Finding the right balance to security in healthcare is challenging.
What is the purpose of your security system (equipment, security personnel, non-security personnel and procedures)?
A well designed security system should only require staff to respond to aggressive and violent situations in a manner consistent with the level of their security and personal safety skills.
Let’s consider applying the 80 – 20 rule to security in a hospital emergency department, though the conversation readily applies to many other healthcare settings. We will need to make a few assumptions.
• 80% of the general population will probably not cause any (or only minimal) security problems wherever they go. See Chart 1.
• Of the other 20% of the general population that we can expect to cause a security problem over time, perhaps only 20% of them will cause a security problem in any given month. This is 4% of the general population walking through the front door. See Chart 2.
• Of the group that we expect to cause a security problem in any given month, perhaps only 20% of them will present us with more serious security problems that would require a response from security officers. This would be less than 1% of the general population walking through the front door. See Chart 3.
Now remember that these numbers are only hypothetical. But what does it all mean?
A security system needs to be very well designed to achieve:
1. Reassurance to the general public
2. Protection of people (staff, clients, visitors and even the aggressor), property, reputation, and profit
3. Negligible disruption to the daily ‘user experience’ for the 96% of the people who come through the front door who do not present a security problem
4. Effective protocols to manage the medium risks associated with 3% of the people who come through the front door
5. Fail safe protocols to manage the high risks associated with less than 1% of the people who come through the front door
Most security systems are not particularly well designed, or not well executed, resulting in vulnerabilities that prohibit the security system from achieving its objectives.
Now you do not need a particularly robust security system to achieve 1. above.
If your security system is meant to achieve 4. and 5. above, will it actually deliver what you expect it to?
If your security system does not deliver on 4. and 5. above because of the vulnerabilities in the system, then it is probably only ‘keeping honest people honest’, and serving as a method of crowd control at best. If that is all your security system currently achieves, is it worth the money you are spending on it? Could you achieve the same security effect with less resources? Or should you be able to achieve a higher level of security with the current resources?
A common vulnerability is the protocol of just one security officer responding to an incident.
When the security officer does intervene, is she/he able to do so safely or is there a foreseeable risk to her/his health and safety when working alone? To mitigate this foreseeable risk, should security officers be working in pairs as a minimum?
What is the response time for the security officer to attend? What are staff who are caught up in the incident expected to do while waiting for the security officer to arrive? Have these staff received training for such situations?
Security officers will be one of the first people a member of public will see when arriving at the hospital. 96-99% of the time the security officers will be playing the role of customer service and providing directions and so forth. Situations often develop without significant notice which can make it difficult for the security officer (particularly when working alone) to switch quickly from the role of customer service officer to that of security officer.
So how does your Security System stack up? Does it merely ‘keep honest people honest’? What level of protection do you need from your Security System? What level of protection are you currently getting? What is required to close the gap? And if you don’t close the gap, who will be held accountable for not closing the gap?
Should you wish to discuss strategies to manage aggression or violence affecting you or your team, please do not hesitate to contact Holland Thomas & Associates.
Travis Holland
Managing Director
Holland Thomas & Associates