In a perfect PPE world, your department does everything right: The decision-makers continuously perform all due diligence. They conduct deliberate, considered and ongoing risk assessments. Before writing a well-crafted and comprehensive set of purchase specifications, they’ve completed a fair, inclusive, thorough and transparent three-phase evaluation of available PPE manufacturer choices. The department has even been able to secure approval and sufficient funding to purchase the chosen manufacturer’s top-of-the-line gear.
By doing all of these things, and more, they’ve been able to identify, specify and purchase the “perfect” set of PPE for each member of your department.
Unfortunately, even in that utopian world, the perfect PPE ensemble cannot always prevent line-of-duty injuries and fatalities.
With regard to PPE, it’s essential that the decision-makers in your department recognize that the department’s actions in the wake of a firefighter injury or death are also crucial to the ongoing PPE evaluation, selection and modification processes, and thus to ensuring and improving firefighter safety. By initiating automatic, immediate and appropriate post-injury activities and implementing clearly defined post-injury standard operating procedures, departments will greatly reduce the frequency and/or severity of similar future incidents.
Conversely, failure to take appropriate and standardized actions will likely ensure the recurrence of similar events. The often-repeated truism that the failure to learn from our history dooms us to repeat our mistakes is no less true for the fire service. And while there may be other reasons to secure and evaluate PPE that was worn when a member sustained injury, no other consideration should assume preeminence over the quest to ensure firefighter safety.
PPE Can’t Always Prevent Injury
As they relate to PPE, the after-action analyses of line-of-duty injuries will generally identify one or more of three elemental causal or contributing factors:
1. Engineering/Design:
- Did the involved gear break down in some way?
- Is improvement needed in the design and/or specification?
- Are there any defects or deficiencies?
- Are there any “windows of vulnerability” inherent in the design of the gear?
2. Education/Training:
- Are the members being thoroughly and continuously trained in the proper wearing of the PPE ensemble?
- Are they being fully educated regarding the operational and performance limitations of their protective gear?
- Are they being trained to understand and appreciate the reasons and rationales for wearing incident-appropriate PPE?
3. Enforcement/Compliance:
- Are the department’s policies regarding the wearing of PPE standardized and clearly delineated?
- Are all members fully aware of these policies?
- Are members wearing the designated and appropriate PPE due to enlightened compliance with these standard operating procedures and guidelines (SOPs/SOGs)?
-
If not, are these SOPs/SOGs being properly enforced?
It should be readily apparent that examination of the involved PPE element(s) is a critical component of any valid post-injury analysis. A thorough and comprehensive evaluation is essential to determining what role, if any, the above three factors played in the incident. Only after making those determinations will the department be able to craft appropriate, pertinent and effective remedial measures as they relate to the PPE itself, PPE training and the enforcement of PPE policies.
Example: I witnessed one department invest considerable time, effort and money in researching and purchasing “improved” protective hoods (engineering/design) in response to a head burn sustained by one of its members. A belated analysis of the involved PPE and subsequent interviews of involved and witnessing personnel established that the injured firefighter was not even wearing his assigned hood at the time of the injury (enforcement/compliance).
Obviously the design of the hood was not the culprit in this particular incident and rather than replacing gear, a more effective approach would have involved enforcement efforts and compliance training. Ironically, the post-incident investigation was triggered only by the filing of a lawsuit by the injured firefighter against several parties, including the hood manufacturer.
Take Control
Given today’s litigious environment, it should come as no surprise that the PPE worn by a firefighter injured in the line of duty could become the subject of future litigation related to the injury. Indeed, this potential for litigation constitutes another compelling reason for departments to automatically secure PPE following the event. The potential for future civil litigation, however, should NEVER be misconstrued as the primary purpose for the department to assume immediate custody of the involved PPE element(s).
Not surprisingly, many civil attorneys (and others with related agendas) will insist that every time a firefighter is injured, it’s the respective fire department’s responsibility to not only secure the involved PPE, but also to preserve it “in the condition in which it was found immediately after the incident.” Clearly there is some merit to considering this preference, particularly when the department has been notified of existing/pending civil litigation, when there’s a reasonable expectation of such litigation and/or when there’s suspicion/evidence of relevant criminal activity.
For many compelling reasons, however, preserving PPE in this manner cannot, and should not, be interpreted as a universal mandate. Many other attorneys with whom I have discussed this issue share my divergent opinion that the mere possibility of civil litigation does not obligate a fire department to assume custody of the involved PPE, let alone to maintain and preserve the gear as found immediately after the incident. Depending upon the statute of limitations in your jurisdiction, it could be 2 years (as it is in my home state, Pennsylvania) or more before a civil suit is even filed.
I don’t mean, however, to diminish the importance and value of the department assuming immediate control of the injured member’s PPE as part of a comprehensive after-action analysis and evaluation of the involved gear. On the contrary, that’s just the point. The overriding purpose of taking immediate post-incident custody of the involved PPE must be to evaluate that gear with an eye toward improving firefighter safety by identifying any relevant breakdowns, defects, deficiencies or weaknesses, and identifying needed improvements, modifications and/or specification changes.
Any general mandate requiring that the protective gear be preserved as found will most often preempt its thorough examination and evaluation. Why? More often than not, even the most thorough visual inspection of an injured firefighter’s PPE will reveal no apparent damage and/or evidence of any breakdown or failure pertinent to the sustained injury. In such cases, a comprehensive advanced inspection, preferably by a third-party independent service provider (ISP), will be the only way to determine whether the PPE in any way contributed to the injury, and if so, to what degree. But ISPs certified to NFPA 1851: Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensembles will not perform an advanced inspection of the involved PPE element(s) until they have initially cleaned the gear–meaning that the PPE is no longer “preserved as found.” This is a necessary safety precaution that’s in place to protect the ISP’s employees from daily exposure to the likely presence of unknown and accumulated contaminants.
Returning PPE to Action
In many cases, even the most meticulous, advanced inspection and evaluation will fail to discern “anything wrong” with the gear. This presents a real dilemma for most departments. Of course, the civil attorneys and “expert witnesses” who make lucrative livings from PPE product liability suits will insist that the department must still maintain custody of the gear as potential “evidence.” On the other hand, it’s difficult to support the “retirement” of demonstrably serviceable PPE element(s) simply because of the mere possibility of future civil litigation, no matter how remote that possibility might be.
Keep in mind that this only refers to gear that has been subjected to rigorous post-incident analyses. It refers to PPE elements that have been in secure custody since immediately after the line-of-duty injury, completely and independently inspected, comprehensively tested and evaluated, carefully and knowledgably examined, and thoroughly photographed and otherwise documented. Finally, it only refers to those elements that remain in full compliance with all relevant NFPA standards.
Firefighter PPE is undeniably expensive. Given the continuous economic pressures that confront the fire service today, the removal of verifiably serviceable PPE from active service, if only to simplify the lives of civil attorneys and expert witnesses, is hardly justifiable. Securing, storing, managing and replacing unnecessarily retired PPE can become a very costly proposition, particularly for large departments experiencing significant numbers of line-of-duty injuries.
There should be no misunderstanding regarding this issue. If there is any evidence, any suspicion, any indication or any doubt regarding the possible contributory role of any PPE element(s) in a line-of-duty injury, it’s imperative that it be removed from service and properly secured and maintained in documented custody in order to ensure firefighter safety and to protect related compensatory rights. But it’s difficult to recommend doing so when the gear has been subjected to a documented and comprehensive evaluative process and still satisfies all reasonable criteria of serviceability.
Safety Is the Bottom Line
The arguments supporting the necessity of conducting a comprehensive after-action analysis and evaluation of all PPE elements relevant to a line-of-duty injury or death are cogent and compelling. Simply put, such analyses have proven invaluable to the pursuit of firefighter safety as it relates to their protective gear. It’s therefore imperative that every department establish a clearly delineated standard approach to the post-incident acquisition, securing, handling, storage, custody, inspection, evaluation, documentation and corrective action for involved PPE elements.
The Post-Injury Plan
The most effective post-injury preparations and responses will include:
- Promulgation of a written SOP with which all department members are familiar;
- Clearly delineated triggering thresholds with defined “response levels” related to incident severity;
- Procedures for automatic and immediate implementation;
- Procedures for automatic notification of designated personnel;
- A duty-specific action plan with defined responsibilities for designated personnel;
- A set of pre-established standard forms and methodologies for documentation and record maintenance;
- A defined procedure for the internally conducted inspection, evaluation, photographic, etc., processes;
- A designated storage area for maintaining secure custody with limited/controlled access;
- In the case of a line-of-duty death, provisions to have involved SCBA tested and evaluated by NIOSH; and
-
Provisions for the department to require reimbursement from civil attorneys whenever PPE is removed from service at their request and provided as evidence in civil litigation.
