Lifeguarding behaviors: a century of safety?

The lifeguarding profession as we know it today began at the turn of the century with Wilbert E. Longfellow, who is credited with establishing the National American Red Cross Lifesaving Corps in 1914. Longfellow was concerned with the high number of drownings in the United States and began an aggressive crusade of water rescue and safety around the country. His primary purpose was to reduce drowning by training lifeguards to rescue others. At the same time, the National YMCA Lifesaving Service began, with the same intention of lowering the drowning rate.

With an emphasis on lifesaving, lifeguard selection and training was based primarily upon swimming skills, strength and speed in the water and situation-specific rescue techniques through the 1970s. While these lifeguards were most often highly skilled athletes and very well trained in water safety skills, many did not perform the primary lifeguarding task of watching the water.

The reason for this was probably twofold: In some cases, lifeguards were so comfortable and well trained in the water, they could not imagine someone else getting into trouble in an aquatic environment. Another reason might have been overconfidence in their skills. Many guards may have felt that in the event of a crisis, they could rely on their powers rescue to save the distressed individual. In this case, lifeguards believed they had minutes to respond when in reality they only had seconds. In addition, many lifeguards had no idea of what a distressed or drowning victim actually looked like in the water.

Ironically, the problem in the life-guarding profession has never been one of poor water rescue abilities or slow response time, but rather a lack of attention and observational skills and the failure to respond. Too often in the past lifeguards were recovering bodies rather than detecting potential drowning. During this time frame, the roles of lifeguard supervision and evaluation were not particularly popular because there was a common assumption that lifeguards were highly skilled and well trained, therefore they did not require supervision.

To help demonstrate these points, we conducted a classic lifeguarding study that was published in The New York Times dozen well-trained ocean life-observed were randomly observer during the summer. Findings showed that for every ten minutes observed, the guards only looked toward their areas of responsibility an average of 5.33 minutes. That meant that for 4.66 minutes of every ten minutes (less than 50% of the total time) lifeguards were viewing other areas of interest like friends, surfers on other beaches or the opposite sex. This information was not very reassuring, especially to parents who took their children to guarded beaches for safety.

Contributing the RID Factor

At approximately the same time, Frank Pia developed a model to prevent these lifeguarding pitfalls. He used actual film footage to demonstrate that drowning victims don't necessarily look like they are in trouble. Pia significantly added to the lifeguarding profession when he developed the RID (Recognize Intrusions Distractions) factor for identifying potential lifeguard oversights. RID teaches lifeguards and their trainers to RECOGNIZE that the struggle on the surface only lasts for seconds rather than minutes, and that a victim's actions should not be mistaken for play.

RID urges that INTRUSIONS not be added to the lifeguard's responsibilities that may take away from surveillance and that lifeguards must not be DISTRACTED by others. Pia was correct in stating that many lifeguards who were derelict in their duties often exhibited one or more items under the RID factor. More recent research suggests that an overzealous application of the RID factor may produce boredom and inattentiveness while on duty.

Reacting to the problems illustrated thus far, training agencies then began shifting their focus from lifesaving and rescue to prevention. In fact, the importance of swimming skills and in-water rescue have actually been somewhat minimized to spend additional time on educating patrons and stressing preventive lifeguarding. As lifeguarding philosophy and techniques progress, surveillance and scanning have taken on new significance.

Nearly a century ago lifeguards might have been viewed as heroic aqua men and women; whereas today they are trained and encouraged to be systematic scanners and educators. This change in philosophy has not been all bad, particularly when water safety is increased. Much of what has been written so far, although based on fact, is somewhat subjective. The following information is provided to add objective data to the evolution of the lifeguarding profession.

National Lifeguard Survey, 1994

In the summer of 1994, a comprehensive lifeguard survey was distributed throughout the country with nearly 800 lifeguards from more than half of the states responding. The results provided much-needed information illustrating exactly how lifeguards supervise swimmers in their areas of responsibility. Basically, the study found that in this country, lifeguards watch significantly larger areas and supervise far more swimmers than is generally recommended. Another important finding was that lifeguards prefer to be physically active and interact with peers, colleagues and guests to stay alert and prevent boredom. Lifeguards claimed that partaking of ice water and listening to music also helped them in this regard. lifeguards appreciate more frequent rotations and enjoy keeping busy while on duty. Most lifeguards surveyed were more concerned with tracking swimmers and using their time effectively rather than safety.

National Lifeguard Survey, 1995

During the summer of 1995, the survey was expanded and computerized; 2,796 lifeguards responded. The results once again provided important information that will assist water safety professionals in training and supervising lifeguards. The 1995 sample consisted of lifeguards from 34 states including Alaska and Puerto Rico. Of the lifeguards studied, 52% were male, while 48% were female. Responses to the most significant questions included in the study are included on the next page.

With almost 3,000 respondents, the 1995 National Lifeguard Survey was undoubtedly one of the largest lifeguard studies ever undertaken. Its main purpose was to reveal how lifeguards actually spend their time on duty, rather than speculating what the lifeguards should be doing while on duty.

When further analysis was applied to the data above, some very interesting findings arose. Older, more experienced guards clearly outranked younger, less experienced lifeguards on the survey. The older, more experienced guards reported that they were significantly better trained, were more confident, watched larger water surface areas and greater numbers of swimmers than younger, less experienced lifeguards.

Additional findings showed that ocean lifeguards were primarily older, more experienced males while swimming pool guards were younger, less experienced females. Young lifeguards in this study characterized themselves as "babysitters" while older lifeguards considered themselves as "educators."

The following is a summary of the major study findings with some points identified for discussion and future investigation.

* Half of the lifeguard sample was made up of teenagers (age 19 or under); our aquatic health care professionals are quite young.

* Forty percent of the lifeguard force surveyed worked for two seasons or less, indicating that many of our lifeguards are novices.

* Older, more experienced lifeguards consistently report having more responsibility while on duty than younger, less experienced guards.

* One third of the respondents guarded more than 3,000 square feet of water surface area.

* Sixty percent of the sample guarded more than 50 swimmers in their zone. More than half the lifeguarding sample watched their swimmers less than 100% of the time.

* A significant number of lifeguards did not know how to scan, thought that they were less than "very well trained" and were not supervised often.

Although lifeguarding education, training and supervision have improved during recent years, lifeguards are actually working in aquatic environments with responsibilities that exceed recommendations made by water safety agencies and experts in the past. If the information provided by this survey is accurate and reliable, even more intensive lifeguard training may be required in the future.

Further Measurement to Come

In addition, water safety experts may need to become more realistic in their expectations of working conditions for lifeguards. It appears that in order to improve safety, lifeguards must be trained to be even more observant. As we approach the 100th anniversary of lifeguarding in the United States, the authors look forward to the 1996 National Lifeguard Survey as a tool to further measure lifeguard readiness, skill and training.

RELATED ARTICLE: Scanning For the Unexpected

"Just as a motorcylist has to be prepared for the unexpected, all lifeguards must be plan for the unexpected."

The recent National Lifeguard Survey (see the 1995 results included at the end of this article on page 60), revealed that few lifeguards have heard of scanning as a technique of monitoring waters, and that most did not know the proper methods of scanning.

Scanning consists of a variety of visual observation techniques of lifeguards, all with the purpose of observing swimmers and preventing the lifeguard from becoming bored, disinterested or inattentive. In addition, the lifeguard is not looking at the same area or zone continuously when implementing these techniques. The six major scanning patterns that have emerged over the years include:

* Horizontal--scanning right to left, left to right

* Vertical--begin close, then scan to the edge of the area, then scan back

* Circular-scan in one larger circle around the area, or several small circles to cover the total area

* Triangular-scan in a triangular motion, changing the point of the triangle each time. For example, start the point at the stand, on the next sweep put the point at the far edge of the area, then to the left, then to the right

* Figure Eight--sweep the area in a "block-like" figure eight

* Letters--begin scanning in the shape of the letter "A," then sweep the area with each letter of the alphabet.

Any, or all, of these patterns can be incorporated into a five-minute scanning strategy, where a 30-minute period is broken down into five-minute segments for scanning. The five-minute scanning strategy allows the lifeguard some mental exercise that increases both attentiveness and responsiveness. The scan area contains a constantly changing environment. People move in and out of the area, activities change, and environmental factors such as sun glare and shadows change. These ever-changing factors create the need for constant and varied scanning.

Building upon the scanning process, life-guards must mentally rehearse the appropriate actions for rescue. The mental process lifeguards use to make judgements is surprisingly similar to that taught to motorcyclists. In its safety courses, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation stresses defensive riding as one of the most important safety factors. Defensive riding involves a mental process where the rider is alert, processes the actions of others and constantly evaluates the actions that he or she may need to take to remain safe. A motorcycle rider has to evaluate and prepare for the unexpected, just like a life-guard has to approach an emergency defensively and continuously prepare for the needed response.

The motorcyclist and the lifeguard share an acronym for the procedure used to identify and prepare for emergencies. SIPDE, which stands for Scan, Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute, teaches these individuals to observe and evaluate the environment, while making decision on action accordingly.

Scan

Lifeguards are taught to look for potential hazards. Some examples include changes in the slope of a pool, ladders or steps, ares where waves break, and the like. As the scan covers these areas, the lifeguard should pay particular attention.

Identify

Part of the lifeguard training describes potential or high-risk patrons (elderly, intoxicated, obese, and swimmers with young children). When scanning an area, those patrons must be identified. Each time the area is scanned, the guard should locate those people. This does not mean that these are the only patrons that the lifeguard watches, but it ensures that they are not in any danger.

Predict

Guards should anticipate the worst case scenario, by taking one of the high-risk patrons and anticipating what could potentially happen to that person. What might the person do to create a dangerous situation? What might the other swimmers do? The guard must incorporate "What if?" questions into the scenario. This is where the lifeguard's knowledge and experience can help. Not only does this exercise ensure that the guard is serving the swimmers, it acts as a mental stimulant to keep them actively involved and retain their interest.

Decide

Based on the predictions or potential scenarios just created, decide how to respond if any of them should occur. The more aggressively the lifeguard identifies potential hazards and high-risk patrons, the better the mental process for deciding the next course of action. The desired outcome, of course, is to eliminate or reduce the possibility of emergency.

Execute

In this step the decision is carried out. By this time, the lifeguard should be working on training that is virtually instinctual. All of the guard's skill and training pay off during the execution. The decision step is rendered meaningless without a lifeguard's ability's to successfully complete it.

The SIPDE method is just one example of combining preparedness training with scanning. There area many other techniques that can create an actively observant lifeguard who is mentally prepared for any number of potential hazards. Lifeguarding is a challenge that requires skill and knowledge. By increasing these two factors, we can increase the guard's preparedness and capability to properly handle hazardous situations. As with any safety-related issue--whether it be lifeguarding or motorcycle riding--the learning process is, and must always be, continuous.

RELATED ARTICLE: The National Lifeguard Survey, 1995

Note: Survey questions have been abreviated in the interest of space.

Age range: A. 16 years or younger 12% B. 17-19 years 38% C. 20-22 years 27% D. 23-25 years 11% E. 26 or older 12%

Type of facility at which you work: A. Pool 70% B. Water park 18% C. Ocean 8% D. Non-surf Lake 3% E. River 1%

Experience level: A. Less than one season 24% B. Between one and two seasons 16% C. Between two and three seasons 15% D. Between three and five seasons 20% E. More than five seasons 25%

Size of zone of coverage: A. Small (1,000 sq. ft. 22% B. Medium (2,000-3,000 sq. ft. 40% C. Large (3,000-4,000 sq. ft. 18% D. Extra Large (4,000-5,000 sq. ft. 6% E. Extreme (less than 5,000 sq. ft. 14%

Number of swimmers typically in your zone of coverage: A. 1-25 swimmers 14% B. 26-50 swimmers 26% C. 51-75 swimmers 20% D. 76-100 swimmers 15% E. more than 100 swimmers 25%

How much time do you actually watch swimmers in your zone of coverage: A. 25% time/watching less than 1% B. 50% time/watching 4% C. 75% time/watching 9%