Stats in Mountain Rescue Why Bother? Please read.

The letter below was published in the Scottish Mountaineer and made me think again about Stats and there use in Mountain Rescue.

I would appreciate any comments.

safety-notice-800x589

For many years the Scottish Mountaineering Club annually published a lengthy list of brief Accident Reports. These reports simply detailed the date and location of each mountain accident, gave the ages and gender of those involved, said how many man-hours were involved for the relevant mountain rescue team and finally said how the incident was resolved. No names were published. To give two examples:

 

‘February 24 – Ben Nevis (near CIC Hut). A lone walker was walking in the area of the CIC Hut

    when an avalanche carried him about a hundred metres. He suffered limb injuries and was

    carried first by stretcher then airlifted to Hospital in Fort William. Glencoe MRT, R177 (the helicopter).

    94 hrs.’

 

 ‘January 2 – Signal Point, nr Clachaig Inn (NN122566). A female walker (62yrs) slipped and fractured her

    ankle. The team carried her out to a waiting ambulance. Glencoe MRT. 13 hrs.’

 

Much to the regret of SMC members and the wider Scottish mountaineering community, since 2012 the SMC Journal has not been sent these most valuable reports. Through a fog of obfuscation we seem to have learned that Police Scotland (or at any rate someone in your organisation) has decided that these reports cannot be published because, so it seems, it is thought that the reports contravene the provisions of the Data Protection Act. This seems to be a sad mistake. So far as we can see, the reports barely breach the Act at all: no names are published and if it was felt that publishing either the gender or the age of the victim might allow identification this could easily be avoided. One would simply say “Two people…two climbers…two individuals…etc.” I believe that the present sorry situation rests on a simple misunderstanding of what the reports need involve. All that needs to be retained is the place, the time of year, the cause of the accident and the number of hours which the rescue team had to put in to resolve the situation. My Deputy Editor stands ready to alter any reports received so that no names, ages or genders are mentioned.

 

Little accident reports like this are most helpful to hillwalkers and climbers. They identify accident blackspots; they put flesh and bones on mere statistics; they are a vivid and engaging historical record of what went wrong for some individuals in Scotland’s mountains and a humble memorial of all the time and effort which needs to be put in by the rescue services to put things right (if they can be put right). If you have read of accidents taking place because of unstable snow conditions in Coire na Tulaich on the Buachaille in Glencoe you might think twice before descending that way in a thaw. Not publishing these reports because of some ill-informed fears about “confidentiality” is a mistake, and, in the view of those who understand Scottish mountaineering, actually compromises safety.

I do not know who it is who is obstructing the publication of these reports. I am not even a hundred percent certain that it is someone in Police Scotland, but if it is (as I am lead to believe) I do wish that he or she would consider carefully what I have said and enter into a meaningful dialogue about the issue. I am quite confident that with a little goodwill and commonsense the matter could easily be resolved.

Peter Biggar.

This is my article a few years ago

I have decided to write about something that few people will be aware of and

their relevance to Mountain Safety and nowadays to Mountain Rescue Funding. I

have been fortunate as for many years I was involved in meeting two of the main

protagonist of the Scottish Mountain Rescue Stats Ben Humble and John Hinde.

They compiled the Stats for the Scottish Mountain Rescue Committee; Ben was a

renowned mountaineer and had a great interest in mountain safety. When Ben

died he left a great legacy through the Scottish Mountaineering Club Annual

Journal where the Stats were put in since the early 40’s. Ben wrote and worked

tirelessly and his article “A survey of Mountain Accidents In Scotland 1925 – 45″

was a breakthrough at the time. After this Ben compiled a yearly listing of

Mountain Accidents in the Journals. It was when Ben passed away John Hinde

took over and did another outstanding job for many years; they left a unique

history and so much information for future generations especially in the aspects

of Mountain safety.

Nowadays Mountain Rescue Teams are extremely busy and after a call out the

last thing they need is to afterwards is to compile the call –out report. Yet they

are so important especially nowadays. I took over the Statistician job for several

years and had various problems keeping up with the reports. There were in these

days 400 call –outs many involving several teams. The paperwork involved was

very hard work and at times it was a constant battle to keep up to date. It

became nearly a full time job and kept me very busy in any spare time I had.

I did a talk a few years when I was the Scottish Mountain Rescue Statistician it

was to try to get the teams to realise how important they are. None of us like

paperwork but it is so essential especially when trying to raise funding from

Government Sources. I found this out the hard way in the late 80’s when they

were going to cut the RAF Teams or even get rid of them. It was a real panic but I

was the only Team with a history going back to 1944 and could prove to the

“Bean Counters” that 10% of our incidents were for military aircraft and military

personnel. That Bean Counter was put back in his box for a few more years. It

was also very relevant in the early days of trying for funding from the Scottish

Government when I was Chairman of Scottish Mountain Rescue. We had to

explain to the First Minister that Teams put in a huge amount of hours in on

training, courses and looking after equipment apart from attending incidents.

These are a few points from my talk!

 

Information

The information gained from a few years incidents can be so helpful to teams. It

can help show the areas in which Team Training should go. If your Team mainly

does Lowland Urban searches should you spend do much time and money on

expensive equipment on Technical gear? Maybe look more into Search planning

and training? Or if you carry out a lot searches in areas of swift water should the

training be increased in this area? Agree fully on this one. A rich profile of what a

team does and where it does it can help inform not only training (what and

where) but also what kinds of equipment to purchase. It’s all about matching

what the team does in theory to what it actually does in practice. I suspect that

in many cases this is not the case.

Also, an accurate and up-to-date picture about what happens across Scotland

can help advise the Press, Government and safety organisations such as the

MCofS on what aspects to focus on, and also avoid these organisations passing on year after year inaccurate myths (e.g. all mountaineers are ill equipped and

Inexperienced numpties hell bent on jumping off cliffs!)

 

Searches

Team areas will have accident hot spots that are current today it may be

worth having a look back and see if any changes are relevant? Casualties

do get found in areas that were hot spots in the past. At times many of the

current team may have limited knowledge of this historical fact as elder

Team member’s leave and their knowledge could be lost forever? Agree

fully. A recent Professor of IT is quoted as saying “ “The experiences of our

past are still the best road map to our future”. You are correct that hot

spots of the past disappear and new ones appear. Its only we you carry out

an objective analysis that trends like this appear. This can help a present

team to find out more about the new hot spots (where are they, how do you

gain access, what are the technical challenges, and so on). Far better to be

Pre-warned than be caught out on a rescue!

Medical – Look at the injuries your team deals with make priorities in these areas that are

you need to. If you deal with 80% ankle lower limbs make sure all can treat and

the equipment is suitable. How many stretcher carries do you do how often do

you practice? It is easy to get side tracked? Fully agree. No point in spending

£1000s on fancy kit to deal with a broken femur when your team has never ever

had such an injury! Also, if a team mainly deals with searches with no injured

people then why train numerous members to become EMTs etc, when the money

and time would be better spent on training up people to become better at

searching and search management.

 

Funding – The government are interested in Stats – man/ women hours so important. What

about the hours on training and sorting gear and exercises they are never

submitted in the figures only call out hours. What about travel to and from a call out,

sorting out gear, standby hours etc. “Bean Counters” only want numbers but

that is how it works . It is really worth working out how many hours the team

spends training/ courses and kit maintenance? It will amaze you! When you add

up all the hours carried out by every team across a full year it sums to around

40,000 hours (give or take). This translates into many, many full time police

Officers, which goes to show not only what a comprehensive job we do, but also

and how much money is saved to the public purse.

 

Safety/Research – The common causes of accidents in your area maybe worth alerting climbers and walkers to current trends in your area. Is safety not a Mountain Rescue Concern?

The SMR/MRS is the organisation in the BEST POSSIBLE position to advise

everyone – Press, Government, Course Providers, Governing bodies, etc, what

goes wrong. It has a moral obligation to publish its annual statistics far and wide

and in a timely manner – not two years late! Also, as a government funded

Organisation, should it have a legal responsibility to do this too? Some  of he recent accidents on Ben Nevis (winter 2015) have been in the same area and involve walkers ? Why is this trend happening?

 

Historical – So many casualties will come back many years later to find out what happened

to them or a loved one. It is good to have some back ground on the incident and

what happened. Many things re –occur on a regular cycle. You and I can recount

numerous instances where family members have come back to us for

information about someone in the family who died (a grid reference, more detail,

who assisted etc.) and SMR has a moral responsibility to help these people by

providing relevant information.

 

Stats are so important –

The world has changed nowadays with the Data Protection Act and personal

privacy, with new regulations to ensure that this is adhered to. We do not need to

name any casualties but age and other factors are very relevant. With one Police

Force I was assured that we would have current and accurate stats that we can

use for the next generations to learn from, I wonder how far we are from this now

the Single Police force is up and running. I feel we owe it to John Hinde, Ben

Humble and all the other Statistics Officers who maintained and published

accurate and up-to-date records to tackle this problem before it is too late.

Is it only me that sees this as a problem?

 

Any comments welcome?

Worth noting

Mountain Rescue England and Wales (MREW) is very open about what it does and you can download annual figures from as far back as 1980 right through to 2013.

Go to – http://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/information-centre/incident-statistics

 

Irish MR is not quite as up to date but still open about publishing its annual stats.  Go to –

http://www.mountainrescue.ie/TeamInformation

 

Do we seem to be lagging behind?

Thanks to Bob Sharp for his input and Ben Humble and John Hinde for the inspiration!

 

 

Past Comments –  A comment 0f Congratulations on a very forceful and heartfelt defence of management information in mountain rescue.

All the points you make are valid, both north and south of the border as well as across the Irish Sea. For the last two decades I have been trying to instil these same points into the English and Welsh MRTs. I believe progress has been made but I am still not satisfied that the MREW figures are complete. For what it is worth, my sympathy goes out to all the statisticians who have followed John Hinde; not only a difficult act to follow but one made harder by poor co-operation from teams.

The production of management information is vital for the development of mountain safety and rescue. This point is well-made by Heavy. All the aspects covered by the article are essential if mountain rescue is to develop in a way that reflects changes in society. Without this steady flow of information, it is likely that lessons will be overlooked, will not be learned or quickly be forgotten.

Please consider publishing your article further afield. It might even blow some of the blinkers away.

Ged Feeney
Statistics Officer – Mountain Rescue (England & Wales)

 

Share this:

About heavywhalley.MBE

After dinner speaker Lecturer and Mountain Rescue Specialist. Environmentalist. Spent 36 years with RAF Mountain Rescue and 4 years with a civilian Team . Still an active Mountaineer and loves the wild places.
This entry was posted in Mountain rescue, Mountaineering, SAR, Views Mountaineering. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stats in Mountain Rescue Why Bother? Please read.

  1. Allan Young says:

    The Police Scotland decision is hugely shortsighted. MR incident data has huge importance as it a representation of hill behaviours from which informed decisions can be made, by MRTs and the services engaged as a result of incidents as well as those of us who head for the hills.

    The obvious way I imagine that victims could be identified from the individual incident reports would be to Google some of the keywords to find online news reports which may name those affected – but the “personal” information is already in the public domain.

    I wonder if the Data Commissioner has been asked if the reports breach the relevant Data Protection guidelines?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s