneuver of rushing teams can itself trigger a secondary collapse somewhere else in the site. It's therefore important that if the factors required to secure a safe emergency withdrawal are assessed for one team, they should also be evaluated for their potential effects on the other working teams.

In many cases this risk assessment may involve removing or demolishing specific parts of the remaining structure so that a safe egress and workplace can be ensured. Any safe demolition strategy decided on should therefore not be conducted in isolation.

soco evaluations are a tool that can be used to great benefit, if the usar team and its officers are familiar with how they work and understand the advantages of using them.

As usar teams prepare to face the new disaster challenges of the 21st century, naturally they will be keen to develop their core manual-dexterity skills. It's equally vital, however, that they develop their management skills. Developing evaluation systems ensures that both can improve in harmony.