When real-world risks and threats manifest, the importance of achieving tangible results cannot be overstated.
At SCOPE, we are currently in urgent discussions with staff and organizations facing critical issues, many of which pose substantial life-threatening risks. These situations can escalate dangerously if circumstances are unfavourable to those involved.
The evidence highlighting the emotional and psychological toll on staff during high-stress situations is undeniable. Traditional classroom and online training programs often fall short, increasing the risks in staff training. There is a lack of preparation for individuals until they face real-life challenges, and it is clear that recent incidents have underscored the existing gaps in our response strategies to emergencies and threats.
Exploring the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative measurements is essential to better comprehend these gaps. This exploration is crucial for identifying what must be assessed from a leadership perspective downwards.
Quantitative Measurements
Quantitative measurements include complex data and metrics typically associated with staff training and compliance. Questions such as: Did staff attend training? Did they pass their assessments? Did they obtain certification? What were their scores? —These are the types of numerical indicators used.
When hiring staff, these quantitative qualifications often serve as prerequisites, ensuring that basic compliance requirements are satisfied. However, ongoing evaluation is crucial. Beyond compliance deadlines, the actual effectiveness of the training should be revisited regularly, not just during scheduled reviews.
Qualitative Measurements
In contrast, qualitative measurements focus on the practical output of the education and training received. Skills cannot be developed until the necessary practice and processes are rigorously tested in real-world scenarios. A qualitative assessment evaluates performance outside of the theoretical training environment, emphasizing the need for practical application.
For instance, in a medical emergency, having a staff member who is capable of calling 911 is simply not sufficient. The evaluation must delve into the problem-solving methods and the specific opportunities or limitations.
Take, for example, a recent incident involving a frontline security guard who encountered an individual lying facedown outside a property. The guard promptly called 911 and maintained observation while waiting for help to arrive. However, when asked why the guard didn’t assess the individual’s Airway, Breathing, and Circulation (the ABCs of primary evaluation) or at least evaluate for shock and environmental factors, it became clear that they had not considered these critical factors. The guard had attended training, received certification, and passed all required classes, yet their training failed to inform their actions when faced with a real-life crisis.
What is a Training Gap?
A training gap represents the disparity between the quantitative requirements and the qualitative needs of staff. Identifying this gap is crucial, as it highlights its existence and measures its extent. Factors under consideration may include:
Team communication dynamics.
Environmental elements like personal safety or working alone.
Unfamiliarity with equipment and supplies.
Even confusion stems from conflicting policies.
Once the gaps are identified, it is urgent to discuss how to bridge these deficiencies and ensure that staff receive training designed to enhance their performance and response capabilities.
The Significance of Building Performance-Based Processes
Two prevalent methods to cultivate performance-based training include:
1. Tabletop Discussions: Facilitated as collaborative group sessions, these discussions can occur in person around a conference table or through virtual platforms that encourage collective participation. Leveraging online tools can enable simultaneous contributions or a sequential exploration of scenarios, fostering engagement and diverse insights.
2. Mock Scenarios: When conducting mock scenarios, it is vital to create realistic simulations that reflect actual workplace environments and authentic opportunities and constraints. For example, suppose a medical emergency requires dispatching an ambulance after hours while the main entrance is locked. In that case, these real-world limitations must be integrated into the decision-making process.
The Goal
The primary objective of establishing a performance-based training framework is to uncover critical fail points, akin to conducting a stress test. Rather than simply measuring what works, the focus should be on clearly identifying ineffective or underperforming areas. This could involve evaluating policy inconsistencies, equipment availability, anticipated staffing challenges, and additional factors.
Once fail points are identified, targeted training should be devised to address or mitigate these issues, followed by additional training sessions. It is essential to avoid back-to-back training events; instead, diversifying training topics quarterly will yield better outcomes. In future planning, it’s crucial to establish a timeline for ongoing re-evaluation, ensuring that progress is consistently monitored and leading to increased success, better performance, and enhanced staff confidence in high-stress situations.
Comments