CAP Bodily injury accidents -- can we really reduce them?

Started by RiverAux, May 03, 2009, 03:46:13 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

Hopefully most of you are reading the Safety Sentinel on a regular basis and I think the most illuminating part is the bare-bones descriptions of recent accidents. 

Most of our bodily injuries relate to cadets and most of the cadet injuries happen in the summer months and are apparently most related to encampments and special activities. 

While we should be able to cut back on the stupid accidents (letting a cadet do push-ups on a fire ant mound, for example) most of them seem like things that just happen to kids participating in an active lifestyle.  When you're doing a sports activity there is a risk of injury no matter how "safe" you try to be. 

I think some analysis of the avoidable vs unavoidable accidents would be helpful in seeing how much of a "safety culture" we're developing.  A graph showing that bodily injuries doubled doesn't mean much unless you know how many of those accidents could have been prevented by someone taking reasonable precautions.  Sure, this would be a judgement call for the person reviewing the reports, but I think its critical. 

Because I don't care how many safety briefings you make a cadet sit through, he can still sprain an ankle playing volleyball at encampment and thats just not as important in looking at how well our safety program is working when compared to another accident where, for example a cadet sprained their ankle while jumping from boulder to boulder goofing off while on a hike. 

NIN

We've been pretty successful, but the 1-2 bodily injuries we've had in the last 6-7 years fall into the "Well, there just wasn't much you're going to do about those.." category.

One was a trip & fall on the way to formation. Clumsy cadet. Broken wrist.  It was his own darn feet he tripped on.

Second was a pass out at formation.  I actually think we filed but the cadet wasn't injured. We were worried he caught his melon on the floor.  He didn't.

Apart from wrapping cadets in bubble wrap (and the attendant potential for heat injuries there), not much you can do.

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

PHall

I would say that 9 out of 10 injuries we have at the CAWG Encampment happen while we are either in barracks or in the classroom.

The days when we are doing the "hazardous" stuff, i.e. rifle range, O Course, and such we barely get a scratch.

Go figure! ???

openmind

Has anyone (and NO, I am not volunteering...) collected any statistics on CAP injuries and compared them to any of the following populations:

A - The overall General Population of the US
B - US children under 21 (compare to Cadet injuries)
C - The over 21 population (compare to Senior injuries)
D - Local High Schools/Middle Schools (compare to Cadet Injuries)

I'm wondering whether our injury rate is significantly higher or lower than the overall populations of potential members.  Wouldn't that be amazing if our Cadets were getting injured less often than their friends that went to the mall?

openmind

RiverAux

I did look around the Boy Scouts web page.  They have a pretty big safety section, but I couldn't find any statistics. 

Grumpy

Quote from: PHall on May 03, 2009, 05:24:13 AM
I would say that 9 out of 10 injuries we have at the CAWG Encampment happen while we are either in barracks or in the classroom.

The days when we are doing the "hazardous" stuff, i.e. rifle range, O Course, and such we barely get a scratch.

Go figure! ???

Perhaps it's because, in the barracks, they're in a familiar invironment and not paying attention to their surroundings.  When they're at these activities they're in more unfamiliar surrounds and are more alert.
So they're paying attention to detail.  (Hmm where have I heard that before?)

See you in August

BTCS1*

Has anyone had a look at the latest sentinel? NO bodily injuruies! It came as a major surprise but it actually happened.
C/2d Lt. B. Garelick, CAP

RiverAux

Given the topic of another thread, I thought I'd copy the list of bodily injury accidents from the heart of last year's encampment season (May-August):

Cadet slipped and fell.
Cadet fainted while standing at attention during inspection.
SM felt intense pain in her right knee causing her to fall.
Cadet cut hand on thorn while performing litter carry.
Cadet tore tissue in his left knee and scraped his left elbow while attempting to cross over a row of chairs.
Cadet fell off top bunk in his sleep.
Cadet on the hand over hand monkey bars dropped 48" and fractured her left wrist.
Cadet pulled chest muscle during PT.
Cadet presented with pain in shoulder after attempting a pull up.
Cadet repositioning a golf cart struck a second cadet.
SM spilled hot water from the pan onto her left ankle.
SM pinched finger in door
Cadet pedestrian seriously injured when struck by a non-CAP ATV; driver of ATV than struck power pole guy wire
Cadet fractured collarbone while running
Cadet tore ankle ligament – team sports
Cadet fractured tibia on obstacle course
Cadet fractured right hand while playing Frisbee
SM had spasm and difficulty breathing
Cadet hyper extended wrist while playing Frisbee
SM reached in her bag and was bitten by a poisonous spider
Cadet had allergic reaction to weeds and grasses
Cadet hit back of head on middle of top bunk
Cadet extremely dehydrated
Cadet fractured collarbone while playing volley ball
Cadet heard her knee "pop" and it began hurting
SM bitten on the upper rear thigh by dog
Cadet skinned knee during free time
Cadet cut left hand opening an "MRE".
Cadet struck above right ankle by knife.
SM slipped and fell on dead tree injuring his chest.
SM eye scratched by a tree limb.
Top rail of fence fell on cadet's back
Cadet fell off top bunk.
Cadet pushed on glass door and cut arm.

Now, I don't know any more about any of these incidents than what is noted above, but for the vast majority of them, I see almost no chance that prevention through eductation would work. 


Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on June 16, 2009, 10:10:14 PM
Now, I don't know any more about any of these incidents than what is noted above, but for the vast majority of them, I see almost no chance that prevention through eductation would work.

Non-concur.  This is actually not a bad list to illustrate the value of ORM and safety education.  A lot of the mini-descriptions are ambiguous, but some of them are textbook examples:


    Let me start with the ones where I agree that
ORM/Safety education probably could not significantly reduce injuries - mostly athletic injuries and unusual/unforeseeable incidents:

  • Cadet cut hand on thorn while performing litter carry.
  • Cadet pulled chest muscle during PT.
  • Cadet presented with pain in shoulder after attempting a pull up.
  • Cadet skinned knee during free time
  • Cadet cut left hand opening an "MRE".
  • SM pinched finger in door
  • Cadet fractured collarbone while running
  • Cadet tore ankle ligament – team sports
  • Cadet fractured right hand while playing Frisbee
  • SM had spasm and difficulty breathing
  • Cadet hyper extended wrist while playing Frisbee
  • SM reached in her bag and was bitten by a poisonous spider
  • Cadet had allergic reaction to weeds and grasses
  • Cadet hit back of head on middle of top bunk
  • SM felt intense pain in her right knee causing her to fall.
  • Cadet fractured collarbone while playing volley ball
  • Cadet heard her knee "pop" and it began hurting
  • SM slipped and fell on dead tree injuring his chest.

    But these examples are a pretty good illustration of where ORM can help - and not coincidentally sound like the most serious injuries:

  • Cadet repositioning a golf cart struck a second cadet.
  • Cadet pedestrian seriously injured when struck by a non-CAP ATV; driver of ATV than struck power pole guy wire

    This mixture of cadets and ATVs/golf carts seems particularly amenable to good ORM.  Something as simple as prohibiting cadets from operating such vehicles.


  • Cadet fell off top bunk in his sleep.
  • Cadet fell off top bunk.

    Two bunk injuries suggest that we can/should engineer a solution.


  • Cadet on the hand over hand monkey bars dropped 48" and fractured her left wrist.
  • Cadet fractured tibia on obstacle course

    Again, obstacle course injuries are another classic example where course-specific ORM could help minimize the risks - examples include things like spotters, eliminating particularly dangerous obstacles, or placement of mats or pads.


  • Cadet tore tissue in his left knee and scraped his left elbow while attempting to cross over a row of chairs.

    It is not entirely clear if this was some sort of "Project X" type exercise or a cadet simply taking a short cut to the aisle, but either scenario would benefit from ORM.


  • Cadet extremely dehydrated

    This is classic ORM - ensuring adequate hydration for all participants


    And here are the ambiguous ones - without more context, these may or may not be significantly affected by an aggressive ORM/safety education program:

  • Cadet slipped and fell.
  • Cadet fainted while standing at attention during inspection.
  • SM bitten on the upper rear thigh by dog
  • Cadet struck above right ankle by knife.
  • SM spilled hot water from the pan onto her left ankle.
  • SM eye scratched by a tree limb.
  • Top rail of fence fell on cadet's back
  • Cadet pushed on glass door and cut arm.


So, while even an aggressive ORM/Safety program cannot eliminate all possible injuries in a challenging and vigorous cadet program that includes athletics as well as adventure training, we can certainly improve our safety practices while performing the mission of training cadets.  That, essentially, is the definition of ORM.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor

Spike

^ Where would "Senior Member spills hot coffee on himself, swerves CAP van into side of CAP Aircraft" fit?

Or "Cadet Falls asleep during same ORM lecture she has been through six times, and jammed eraser end of pencil into eye?

How about "Senior Member drops jelly-filled donuts, looks down at them while walking and walks into door which causes nosebleed and destruction of said donuts"

SarDragon

I know that most of us have some strong negative opinions about this additional requirement, but isn't in everyone's best interests to quit whining about it, and do what we can to make this as successful as we can? There are too many safety lesson written in blood to have the cavalier attitude I've seen some of you take.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

RiverAux

Gee, pointing out that the requirement won't actually address many of the accidents that it is supposed to address isn't actually whining.  Its pointing out a failure to recognize the biggest threats and instead adopting a one-size-fits all solution to address the incidents at the margins. 

I agree with Ned's list of incicents where ORM could have made a difference and note how few there are....In an organization of 35,000 people we're talking about 8 minor accidents over the 4 month period that has been identified as the most "dangerous". 


 

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on June 17, 2009, 02:55:05 AMI agree with Ned's list of incicents where ORM could have made a difference and note how few there are....In an organization of 35,000 people we're talking about 8 minor accidents over the 4 month period that has been identified as the most "dangerous".

A bit of "apples and oranges" with this comparison.  These are your examples, but  are drawn only from the universe of encampment/NCSA attendees which is a far smaller group than the 35,000 you describe.

Further, the only serious injuries are among the ORM-preventable ones. 

Does it really seem all that crazy to require each attendee to invest less than half and hour of additional training to attempt to avoid multiple preventable serious injuries each year?

NC Hokie

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 03:38:33 AM
Does it really seem all that crazy to require each attendee to invest less than half and hour of additional training to attempt to avoid multiple preventable serious injuries each year?

At the last minute? ABSOLUTELY YES!

In general?  As jimmydeanno said in another thread (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8267.msg150044#msg150044), we are forcing our cadets to carry the ball that we have dropped.

ORM is a MANAGEMENT responsibility; the MOST that we should require of basic cadets is to be careful, be aware of their surroundings, and speak up when they think an unsafe situation exists.  If that happens, it is the LEADERS responsibility to consider the situation and make the call.

I agree with the necessity of ORM and have no issue with making it a requirement for senior members, but requiring all cadets to take it does little more than check a box on some NHQ report.  Why?  For the simple fact that most teenagers have neither the knowledge, experience, or inclination to effectively consider safety and risk before deciding on a course of action.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

BillB

Keep in mind the target audience  here. Many of those so-called preventable incidents probably involve 12-15 year old cadets. A period where the body often is uncoordinated. I don't see how any could have been prevented by making Doolies take ORM. The problem appears to be lacking Senior leadership and Cadet Staff leadership. I have attnded over 20 encampments involving over 5,000 cadets, and never remember a cadet falling out of a bunk. Hitting their head on top bunk, yes, but that's more a ca\se of the cadets forgetting there is a top bunk. This policy letter should have been discussed at the last NB meeting and the letter sent out immediately following. Not when some encampments have already started or about to start. Did the National CAC have any input into this? Was any thought given by the National Cadet Programs people that at this late date the policy is unworkable? The intent of the letter is excellent, the timing is the problem and the one-size-fits all is the major problem here.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

Ned

Quote from: NC Hokie on June 17, 2009, 04:54:28 AM
Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 03:38:33 AM
Does it really seem all that crazy to require each attendee to invest less than half and hour of additional training to attempt to avoid multiple preventable serious injuries each year?

At the last minute? ABSOLUTELY YES!

So, in a situation where you have identified a safety training issue, the solution is to put off that training for a year because the timing is incovenient?  Even if that suggests that injuries will occur that could otherwise be prevented?

I suppose we will just have to disagree on that point.

From a purely logical viewpoint,  it is always best to have any safety program start sooner than it does. 

Quote
In general?  As jimmydeanno said in another thread (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8267.msg150044#msg150044), we are forcing our cadets to carry the ball that we have dropped.

ORM is a MANAGEMENT responsibility; the MOST that we should require of basic cadets is to be careful, be aware of their surroundings, and speak up when they think an unsafe situation exists.  If that happens, it is the LEADERS responsibility to consider the situation and make the call.

I agree with the necessity of ORM and have no issue with making it a requirement for senior members, but requiring all cadets to take it does little more than check a box on some NHQ report.  Why?  For the simple fact that most teenagers have neither the knowledge, experience, or inclination to effectively consider safety and risk before deciding on a course of action.

Basically concur.  ORM is clearly a leader responsibility.

But that doesn't make it some sort of secret that only seniors can know about either.

Cadets, essentially by definition, take leadership training well before they are expected to use it.  The whole point of the cadet program is to produce leaders for our community.  Why is it so strange to expose cadets to basic ORM training that we will expect them to implement as the become leaders themselves, first in the cadet program and later in life?

RiverAux

QuoteA bit of "apples and oranges" with this comparison.  These are your examples, but  are drawn only from the universe of encampment/NCSA attendees which is a far smaller group than the 35,000 you describe.
Actually no.  The list was ALL CAP bodily injury accidents during May-Aug 2008.  It was a recent Sentinel article that made the claim that most summer accidents were encampment related, which is probably true. 

QuoteSo, in a situation where you have identified a safety training issue
A premise that I don't really accept due to the tiny number of incidents involved.  That doesn't indicate any systemic problem to me.

In fact, we should be congratulating our membership on what appears to be a stellar safety record based on the number of members that we have and the number of activities conducted each year.  But, we've adopted the idea that having 0 accidents is actually possible so having 1 accident indicates a failure on the part of the organization -- a totally unrealistic view of safety training. 



Ned

Quote from: BillB on June 17, 2009, 11:41:57 AM
Keep in mind the target audience  here. Many of those so-called preventable incidents probably involve 12-15 year old cadets. A period where the body often is uncoordinated. I don't see how any could have been prevented by making Doolies take ORM.

I pretty much agree, but a number of the injuries could have been prevented by the staff.  ORM is a leader responsibility.  Having cadets take basic ORM is just good leadership training, just like any other leadership training we give to our basic cadets at encampment.

Quote
The problem appears to be lacking Senior leadership and Cadet Staff leadership. I have attnded over 20 encampments involving over 5,000 cadets, and never remember a cadet falling out of a bunk.

Thank you for your encampment service.  You are truly making a difference in our cadet program.  But the fact that you have participated in safe encampments does not suggest that other encampments could not be safer.  Just with the limited dataset we have for this thread, however, we can see that at least some troops have been injured by some combination of gravity and bunk beds.

Quote
Hitting their head on top bunk, yes, but that's more a ca\se of the cadets forgetting there is a top bunk. This policy letter should have been discussed at the last NB meeting and the letter sent out immediately following. Not when some encampments have already started or about to start.

Please refer to my earlier comments about timing.  It is undoubtedly logical for any safety education program to begin sooner than it actually does.  But the alternative is to knowingly tolerate less safe conditions with the potential for injuries that could otherwise have been prevented.

QuoteWas any thought given by the National Cadet Programs people that at this late date the policy is unworkable? The intent of the letter is excellent, the timing is the problem and the one-size-fits all is the major problem here.

National Cadet Programs (which is I guess some combination of me and Curt LaFond's crew at Maxwell) strongly believe that this is "doable" and will measurably reduce injuries this summer.

There is a lot of coordination going on at this point concerning access and "permissions" for eServices and acceptable work-arounds for in-person training at the activities for members who have limited internet access.

We can make this work.  It will be a challenge, but with initiative and good will on the part of the membership we can get it done.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(30+ encampments)

davidsinn

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
  Why is it so strange to expose cadets to basic ORM training that we will expect them to implement as the become leaders themselves, first in the cadet program and later in life?

Because they are children and most can't grasp the abstract concepts. I once had a 16-17 year old cadet that couldn't grasp the concept that jumping off a ladder, which is on the roof of a house, onto a trampoline is a BAD idea. Or riding down a hill on a very busy state highway on a skateboard in the prone position. This happened to be the exact same place (within 100 yds) that a woman pushing a baby stroller was struck and killed by a semi a few months later.

No amount of check box BS training is going to change that kind of thinking. Mandating that people take a course days and sometimes hours before an activity is supposed to occur is complete insanity. I have a cadet right now that has no internet access for example.

Has it occurred to the people in echelons beyond reality that accidents and injuries are a part of life? That bad things happen for no reason at all?

This looks like another lawyer CYA idea that is bound to make it harder to actually do the mission. Yeah less accidents will happen because we're not doing anything anymore.

I swear Shakespeare had the right idea when it came to lawyers  ;D
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on June 17, 2009, 04:52:16 PMBut, we've adopted the idea that having 0 accidents is actually possible so having 1 accident indicates a failure on the part of the organization -- a totally unrealistic view of safety training.

We have done no such thing.

As others have pointed out, the only way to ensure 0 injuries is to cancel all cadet training.  Everyone, from Gen Courter and the NB on down, recognizes that our cadet program is a vigorous and challenging program and that some injuries may not reasonably be prevented.

But that doesn't mean that we should not adopt an aggressive safety education program to identify and remove hazards that result in unneccesary and preventable injuries to our cadets.  Indeed, common sense and good leadership suggest that we should all strive to eliminate unnecessary risks in our outstanding cadet program.

And that is the very nature of ORM.

ricks

It was mentioned that these are unavoidable accidents. I do not concur.
Cadet cut hand on thorn while performing litter carry.
Due to the nature of ground team work I would be suprised that leather gloves are not a required item.
Cadet pulled chest muscle during PT.
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
Cadet presented with pain in shoulder after attempting a pull up.
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
Cadet skinned knee during free time
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
Cadet cut left hand opening an "MRE".
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
SM pinched finger in door
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
Cadet fractured collarbone while running
Ensure proper attire and footwear before runs.
Cadet tore ankle ligament – team sports
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
Cadet fractured right hand while playing Frisbee
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
SM had spasm and difficulty breathing
Prior medical issues noted?
Cadet hyper extended wrist while playing Frisbee
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
SM reached in her bag and was bitten by a poisonous spider
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
Cadet had allergic reaction to weeds and grasses
Prior medical issues noted?
Cadet hit back of head on middle of top bunk
Unavoidable except by personal situational awareness.
SM felt intense pain in her right knee causing her to fall.
Prior medical issues noted?
Cadet fractured collarbone while playing volley ball
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
Cadet heard her knee "pop" and it began hurting
Proper warm-up and stretching would likely mitigate.
SM slipped and fell on dead tree injuring his chest.
Need to learn basic woodsmanship for GT's. Fast is slow. (and might hurt your chest.

Ned

Quote from: davidsinn on June 17, 2009, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
  Why is it so strange to expose cadets to basic ORM training that we will expect them to implement as the become leaders themselves, first in the cadet program and later in life?

Because they are children and most can't grasp the abstract concepts.

I think this kind of response does a huge disservice to our cadets. 

It sounds a little  . . . patronizing.  "Sorry, Cadet Jones, Basic ORM is far, far too advanced for a young mind like yours.  Run outside and drill around the parking lot for a while while the seniors do Deep Thinking about how to keep you safe."

First, among the things we teach cadets, ORM is not particularly abstract.  Even a 12 year old cadet has a pretty good grasp of physical injuries and how they might be prevented.  The Basic ORM course is indeed pretty . . . basic.

Second, we teach cadets a whole bunch of "abstract" things like, say, "leadership."  For younger and newer cadets, they start to learn followship and as they progress they get some pretty darn abstract concepts.  With ORM, they will start with Basic ORM and transition to more comprehensive training later in their cadet careers.

Quote

No amount of check box BS training is going to change that kind of thinking. Mandating that people take a course days and sometimes hours before an activity is supposed to occur is complete insanity. I have a cadet right now that has no internet access for example.

And we will - together as competent CP leaders - figure out how to get your cadet the required training. 

Quote

Has it occurred to the people in echelons beyond reality that accidents and injuries are a part of life? That bad things happen for no reason at all?

Gosh, no.  That had never occured to us.   8)

Nobody has ever said that our goal is to somehow magically have a  "zero injury" summer.  Our goal is to reduce reasonably preventable bodily injuries to our cadets as we conduct our challenging cadet program.

Quote
This looks like another lawyer CYA idea that is bound to make it harder to actually do the mission. Yeah less accidents will happen because we're not doing anything anymore.


No activities have been cancelled.  Indeed, we are having more encampments and NCSAs than last year.

And, AFAIK, no lawyers were directly involved in this policy.  This was a decision by our national leadership based on their review of safety reports from the field.



RedFox24

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 05:27:49 PM

No activities have been cancelled.  Indeed, we are having more encampments and NCSAs than last year.

And, AFAIK, no lawyers were directly involved in this policy.  This was a decision by our national leadership based on their review of safety reports from the field.

Not yet, but I suspect to see participation down.  And I suspect to see people turned away from encampment because they don't have the training.  Esp at those activities that are just weeks away.

Lawyers were involved in this, be it regulation lawyers at NHQ.  CYA by NHQ all the way.  The timing of this is all wrong; this data has been available for months before now. 

More symbolism over substance from a HQ more worried about hurting its planes than anything. 
Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large

"You can tell a member of National Headquarters but you can't tell them much!"

Just say NO to NESA Speak.

jimmydeanno

I think a good question to answer is:

"Is there any data to show that since the initiation of the previous safety 'checkbox' programs there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of preventable injuries and accidents?"

The ORM concept can apply to other things than just safety - like whether or not a particular training is worth the effort it takes to complete.  We can always cite the "well, if it prevents 1 accident from occuring..." but that is a strawman argument to divert the attention away from the fact that the program really did nothing.

From my point of view (which is pretty local) these added requirements have done nothing to improve our safety record or mitigate any risk because we have never had a reportable incident.

In our wing last two weeks ago, we had two separate individuals rear-end cars at stoplights with CAP vans.  In all seriousness, do you think it is some sign of a pandemic of CAP van accidents that are going to occur? 

If we make all our CAP drivers go through the license checkoff again and no accidents occur is it a result of the program or just luck/coincidence that it never happens again?
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

RiverAux

I think jimmydeano and I are on the same page in that we support proven effective safety programs.  Of course you have to try something to prove it, but the way to do that is to test it in enough sites to get a decent sample and if it seems to have made a difference, then expand it. 

Now, ricks has suggested that proper stretching and warm up could possible mitigate some of the pt/sports injuries and he is right.  But  did NHQ send out some guidance on stetching and warm-up programs (or emphasizing existing guidance if it is already exists)?  Nope.  We got a generic mandate that doesn't address that problem. 

RedFox24

60% of the mandate is planes.  Not vans, Not cadets Not seniors but PLANES.

Shows what NHQ thinks is most important.
Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large

"You can tell a member of National Headquarters but you can't tell them much!"

Just say NO to NESA Speak.

ricks

Quote from: RiverAux on June 17, 2009, 06:16:20 PM
I think jimmydeano and I are on the same page in that we support proven effective safety programs.  Of course you have to try something to prove it, but the way to do that is to test it in enough sites to get a decent sample and if it seems to have made a difference, then expand it. 

Now, ricks has suggested that proper stretching and warm up could possible mitigate some of the pt/sports injuries and he is right.  But  did NHQ send out some guidance on stetching and warm-up programs (or emphasizing existing guidance if it is already exists)?  Nope.  We got a generic mandate that doesn't address that problem.

It is interesting to note that when I went through PLDC to become an NCO, a large portion of the training was correct PT training. That is because it is one of the activities in the Army that produces a huge amount of injuries. WIWAC back in '91 I went to an encampment and was smoked by a cadet who (now that I know proper technique) had no business running a PT program. I do not know how much the cadet leadership program has changed since but I am willing to bet that we have a ton of senior cadets out there trying to be hard resulting in injuries to themselves and their charges.

In the Army, you do not get to run a PT program unless you are an NCO or under direct supervision. This is to protect the full-grown soldier's health. Why is it that cadets or untrained CAP members are allowed to run PT programs on less capable cadets? I believe that a comprehensive PT program would be greatly beneficial. Not only would it allow cadets to efficiently train and strengthen their bodies but also it would go a long way in mitigating these PT stress injuries.  We could even coordinate it with the President's Challenge or something like that.

NC Hokie

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 04:40:13 PM
So, in a situation where you have identified a safety training issue, the solution is to put off that training for a year because the timing is incovenient?  Even if that suggests that injuries will occur that could otherwise be prevented?

What proof is there that a safety training issue has been identified?  Injuries and accidents?  You can train until you're blue in the face, but accidents STILL happen, even preventable ones.

My real question though is what makes NHQ think that blowing thru online training at the last minute will have a greater effect on safety than, say, instructing activity leaders to conduct a one hour ORM briefing once the activity starts?

For the record, I do NOT have an issue with addressing safety, but the method being used in this instance is all wrong.

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 04:40:13 PMBasically concur.  ORM is clearly a leader responsibility.

But that doesn't make it some sort of secret that only seniors can know about either.

Cadets, essentially by definition, take leadership training well before they are expected to use it.  The whole point of the cadet program is to produce leaders for our community.  Why is it so strange to expose cadets to basic ORM training that we will expect them to implement as the become leaders themselves, first in the cadet program and later in life?

It's not strange to expose cadets to ORM, but forcing it upon them as they're literally packing for encampment, etc. is not the proper way to do it.  ORM is something that needs to be taught and then practiced, which the current directive simply does not provide for.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

Ned

It's hard to keep up with the responses.

A few thoughts:


Quote from: RedFox24 on June 17, 2009, 05:44:45 PM
Lawyers were involved in this, be it regulation lawyers at NHQ.  CYA by NHQ all the way.   

And you know that lawyers were behind this exactly how?

And BTW, how many lawyers do you think work at NHQ anyway?

(Hint: N=1, the General Counsel who has a lot of other things to worry about.)

QuoteI believe that a comprehensive PT program would be greatly beneficial. Not only would it allow cadets to efficiently train and strengthen their bodies but also it would go a long way in mitigating these PT stress injuries.  We could even coordinate it with the President's Challenge or something like that.

Oddly enough, we actually have one of those.  Which is implemented in every single cadet unit.

CAPP 52-18, The Cadet Physical Fitness Program.  See Chapter 4, "Fitness Training Programs" which specifically addresses warm-up and cool down.

And, FWIW, our CPFT is based directly on data from the President"s Council.


QuoteYou can train until you're blue in the face, but accidents STILL happen, even preventable ones.

Obviously true.  But logically unrelated to whether proper training does reduce unnecessary risks that produce preventable injuries.  Otherwise, why bother to have an ORM program in the first place?

QuoteMy real question though is what makes NHQ think that blowing thru online training at the last minute will have a greater effect on safety than, say, instructing activity leaders to conduct a one hour ORM briefing once the activity starts?

Odd rhetorical question. 

Obviously, "NHQ" doesn't think that "blowing through training" will have a greater effect on safety. 

But we do think that ORM and safety training can and do prevent unnecessary injuries.  And every cadet activity (over four nights) is already required to conduct extensive ORM during the Required Staff Training (RST).  Now, however, the staff will have completed two additional ORM courses prior to arrival which should make the RST process much more comprehensive.  And activities that did not already appoint a Safety Officer will be required to do so.

QuoteIt's not strange to expose cadets to ORM, but forcing it upon them as they're literally packing for encampment, etc. is not the proper way to do it.  ORM is something that needs to be taught and then practiced, which the current directive simply does not provide for.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  I agree that timing is short for some cadets and staffers whose encampment or NCSA is starting soon.  (Indeed, some activities had already started when the directive was published.)  Of course, most participants (myself included) will have a month or more to accomplish the training.

But even for cadets with short notice, Basic ORM is a fairly simple and painless course, usually done in less than an hour.  Often far less.  And if the cadet cannot reasonably complete the instruction before the start of the activity, we will make alternative arrangements for the training. 

And I agree that ORM concepts need to be reinforced and practiced to be effective.  Which is exactly what is going to happen at each activity this summer.

Peace.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor



ricks

Quote from: Ned on June 17, 2009, 07:24:29 PM
Oddly enough, we actually have one of those.  Which is implemented in every single cadet unit.

CAPP 52-18, The Cadet Physical Fitness Program.  See Chapter 4, "Fitness Training Programs" which specifically addresses warm-up and cool down.

And, FWIW, our CPFT is based directly on data from the President"s Council.

Wow. If all cadets are using this resource and it is being followed then CAP is right on track. It would be great to see a phsyical fitness instructor track or something under cadet programs. That looks like a great resource. I have been sufficently schooled. Thank you.

SarDragon

Quote from: ricks on June 17, 2009, 05:10:23 PM
It was mentioned that these are unavoidable accidents. I do not concur.
[remainder redacted]

+1

The NJ DMV inspection stickers used to say this on the back side (maybe still do):

"Accidents don't just happen; they are caused."

I have believed that since the first time I read it at age 10. Sometime you have to look deep and hard for the reason, but there's one there.

For early teens, ORM can be as simple as: If you do A, B will happen. If they get these in a slow progression, by the time they are cadet officers, they have quite a data bank to draw from. As in reasoning with a three-year-old, it's all a matter of technique.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

sardak

This could equally belong in the thread on the recent (June) "Interim Change Letter-Increased Safety Requirements for Cadet Activities"  which is here, http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8267.0 News release from today (click on headline for link):
New National Study Finds Increase in P.E. Class-Related Injuries - Annual number of cases increased 150 percent from 1997-2007

A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital (link), found that the number of PE-related injuries to elementary, middle and high school students in the United States increased 150 percent between 1997 and 2007.

According to the study, published in the [September] issue of Pediatrics, the most common PE-related injuries were lower-extremity sprains and strains (23 percent), followed by upper extremity sprains and strains (14 percent) and fractures (14 percent). Middle school-aged children (11-14 years of age) accounted for the majority of PE-related injuries (52 percent).

Nearly 70 percent of PE-related injuries occurred while children were participating in six activities (running, basketball, football, volleyball, soccer and gymnastics). Injuries were caused by contact with another person, playing surface, equipment, stationary structures, pulled muscles, overuse and activity related illnesses such as heat stroke.

"Identifying patterns of PE-related injuries is the first step toward preventing them. Injury prevention education should be made a priority for all PE activities, especially for those activities with the highest injury rates."[said study author Lara McKenzie, PhD, principal investigator]


The Center for Injury Research last month released a study on rock climbing injuries.

Mike

jimmydeanno

Quote from: sardak on August 04, 2009, 02:45:15 AM
This could equally belong in the thread on the recent (June) "Interim Change Letter-Increased Safety Requirements for Cadet Activities"  which is here, http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=8267.0 News release from today (click on headline for link):
New National Study Finds Increase in P.E. Class-Related Injuries - Annual number of cases increased 150 percent from 1997-2007

I heard this on the news this morning as well while I was driving into work.  The radio coverage was trying to say that it was a result of PE teachers not doing what they were supposed to, etc. 

I think there are a lot more factors.

1) General Obesity rates among youth has increased over the past decade substantially.  More obese people get injured easier. http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/606/FINALfactsandfigures2.pdf

2) Kids aren't as active as they used to be.  They're just out of shape.  When out of shape people work out, they get hurt more easily.

I would venture to guess that those two reasons have more to do with it than anything than the actual exercise themselves.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill