National Disaster Rescue Challenge (NDRC) Scoresheet

• Audit Title

• TEAM:

• Conducted on

  Date

• JUDGE:

• STAND NUMBER:
  Address

SCENE MANAGEMENT

Risk Management

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Scene not assessed • Hazards overlooked, incorrectly or poorly assessed. • Hazards were not controlled, or controls were inadequate.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Scene was assessed to determine obvious hazards to rescuers and / or casualties. • A plan was developed to control obvious hazards. • Team members were notified of hazards or potential hazards.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Scene was thoroughly assessed by ongoing reconnaissance. • Hazards, including those not immediately obvious, were identified and controlled. • A pro-active approach was taken by team members to control hazards.

• RISK MANAGEMENT SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Scene Management

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Scene control not established. • Equipment staging not established or cluttered. • Protective items and equipment deployment was reactive, not planned.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Scene control established. • Equipment staging area established. • Equipment deployment was planned.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Staging and work areas quickly identified and established • Staging and work areas were kept safe and uncluttered. • Scene was monitored throughout.

• SCENE MANAGEMENT SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

LEADERSHIP

Assess and Reconnaissance

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Little or no effort was made to gather task and logistical information. • The scope of the task was not addressed. • The team leader did not analyse information. • No effort was made to record or share information. • As the situation changed, no effort was made to reassess.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • The team leader gathered task and logistical information from a variety of sources. • The scope of the task was addressed. • The team leader analysed information. • Information was recorded and shared within the team. • As the situation changed the team leader reassessed.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • The team leader actively sought task and logistical information. • The scope and complexity of the task was addressed. • The team leader critically analysed information. • Information was recorded and shared within the team and externally. • As the situation changed the team leader critically reassessed.

• ASSESS AND RECONNAISSANCE SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Organising and Briefing

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Team leader did not seek input from team members during planning. • Team members’ ideas and views were ignored or not valued. • Options and alternatives were not considered prior to deciding on a plan. • Plan was rigid and no monitoring evident. • Questions from the team were ignored or dismissed • The team was not briefed or the brief had no structure. • Instructions were ambiguous, unclear, long-winded or not understood.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Ideas were sought from team members. • Team members were able to contribute their views. • Options and alternatives were considered prior to deciding on a plan. • A logical and achievable plan was developed and monitored. • Questions regarding the plan were addressed. • The team was briefed using a structured format. • Instructions were clear.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • All team members were actively encouraged to contribute. • Team members’ were actively sought and valued. • Options, alternatives and contingencies were considered prior to deciding on a plan. • A logical, flexible and achievable plan was developed monitored and reviewed. • Issues were considered and resolved pro-actively as they occurred. • The team was briefed using a structured format which clearly described the mission, allocated tasks and responsibilities. • Instructions were unambiguous, clear, concise and understanding was confirmed.

• ORGANISING AND BRIEFING SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Leading the Team

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • The team leader did not appear to be in control of the operation or maintain a sense of urgency. • The team leader provided little or no direction or support to team members. • There was little or no concurrent activity. • The team leader ignored or failed to resolve disputes. • Resources (time, people and things) were not used effectively. • Team leader ignored or stifled initiative in team members. • The team leader failed to deputise parts of the operation where appropriate.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • The team leader was in control of the operation and maintained a sense of urgency. • The team leader provided direction and support to team members. • Concurrent activity took place to effectively manage the work. • The team leader resolved disputes as they occurred. • The team leader used resources (time, people and things) effectively. • Team leader acknowledged initiative in team members. • The team leader deputised parts of the operation where appropriate.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • The team leader was clearly in control throughout the operation and maintained an appropriate sense of urgency. • The team leader provided a balance of direction and support to team members. • The team leader actively encouraged concurrent activity. • The team leader recognised potential disputes early and prevented disharmony. • The team leader used resources (time, people and things) effectively, efficiently and economically. • Team leader encouraged initiative in team members. • The team leader was genuinely concerned for team’s well being eg; checked status of operations, checked condition of individuals.

• LEADING THE TEAM SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Reviewing and Debriefing

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Team performance was not monitored or adjusted. • A structured debrief was not conducted or did not cover the activity just undertaken. • Issues were not identified or discussed, guidance on improving performance was not offered. • The team members’ performance during the debriefing was not acknowledged or valued.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Team performance was monitored or adjusted. • A structured debrief was conducted. • Potential improvements to performance were identified. • Contributions of the team members were acknowledged.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Team performance was monitored and adjusted with timely, appropriate feedback provided. • A structured debrief was conducted in a positive way that contributed to the growth of the team. • All members were encouraged to contribute; potential improvements to performance were identified, agreed and recorded. • Contributions were valued and the debrief ended on a positive note.

• REVIEWING AND DEBRIEFING SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

RESCUE TECHNIQUES

Location and Access Techniques

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • There was no reconnaissance conducted, or it was poor and achieved little. • Access was slow, unsafe and compromised casualty safety. • Access techniques were unclear, poorly executed or ineffective.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • A reconnaissance was conducted to locate casualties. • Access was gained in a safe manner. • Access techniques were clearly understood, safe and effective.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • An efficient and thorough reconnaissance was conducted to locate casualties. • Access was gained in a safe and efficient manner. • Access techniques were clearly understood, safe, effective, and efficient.

• LOCATION AND ACCESS SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Extrication Techniques

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Unsafe, ineffective and/or inefficient techniques were selected. • The selected techniques and equipment were not used correctly. • Insufficient or unsuitable team members were tasked during the extrication. • A safe and effective extrication was not effected.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Safe and effective techniques were selected. • The selected techniques and equipment were used correctly. • Sufficient team members were tasked during the extrication. • A safe and effective extrication was effected.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Safe, effective and efficient techniques were selected. • The selected techniques and equipment were used innovatively. • Sufficient and suitable team members were tasked during the extrication. • A safe effective and efficient exit route was used

• EXTRICATION TECHNIQUES SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Casualty Removal Strategy

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • A removal strategy was loosely planned and/or failed to consider the nature of the injuries and the removal route. • Unsafe, ineffective and/or inefficient techniques were selected. • The selected techniques were not used correctly • The removal was carried out unsafely and/or ineffectively.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • A removal strategy was planned considering the nature of the injuries and the removal route. • Safe and effective removal techniques were selected. • The selected techniques were used correctly • The removal was carried out safely and effectively.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • A range of options were considered to develop an appropriate removal strategy considering available resources, the nature of the injuries and the removal route. • Safe, effective and efficient removal techniques were selected. • The selected techniques were used innovatively. • The removal was carried out safely, effectively and efficiently.

• CASUALTY REMOVAL STRATEGY SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Position Plotting

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • Map information was not interpreted correctly. • Little effort was made to plot positions, or positions were not plotted accurately. • Position information was not shared.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Map information was interpreted correctly. • Positions were plotted within acceptable tolerances (within 10m2 or 2o). • Position information was shared.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Map information was interpreted accurately and with insight. • Positions were plotted with high level accuracy (within 5m2 or 1o). • Position information was shared and discussed with team members.

• POSITION PLOTTING SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Route Planning and Communication

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • No attempt was made to develop a route plan or prepare route cards • Route plan (if prepared) did not include key information such as locations, distance, time, terrain or checking features. • A communication plan was not prepared or was not followed.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • An effective route plan was developed. • Route plan included at least three of: locations, distance, time, terrain or checking features. • A communications plan was prepared and followed.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • A comprehensive, efficient route plan including route cards was developed. • Route plan included locations, distance, time, terrain and checking features. • A comprehensive communication plan was prepared and followed, including departure, arrival and location information.

• ROUTE PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

CASUALTY MANAGEMENT

Casualty Care and Monitoring

• BELOW AVERAGE (1, 2, 3) • There was little or no initial or ongoing communication with the casualty. • The casualty was placed at unnecessary risk through actions of the rescue team. • Casualty comfort was not a priority (eg, sun, cold, rain). • Casualty information was not sought or recorded, or was inaccurate. • Casualty injuries and conditions were inadequately managed or ignored.

• AVERAGE (4, 5, 6) • Communication with the casualty was established and maintained. • The casualty was properly protected from physical harm during rescue operations. • Casualty comfort was a priority (eg, sun, cold, rain). • Casualty information was accurately recorded. • Casualty injuries and conditions were managed safely and effectively.

• ABOVE AVERAGE (7, 8, 9) • Initial communication with the casualty was established; ongoing, informative communication was maintained throughout the rescue operation. • There was an obvious attempt to deal with casualties in a very safe manner; the casualty was not exposed to any danger or harm throughout the operation. • The rescue team paid constant attention to the care and comfort needs of the casualty. • Comprehensive casualty information was accurately recorded. • Casualty injuries and conditions were managed safely, efficiently and effectively.

• CASUALTY CARE AND MONITORING SCORE

  Select 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

TEAM PENALTY / BONUS

• Are you Lead Judge?

  YES

  NO

• STOP CALLS: TICK A BOX EACH TIME THE TEAM RECEIVES A STOP CALL

• STOP CALL (-10 points)

• STOP CALL (-10 points)

• STOP CALL (-10 points)

• STOP CALL (-10 points)

• STOP CALL (-10 points)

• COMPLETION BONUS: TICK ONLY IF THE TEAM COMPLETED THE TASK

• TEAM BONUS (+10 points)