Wilderness Risk Management Conference

Gold Nuggets from the2009 WRMC

                             Compiled and Edited by Steve Smith and Josh Cole

DURHAM, NC - The Wilderness Risk Management Conference is an annual gathering of outdoor professionals, aimed at sharing best practices and discussing current issues in risk management. The conference first convened in 1994 and is co-sponsored by Outward Bound, NOLS and the Student Conservation Association. After attending three days of presentations and pre-conference workshops, we have sifted out ten "take home" points for folks who weren't able to attend this year's conference. We've organized the key points into three categories: Legal, Administrative, and Medical.

LEGAL TOPICS:

1) Disclosure on federal land : When incidents take place on federal land (such as National Forest or National Parks), we are often asked to share details with our colleagues who work as Park/Forest administrators. It behooves us to do so to maintain good relationships and not endanger our Special Use Permits. However, there may be unforeseen risks associated with doing so. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), documents pertaining to incidents on public land may be accessible by reporters, lawyers, or the general public. At WRMC, there were some stories from programs who were surprised to see newspaper articles with direct quotations from their incident reports or internal reviews of an incident, acquired by reporters invoking their FOIA privileges. For more about FOIA, see www.state.gov/m/a/ips/.

2) Chain of Custody : When an incident takes place, it's easy to focus on the human beings involved and fail to preserve evidence such as gear that might have been involved in the incident. The example given at the conference was that of a camp-stove used by a student in a burn incident. To achieve the highest degree of legal protection and an opportunity to learn from the incident, don't just throw that stove back into the bin with the other stoves. Doing so eliminates possible legal defenses (such as a stove malfunction, and prevents learning from the evidence that the stove presents. A better practice is to isolate that stove, keep it in a secure place with limited access, and log who has access to it and when it is segregated from the other gear. This example applies generally to any gear or evidence collected post-incident: Best to separate, limit access, keep a log of pertinent info, and thereby preserve the chain of custody. For a basic definition of chain of custody, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody.

3) What triggers an obligation to report? When a serious incident takes place, usually you are going to get your insurance agents involved to sort out the next steps. But many insurance policies have an "obligation to report" that may be indicated for a wide range of incidents, and failing to do so may compromise your relationship or coverage by the policy. Do you know what triggers your "obligation to report" with your insurance provider?

ADMINISTRATIVE TOPICS:

4) Maintaining Student Confidentiality: In the case of an incident where we are using radios to convey information about students, it is often in our best interest to maintain the anonymity of the student(s). For example, we may be coordinating rescue efforts or medical response for a student, using a radio, before the student's family has been fully informed about the details of the incident. Since radios can be monitored by outside parties, a best practice to maintain confidentiality is to use numbered rosters, and use the student's number instead of their name when transmitting details over the radio. This avoids the potential for that information to be leaked to family or media sources prematurely. This field-tested strategy comes from Drew Leemon (Risk Management Director at NOLS).

5) Attribution Theory: Not cutting-edge material, but we were intrigued by this theory of group behavior as it relates to risk-taking. Under attribution theory, groups are more likely to tolerate more risk because the consequence of that choice is shared by the entire group rather than by individuals. For example, the entire group might decide to push on towards the summit despite an approaching storm, whereas any one of them individually might think better of it. This may be a useful concept to impart to your students so they can be aware of this effect before they undertake un-accompanied activities, or before any judgment and decision-making is delegated to the group rather than to the instructors in the field. Source: www.nols.edu/

6) Benefits of unaccompanied program components: Research into student solos and final expeditions by Andrew Bobilya, Ken Kalisch and Dave Sperry have added some quantitative data to reinforce our qualitative assessments: these program components have enormous benefit. These course components are consistently identified as the most significant by course participants. Most striking, final expeditions that are “accompanied” (e.g. with staff within sight and/or sound of students, but stepping back to impel group leadership) also produce significant positive impacts. It appears that tighter staff supervision of final expeditions has not significantly diluted their affect. http://www.montreat.edu/Academics/OutdoorEducation/AndrewBobilya/tabid/1058/Default.aspx

7) Training your staff to be risk managers : Liz Tuohy (Senior Risk Management Consultant from NOLS) presented a thought-provoking exercise around building field staff risk management. The nugget that struck me was her comment that “we should stop telling students not to step on the [climbing] rope”. Her point was that program managers need to differentiate between risks that have the ability to kill or seriously injure and those that do not. At any climbing site, your instructors have likely asked their students not to step on the rope 100 times! Within that context, an instruction such as, “keep your hand on the brake line” is likely to be lost in the fray. When it comes down to it, the brake hand is infinitely more important than stepping on the rope. This situation is an analogy that reminds us to prioritize our risk management mechanisms.

MEDICAL TOPICS: 

8) The Epinephrine Conundrum : It is a criminal violation in most states for a doctor to prescribe drugs to an organization or a patient that s/he has not seen. Additionally, it is illegal for a pharmacist to dispense a prescription to recreation providers. Most important, it is illegal for an instructor to administer epinephrine to a patient. In our industry, we often refer to epinephrine use as the “industry standard”, from a legal perspective, there is no such thing as an “industry standard” that is in violation of the law. It is critical that your organization’s board, medical adviser and staff are aware of their liabilities, if your program allows epinephrine administration. There are groups that are advocating that lay people be allowed to administer epinephrine: the AMA, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, among others. See http://www.wildmed.com/blog/category/ask-dr-johnson/ for WMA’s take on the issue (please scroll to the bottom)

9) H1N1 flu is significantly more virulent in young people. H1NI (swine flu) has killed 60 children in the US since April. It seems a wise idea to include a mask (n-95 style) in your institutional first aid kits to be worn by any student exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Proper hygiene, including frequent aggressive hand washing, is the best defense against H1N1. 2 types of vaccines are becoming available: nasal spray (a live attenuated virus), and injection (a dead virus, just like the normal seasonal flu vaccine). The nasal spray is only for those under 40 years of age that will not become pregnant. More info at http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1FLU/

10) Staph infections continue to become more common on wilderness trips, and ~30% of our population are asymptomatic carriers of staph. Staphylococcus Aureus and community-aquired MRSA (methicillin-resistant staph), typically present as skin infections, and can be treated with draining and antibiotics. Although MRSA is resistant to some antibiotics, it can be treated with others, such as Bactrim. The critical step with a suspected staph infection is to have the infection cultured by a doctor, so the correct antibiotic can be prescribed. Much like H1N1, staph can be avoided with proper hygiene. More info at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_MRSA_ca_public.html

If you have any questions, comments, or feedback about these "gold nuggets," contact Steve Smith at steve@experientialconsulting.com.

For more information about the WRMC, please see the conference website at www.nols.edu/wrmc/ and start making your plans now to attend the 2010 conference in Colorado Springs, CO.

We hope to see you there!
________________________________________________________________________________

Joshua Cole is Program Director for Outward Bound in Washington. The Washington Program operates in some of the most technical terrain in the US, and runs sea kayaking, mountaineering, backpacking and canoeing courses in the San Juan Islands and North Cascades. Josh has been a field instructor, course director and trainer for Outward Bound. In addition, Josh has an MSc in geological sciences, and a deep appreciation for high-grade metamorphic rocks. Steve and Josh worked together in the field this past May to deliver an Outward Bound Lead Instructor Training in the North Cascades. For more about Outward Bound, see outwardbound.org

Phone Consultations

Experiential Consulting now offering phone consultations

Since opening my business, I’ve responded to client phone calls on a range of topics, including:

• Challenging human resources issues
• Safety policies and procedures
• Board member needs
• Hiring & applicant screening
• Staff training
• Employee Handbooks
• Organizational structure
• Employee recognition programs

After a year of pro bono phone meetings, the time has come to charge for the research and expertise that goes into these phone consultations.  By offering phone consultations, I can serve clients in a flexible, timely way as their needs arise. 

                                               RATES FOR PHONE CONSULTATIONS

                                               30 minutes or less: $50
                                               31-60 minutes: $90
                                               61-90 minutes: $125

These rates include the actual phone calls as well as any time spent researching, consulting with colleagues, writing recommendations, emailing, or otherwise working to answer your questions. 

If you have any suggestions, questions, or comments about this new service - or if you'd like to schedule a phone consultation - please call or email me with the details. 

I can be reached at (206) 619-4664.

I look forward to hearing the phone ring, and hearing about how I can help you. 

"There is No Teaching, There is Only Learning."

Effective Debriefing, a Cornerstone of Risk Management

By Patrick Feeney

          "It is said that a smart person learns from experience; a wise person
          learns from the experience of others."

                                        - Cpt. Sully Sullenberger, pilot of US Airways Flight # 1549 which                                               safely landed in the Hudson River, January, 2009

It’s the end of your course and you are debriefing before heading off for a few days of break between courses. You and your traveling partners still have reports to write and gear to turn in before departing and time is getting short. There is an urgency to get through the debrief so everyone can get going!

The facilitator of the debrief begins, but soon the discussion becomes a pro forma ritual of running through a list of topics and checking them off. Minor suggestions and comments may be added, but not much substantive discussion takes place. The forms are filled out, turned in and instructors depart. The same thing occurs at the end of the season, but with perhaps more urgency as instructors depart for winter positions and in some cases will not be returning. Sound familiar?

This scenario is influenced and reinforced by a number of factors:

Short on time...

As described above, when the students are gone and staff are anxious to move on, there may be a limited commitment to address issues that arose during the course.

It’s just easier...

It takes skill and sensitivity to discuss issues that may reflect poor performance on someone’s part. It is much easier to just let it slide.

An assumption that it’s not likely to happen again...

It may feel more supportive to assume that poor performance was a one time event and whoever is responsible will self correct. Or that an instructor may never have to work with that person again, so it just doesn’t matter enough to raise an issue.

No provision to pay for the instructors’ time dedicated to a full debrief...

Few organizations seem to set aside enough time for even a half day of debriefing. Minimal contract periods create a built in disincentive to fully explore issues. No one can be expected to stay on beyond the time for which they are paid.

Fear of offending someone...

Criticism is hard to deliver. This is a skill that may require some training, coaching and the creation of an accepting environment where sharing can be done with confidentiality and respect. The organizational culture may be such to discourage straight and clear feedback.

Fear of sharing one’s own errors...

Admitting one’s own shortcomings on the job may be too risky. Not only can it be embarrassing, but there may be possible consequences that encourage an employee not to risk that level of honesty. Again, the organizational culture may be such to discourage self-disclosure.

Potential liability...

In outdoor education, “safety management” refers to systems and procedures designed to guide employees in operating in the safest possible way for the welfare of students in their care. Some organizations use the term “risk management” and in addition to the above are referring to systems and procedures to reduce risk to the organization and to protect it from lawsuits. They may have policies to severely limit discussion of any event that might possibly lead to a lawsuit.

While many of these factors may be present in the context of debriefing a course, the debrief is perhaps the best learning opportunity for instructors working in the field. The end of a course is the opportunity to reflect upon and to clarify the meaning of events that have occurred on course. With that experience fresh in mind, instructors may gain much more insight about their instructional skills by engaging in a thorough discussion with their peers and immediate supervisors.

Here are some things to consider in developing an effective debriefing process:

• The organization must recognize the value of a thorough course debriefing by supporting it through the provision of adequate paid time to complete the process.
• The debrief should include all personnel involved in the delivery of the course. Instructors should be in attendance throughout the session, while those who have limited roles in the course need only be there when their role is covered, or when it is useful or educational for them to be there.
• An agreement needs to be established that all discussions are to be considered confidential to encourage openness and honesty in addressing difficult issues. This is challenging and will require a careful approach. Some things cannot be kept confidential. So if for example, an employee has violated the law, the supervisor present will be duty bound to take appropriate action. Similarly, the supervisor must respond if an employee has acted with flagrant disregard for the organization’s policies. An acceptable approach is to frame the debrief as a confidential session with clarity as to exceptions when the information is of such a nature that the organization would be considered complicit in illegal, negligent or unethical acts if it did not respond.
• In the debriefing process, each person should be given an opportunity to speak on each topic. They may take a pass if they have no comment, but this format allows for all to be engaged and encourages sharing of thoughts and experiences that might otherwise slip by. As always, the speaker should speak from their perspective, using “I” statements and not engaging in conjecture or projection.
• Each aspect of the course should be covered from pre-course preparation through the course end ceremony and departure of the students. Develop a list that includes every stage of the course so none is overlooked. Easiest to cover are topics that are fairly self evident in their success or lack thereof. i.e. Was there enough food? Was the equipment adequate and in good repair? Was the itinerary and the chosen travel route appropriate for the students’ skills and abilities? Were the students appropriate for the course type, and were they appropriately educated about what to expect from the course?
• More difficult are topics that deal with the flow of the course and the relationships among participants. Was the course introduction effective? Did strong, positive relationships develop among the students? Why or why not, and what might have worked even better? Could the course have been more effective if activities had better met the different physical capacities of the students? Could there have been a more effective intervention with a student exhibiting behavioral problems? What would that look like? Were the students pushed too hard or not hard enough? What worked best in the course and what didn’t work so well?

From this information comes the direction for future staff trainings. Enhance the areas of strengths through trainings and discussions; mitigate the areas of weakness by finding the resources to help staff deal with those areas. Over time develop a feedback loop of utilizing knowledge gained in the debriefs to improve each subsequent course. Pull new, helpful information from the debrief and provide it immediately for the next course orientation. Don’t put it on the shelf to wait for the next season. This process will instill in the staff the ethic that the goal of each course is to learn, improve and to share that learning with others. Mistakes are as valuable as successes and are not to be hidden or glossed over.

Achieving this however, requires a high sense of staff safety in the debriefing process. The goal must be about learning to be a more effective employee and learning to improve the delivery of courses in the field. Open discussion requires trust and clarity that the process is about learning and not about finding fault. This may require a shift in the organizational culture, and it will lead to the formation of a staff hungry and willing to be open, vulnerable, direct, and honest both in their pursuit of learning, and in their commitment to provide the best possible work performance.

[Editor's Note: For more about shifting organizational culture, see the following interview with Darcy Ottey]

_________________________________________________________________________________

Patrick Feeney spent fifteen years at Outward Bound developing from a field instructor to an associate school director. He established, and for five years directed, a wilderness program for court-adjudicated youth. Over the years he has conducted staff trainings and course debriefs, developed new program models, performed studies and consulted on program innovations, and has served on numerous safety reviews. For the past six years, he has enjoyed guiding clients in the Dolomites of Italy.

Creating Culture

Creating Culture & Fostering Better Risk Management Practices

 An Interview with Darcy Ottey

        Photo Credit:  David Moskowitz

Darcy Ottey is in her fourth year as the Executive Director of Rite of Passage Journeys, a Washington-based non-profit founded in 1968. Experiential Consulting and Journeys have worked together the past few years to implement cultural change within their organization, resulting in better risk management practices.

What was the culture like at your program before you became ED, with regards to risk management? Journeys was personality-dependent, not a whole lot of guidance or organizational support for decision making, evaluation of risk and hazards. What we had was a reliance on oral history, which wasn’t necessarily translated in the way that Stan (the former director) would have wanted it to be. People were basically doing the best they could with very little guidance. Some staff had backgrounds and policies from other programs which may or may not have been what Journeys wanted, while others had none, so there was no consistency or formal training or understanding of risk management. It was very dependent on the individual personalities of who was working a particular program.

What were pieces of Journeys’ culture that you wanted to preserve? Sense of freedom, opportunity to bring mentors’ unique gifts into programs, using a full range of talents of staff….sense of being in a community vs. a business…. When folks come to work here, they’re joining a community rather than taking a job. This part was supported by the fact that they’re not here for the money, rather, for the mission. That’s an important part.

How is Journeys a community and not a job? People come here for 1 of 2 things: Personal growth, and community service. Working here is an opportunity for them to learn our curriculum, go through our pathways of development (based on Bill Plotkin’s models) and use a mentor to progress to the next level. We also have all our employees do Individual Development Plans (IDPs) and integrate that into their work life to foster personal as well as professional development. The other reason they come is because we see this work as SERVICE and while we want compensation to be adequate, but there’s still so much personal sacrifice, and the work is so important to the health of our communities and our planet, that it behooves people to see it as SERVICE.

How did you balance preserving your program’s cultural heritage while moving it towards what you wanted it to be? Being really intentional…the theme of year one (my first year as ED) was preserving legacy. The very first staff meeting that first year was a large turnout of new staff, and I had folks silently walk around the yurt at our basecamp to see the history written on those walls ,and to see that what they were joining had been there for 40 years. We told old stories about the early days of the ICA (our founding non-profit, from which we separated in 2006) and where Journeys came from, stories that even I had not heard before. The program’s legacy has actually become MORE clear and intentionally present than it was in the past, which gives a sense of how our current work ties into that of the participants who took the program 40 years ago and whose kids are now going on the program.

I also strove to get everything out on the table. I am open to feedback and insist that everyone at all levels need to be open and receptive to feedback, as it gives everyone a chance to make suggestions if they see changes they do or don’t like. I have included everyone as I implement new policies, procedures, etc. and ask people for their input. I force “background conversation” into the foreground. Some of our staff are very verbal about their frustrations and concerns. When they grumble, they’ll say, “Journeys is doing this, or doing that, Journeys is not getting me my paycheck on time…” I remind them that it’s not JOURNEYS that’s failing to do this or that, it’s ME, Darcy Ottey. So I don’t allow staff to perceive Journeys as this monolith that is impervious to accountability, but instead, I personalize it. Sometimes that is difficult, because open communication is not genuinely taught, respected, and encouraged in most workplaces.

What steps did you take to change the culture? I started with qsking the question of what do we want our culture to be, and fostering dialogue and intentionality. But I came in with clear ideas too, and for us it was about articulating our core values and strategic plan, and letting that guide us… making sure there was a shared vision at every organizational level and buy-in at every level, and then returning to them for each decision that we make. Making sure everyone had access to the big picture, so they could see their work in context. For example, there is one team of staff, and they do amazing work, have been leading the same program together every year for six years, but they’ve been very reluctant to engage in the feedback process. So for me the next step is to keep building that culture by going back to them and letting them know that they’re not in alignment with the rest of our system. They do great work, that’s not the issue, but as a learning organization if we have a team that’s not constantly working to learn and grow then something’s off. This is what we ask our participants to do, our administrative staff, the board. So now I need to understand why they don’t want to engage with the systems – are the systems not working, and they’re the only ones with the tenure to object? If the systems are good, is it okay for them to do things differently from everyone else?? As opposed to saying, here’s policies to follow or paperwork to do – instead, I ask if their resistance to doing that paperwork or following those policies is because they see flaws that I can’t see, and those policies need to change? Or, do they need my help in interpreting and following those policies?

Is changing culture something you intuitively perceive, or is there a way to measure or quantify a cultural change? That’s a long conversation! But a pitfall that I try to be aware of is that, in the past, so little has been written down that just this process of capturing info in writing FEELS like forward movement, but if this written record is not being used in the field, then it’s a false cultural shift.
This year, I felt a sense of trust in all my programs in the field and I trusted that all those students were getting a quality Journeys experience, and I haven’t felt that before. So on that level, it’s intuitive. But a quantifiable measurement is staff retention. Why did I leave Journeys the first time? Because I felt I had nothing more to learn within the constraints of the organization at that time. But now I have 90% staff retention from year to year… and these are professionals who are willing to keep putting their personal lives on hold to do this seasonal work year after year.

Any advice for leaders who want to foster cultural change in their programs? Start by talking to Steve! Experiential Consulting was invaluable in our process of intentionally planning for and fostering cultural change. Placing that in context, you can start by having conversations to identify what kind of culture you want to develop, talk with colleagues about how their cultures work… It’s easy to build plans and models and handbooks and put them on a shelf. But it’s hard to return to those documents and systems and demand that staff know our core values and mission and function in ways that are relevant to those values.

For me, the best thing I did (to help create a culture of feedback and openness, was for me to openly share my own developmental needs, post my IDP on the wall, update it every quarter, share it with my working groups, and model that from the ED level down. And we’re taking steps to do that at the Board level as well.

Anything else you’d like to add? Specific to risk management, particularly for senior staff in leadership position, it’s so tricky feeling comfortable and open sharing their mistakes or their decisions that they’ve made in the field, and for me, it’s really important to be able to trust that what I’m hearing is what’s actually happening. They need to feel like what they’re sharing is safe, in terms of them not being attacked for being honest about their mistakes. The foundation is having a community where people are open to give and receive feedback. Everything else is worthless if you don’t have that. You can have all the policies you want, and all the resources and models and plans, but you as a program director won’t know if they’re following them or using them, or not if you don’t have that open culture.

___________________________________________________

Darcy Ottey has a Master’s Degree in Environment and Community from Antioch University. Before becoming the ED at Journeys, she worked in the field for ten years as a wilderness instructor for programs such as Kroka Expeditions and Outward Bound. In her three years as ED, Journeys has quadrupled its operating budget, formed a risk management committee, and undertaken its first internal safety review in its 40-year history. She also raises chickens and cultivates a lovely organic garden.

Upcoming Events

Winter Workshop to focus on safety policy revision

Photo:  Participants engaged in an activity at our Spring Workshop on Staff Training

By popular demand, Experiential Consulting's Winter Workshop will take place in Seattle on December 2 and will focus on safety policy revision.

The workshop will present best practices for safety policies, principles of effective policy revision, and explore questions such as: 

• What constitutes a clear, effective policy? 
• What are industry standards for policy writing? 
• How might field staff misinterpret a policy, or be confused? 
• When might following policy increase risk and liability, and how can we mitigate those situations?
• How do you strike a balance between following policy and using staff judgment?   

This interactive three hour workshop will examine these fundamental questions, and offer participants an opportunity to collaboratively work on and revise their own policies, with support and feedback from peers and facilitator(s).  There will be a $50 fee for the three-hour workshop, and light refreshments will be provided. 

To register up for the workshop, or for details, please contact steve@experientialconsulting.com

SEND US FEEDBACK

My contributors and I really value your responses to this newsletter.  We work hard to provide well-researched, thoughtful pieces addressing timely issues in outdoor programming, risk management, and human resources.  If we fall short of meeting those goals, if you have feedback of any sort, or if you particularly appreciate a particular piece in this newsletter, please let me know. 

Many thanks for your time and your support. 

Steve Smith