Peer intervention as a tool for improving culture in the emergency services

In recent times, barely a day has passed without there being a major news story concerning the emergency services.  I must add that in the main the headlines haven’t been positive with articles discussing harmful behaviours and actions committed by serving personnel. 

Many critics have complained that those who allow misconduct to happen do more damage to the community’s trust than those who commit it. Yet internally, they are seldom the focus with many of the different services relying on existing ‘Codes of Ethics’ to remind staff as to their duty to report poor behaviours when observed.

Flaws in codes of ethics

A reliance on such codes is in my opinion for two reasons flawed.  Firstly, such codes have existed for decades, with staff still failing to intervene and secondly when people do report its often when extreme harm is observed.  By then the damage is already done both within and out with the organisation.  At a time when trust and confidence in our emergency services is low its time senior leaders invested in creating cultures where people intervene way earlier.  Staff across the country have been told they must intervene, but they have not necessarily been taught how to do so.

Active Bystandership is the ‘Art and science’ of reducing harm. While many tend to focus on the harm from poor behaviour this approach focuses also on harm from mistakes and poor wellbeing.  In many ways all these areas of focus are connected.  Let’s be clear healthier staff make fewer mistakes.

For active bystandership to be successful, it requires a whole organisational approach starting at the top, going down the organisation and back up again.  Staff who witness harm need to feel supported and not just from leaders.  Peers need to feel supported by peers.

Bystander training

Active bystandership is not new.  Similar approaches have been used in the likes of aviation to address pilot error.  In the New Orleans Police Department this approach was introduced after Hurricane Katrina to address high levels of police misconduct and low levels of trust from the public.  It has since been credited with addressing both issues successfully.  Like aviation, emergency services are high risk settings.  When mistakes are made, people die.  Also, hierarchies present real challenges within these settings.

Let’s be clear active bystandership isn’t about grassing on your colleagues, its more about keeping each other safe. The idea is that you want colleagues to go home safely after their shift and to have a career that isn’t brought to an abrupt halt due to an action or attitude.

Examining culture

To make the changes needed, organisations need to perform deeper, more committed work to both examine their cultures and to activate the bystanders who we know not only see harmful incidents but also witness the build-up to harmful acts.  Currently many settings are relying on e-learning packages to activate bystanders.  This may save money but all the evidence says this approach is unlikely to be successful and may end up costing more in the long term. 

As part of a culture change programme active bystander creates much needed conversations amongst all staff.  Done correctly it utilises a social norms approach that taps into the good we know that exists across all emergency services.  Furthermore, the approach makes use of existing strengths such as teamwork, and loyalty.  When a colleague needs help, it doesn’t matter their age, gender, or experience, we go don’t we?

 Active Bystandership training presents opportunities and benefits for our emergency services.  At a time when services are under the spotlight this training would allow for them to communicate externally that they are working to address the suggestion that our cultures are toxic. 

This month, Northamptonshire Police Fire and Crime Commissioner Stephen Mold has been heavily criticised for his use of a derogatory term to describe a senior leader in the fire and rescue service.  While many leaders have rightly condemned the behaviour the question for me is why this man still felt comfortable in using such language.

“Who is harmed when we fail to intervene?” 

In a culture of active bystandership, attitudes and behaviours are more likely to be addressed earlier.  Also, such a culture would communicate to those who commit harm that their attitudes and behaviours are simply not tolerated.