Systematic scanning for lifeguards.

During the summer of 1994, 763 lifeguards from 20 states and Canada responded to a questionnaire designed to help develop systematic scanning strategies for all water safety personnel. This preliminary survey was an important first step as a part of a long range study being conducted at Penn State University to improve observation, surveillance, and scanning skills of lifeguards. The ultimate objective of the long range investigation is to add objectivity and accountability to what has been a very subjective training process. In addition, we hoped to start standardizing scanning strategies so that all lifeguards are practicing similar surveillance skills while on duty.

Novice lifeguards often do not have necessary visual skills, nor do they know the idiosyncracies of their facility. They need to acquire the skills and understand the systems used by veteran guards up front, so they are: lOt in a position of "learning while earning." In light of these concerns, it is important to assist lifeguard supervisors in evaluating job performance of guards.

The strength of systematic scanning strategies is that both supervisor and guard will be able to state exactly how and what each lifeguard observed every minute while on duty.

The Survey

Most discussions of lifeguard practices tell lifeguards how they should watch the water. This survey asked lifeguards to tell us how they actually do watch the water The survey was confidential; no names or workplaces were given to help ensure honest and sincere responses.

The 763 lifeguards surveyed worked in a variety of swimming environments (see Table 1).

[TABULAR DATA 1 OMITTED]

It is important to note that some authorities suggest that one lifeguard should have responsibility for no more than 2,000 square feet of water surface area. Table 2 indicates that 58% of the guards were required to cover areas of responsibility greater than the recommended standard, while over 42% (nearly half) had twice the recommended area to cover.

[TABULAR DATA 2 OMITTED]

In truth, not only is the size of the swimming area important for safety, but the number of swimmers within that area also must be considered. Some authorities suggest one life guard for every 25 to 50 swimmers. The survey revealed that range is exceeded at more than half of the facilities involved (see Table 3).

[TABULAR DATA 3 OMITTED]

One of the primary purposes of this survey was to investigate the observational techniques currently used by lifeguards to monitor their swimming areas. Seventy-three percent of the respondents answered that they used specific observational techniqnes, while 27% replied that they had no special techniques. The description of the techniques cited are categorized and reported in Table 4. In addition to observational techniques that fall into specific categories, some lifeguard, said they are "looking for misbehavior," "using assertive observation," "mentally rehearsing specific rescue techniques," "group watching," "activity watching," "block scanning," and "I watch everything."

[TABULAR DATA 4 OMITTED]

It must be emphasized that 74% responded by citing "scanning" or the "10/20" rule. Unfortunately, no light was shed on how these techniques were actually accomplished. It is hoped that our future research will add insight into this crucial area.

The lifeguards were asked where they learned the techniques that they used while on duty. They responsed as follows:

* Lifeguard Training (generic) 39%

* Ellis and Associates 30%

* American Red Cross  12%

* In-Service Training 14%

* Colleagues 2%

* Other/Miscellaneous 3%

Another aspect of the investigation focused on whether specific training techniques would help the lifeguards be more effective. Eighty-five percent answered "yes," stating that more training in this area would be helpful; 15% thought that it was not necessary. Those who thought it would be helpful were asked why. They answered that it was necessary to:

* Keep alert 35%

* Be organized & effective 34%

* Increase safety 9%

* Improve coverage 7%

* Prevent boredom  7%

* Be efficient/save time 5%

* Simply a great idea 3%

One-hundred percent of the lifeguards who stated that systematic training would not be helpful to them (15%) preferred their own observational techniques.

Perhaps the most interesting results of this survey surfaced when the lifeguards were asked to explain how they stayed alert and prevented boredom while on duty. Their responses are categorized in Table 5.

TABLE 5. RESPONSE
CATEGORIES AND RELATED
COMMENTS
Sing or listen to music                    17%
Physically move or walk around             13%
Count swimmers                              8%
Have cold drinks, (i.e., ice water)         8%
Systematically scan and observe             7%
Talk to patrons/other lifeguards            6%
I don't get bored; I do a good job          5%
Rotate stations                             5%
Get wet; splash the face; take a dip        4%
Problem solving (rescue) scenarios          3%
Twirl whistle                               3%
Think about something else                  2%
Get plenty of sleep the night before        2%
Caffeine                                    2%
Analyze strokes                             1%
Concerned about safety                      1%

Also receiving some responses but not
to a significant degree included:

Watch potential hazardous areas
Watch/yell at kids
Watch activities
Maintain good, alert posture
Do housekeeping chores
Exercise
Look at the opposite sex
Eat
Take a break

Some common which may or may not
have been made in jest included:

"I'm constantly bored"
"I try to hold my breath for more
  than three minutes"
"I take Ritalin"
"I chew snuff"
"I look directly into the sun"
"I count beet bottles"
"I chew my nails"
"I think about.....Love;
  ...Bay Watch;
  ...How proud I am to be a lifeguard."
"I mentally make fun of patrons"
"I mentally have wars with cartoons"
"I guess the age and weight of patrons"
"I pray"
"I bounce on the diving board"

When asked for their preferred posture while on duty, nearly half (47%) said they prefer not to stand--53% prefer to sit. Thirty-five percent prefer to walk, and 12% are standers.

Loads Too Heavy for Most Guards

While this survey is only the beginning of our research on systematic scanning strategies, we gained some vital information from it. For example, we found that lifeguards have greater coverage demands both in squire feet of surface area and number of swimmers watched than many experts recommend. Obviously, this should be a concern for aquatic safety leaders.

Since this survey represents the "real world", that 85% of the lifeguards surveyed feel they need systematic scanning strategies can't be ignored.

Another finding that surfaced was that most guards paid attention and prevented boredom by staying active, both physically and mentally. Conscientious lifeguards prefer to be communicative and interactive while on duty to stay alert. In addition to scanning, the most popular ways for the participating lifeguards to prevent boredom was to move around, sing, listen to music, count patrons, and drink ice water.

A somewhat surprising result was the lack of attention by lifeguards to hazardous areas, high risk guests, and dangerous activities. Although all lifeguarding texts refer to the importance of monitoring these areas regularly while on duty, these concerns rarely were mentioned in the survey. Certainly, more effective education in this area is needed. It also should be mentioned that not one of the nearly 800 guards surveyed stayed alert out of fear of a lifeguard audit; that is, they did not worry about getting reprimanded if they did not pay attention while on duty.

Armed with this information, the investigators then reviewed four major lifeguarding texts that recently published new information on lifeguard surveillance and scanning. These included the latest version of the American Red Cross, Lifeguarding Today, (1995),The YMCA On The Guard II, (1994), Ellis and Associates, National Pool and Water Park Lifeguard/CPR Training Manual (1994), The Royal Lifesaving Society of Canada, Alert, Lifeguarding in Action, 1993, and the audio visual tape "Making the Difference". After comparing these texts in terms of their theories of scanning and the survey results, the investigators then interviewed ophthalmologists, vision training specialists, sports psychologists, and military personnel to discuss the developing scanning systems further.

Sweeping and Scanning

One system is the sweeping and scanning technique. For this technique to be effective, both head and eyes must move together. Moving the head not only allows the guard to avoid eye fatigue and keeps patrons with in the central field of vision (10 [degrees]-15 [degrees]) where details can be detected, but it is also an indication to the lifeguard Supervisor that the guard is indeed scanning. While central vision is ideal for detecting details such as facial expressions, peripheral vision is very well suited for detecting motion.

Once all this information was formalized by the investigators, suggested scanning routines were pilot tested at Penn State University with actual lifeguards.

Fine tuning of the systematic scanning proposal took place during late summer 1994 with positive results. We strongly urge lifeguards, head lifeguards, supervisors, and managers to experiment with the following system of systematic scanning strategies.

Systematic Scanning Strategies

The aquatic staff must develop 3-4 good scanning patterns that the guards will use. Specific scanning patterns must take into account the size and configuration of the facility, water activities, position of lifeguard stations, environmental conditions, and other important variables. Experienced guards should assist in the development of scanning patterns. Typical scanning pattern include horizontal, vertical, figure eight, triangles, double triangles, and circles.

While lifeguards use the facility approved scanning patterns, supervisors should calculate the average time required for one visual sweep on busy days. This sweep time will vary with conditions, but guards should attempt to sweep quickly and continuously to meet the sweep time. (See Table 6 for details.)

TABLE 6. THE FIVE MINUTE
SCANNING STRATEGY
First Sweep
generally assess those in the zone

Second Sweep
group, categorize or place

Third Sweep
momentally center on a focal
person within each group

Each Successive Sweep
change focal persons

After five minutes, lifeguards should count swimmers in the zone, check high risk patrons and hazardous places, change posture, and mentally rehearse a rescue. He or she then should pick a different pattern and repeat the above steps for five minutes.

Scanning for more than five minutes with the same visual pattern will lead to boredom and eye fatigue. If a lifeguard cannot concentrate for five minutes using one pattern, the time limit for the scanning pattern should be reduced to 3-4 minutes.

Another principle of this scheme includes rotating the guards to new stations every 20 to 30 minutes. Changing stations very often prevents boredom. Novice guards should be taught how to scan correctly and trained for specific aquatic environments; and guards with more experience should serve as their mentors.

The investigators believe that the five-minute scanning strategy is sound and will increase safety and accountability. We hope facilities nationwide will try out the system and provide us with feedback in the near future.