An Introductory Guide to JESIP Principles and Supporting Systems

The importance of efficient multi-agency response in an age of major incidents

Major incidents are commonly defined as events that require an extraordinary allocation of resources, either due to their location, severity, type, and/or number of victimsⁱ. The management of these incidents, varied by nature as they are, usually involves responders coming together from multiple rescue services. Agencies might even have to come from different jurisdictions or geographies. 

Inter-service cooperation, in this context, is necessary but rarely simple. That’s because responding agencies will bring their own competencies, experiences, systems, and terminology.

Melding everything together, particularly during a severe incident, is difficult, one of the starker challenges to optimal resource allocation and effective incident management.

Starting with the Incident Command System (ICS) in the late 1970s, however, major incident commandⁱⁱ, controlⁱⁱⁱ, and coordination^iv frameworks have emerged to tackle the variegated challenges associated with multiagency cooperation, e.g., limited spans of control, the need for clearer lines of command, as well as inability to communicate effectively across organisations^v. 

What’s been developed and refined serves the purpose, therefore, of directing different actions in an affected region. Resultant frameworks seek to organise command and scene assessment, such that an individual structure becomes the mode of handling an incident, and local directors within that region conform to the structure in place^vi. 

One such framework is the JESIP Joint Doctrine, an interoperability framework, which standardises multiagency working. JESIP models and principles themselves, the most salient of which this guide will lay out, have become the standard for interoperability in the U.K. 

JESIP principles

JESIP’s initial focus was on improving multi-agency response to major incidents. Nowadays, however, the framework is scalable, with models of joint working that can be applied to any type of multi-agency incident. 

What are some of the key JESIP principles? 

The most important principle outlines how multiple agencies can work jointly, in all phases of an incident, irrespective of scale and whether the incident was spontaneous or pre-planned. 

JESIP principles for joint working include: 

 

Shared situational awareness and the M/ETHANE mnemonic

What else contributes to shared situational awareness? 

Per JESIP principles, talking to commanders before they arrive on scene as well as throughout the incident also helps. The organising process, however, should include identifying risks and hazards.

What points should be covered between control rooms? The following considerations have been singled out:

• Is it clear who the lead organisation is at this point? If so, who is it?
• What information and intelligence does each organisation hold at this point?
• What hazards and risks are known by each organisation at this point?
• What assets have been, or are being, deployed at this point and why?
• How will the required agencies continue communicating with each other?
• At what point will multi-agency interoperable voice communications be required, and how will it be achieved?

The mnemonic stands for:

• M- Major incident declared. Has a major incident been declared? Advise major incident “standby” or “declared.” For incidents falling below the major incident threshold M/ETHANE becomes an ETHANE message.
• E- Exact location of the incident. What is the exact location and geographical area of the incident? Grid reference, road names, landmarks, etc. 
• T- Type of incident. What kind of incident is it? With brief details, could include rail, chemical, road traffic collision, etc. 
• H- Hazards. What hazards or potential hazards can be identified? Present and potential.
• A- Access/egress. What are the best routes for access and egress? Routes to the incident and potential rendezvous points.
• N- Number of casualties. How many casualties are there, and what condition are they in? An estimate in the first instance, then upgraded with their severity/type.
• E- Emergency services. Which, and how many, emergency responder assets and personnel are required or are already on-scene? Present and those required, including specialist input.

Stages of response to a multi-agency incident

The importance of the M/ETHANE mnemonic and reporting model is that it brings structure and clarity to the initial stages of managing a major incident. 

This cannot be overstated.

During these early stages, it will take time for operational structures, resources and protocols to be established. Some, if not much, of the required information may not be available. 

All of this puts undue pressure on the first responders and early control rooms.

Add to that, incident commanders may lack the necessary resources to deal with the incident. And so, a common approach, such as M/ETHANE, will be required. 

How does M/ETHANE get operationalised in the field?

According to the Joint Decision Model (More later), there should be periodic consideration of the major incident designation by responders. This helps to establish whether a developing situation has indeed become a major incident. 

Each responder organisation will then send a M/ETHANE message to its control room. Those organisations should then share it with relevant responder organisations as soon as possible.

It’s imperative, though, that when the first resources arrive on the scene, they consider their own safety. This will involve sending a M/ETHANE message so that situational awareness can be established quickly. 

The information received through multiple M/ETHANE messages will gradually accumulate to support shared situational awareness in those responding to the incident and between control rooms. 

Developing a common operating picture

From there, it will be incumbent on responders to develop a common operating picture (COP). A COP is defined as a common overview of an incident, which is created by assessing and fusing information from multiple sources. The overview developed then gets shared between appropriate command, control, and co-ordinating groups to support joint decision making. 

What about the COP itself? Is it a static picture? Although a common point of reference, the COP should evolve with the incident, to adequately summarise the below:

• What is happening now and what is being done about it? 
• What does it all mean and what effects will it have?
• What might happen next or in the future? 

What about format? Per JESIP principles, there’s no set format for the COP. The COP should, however, reflect local requirements and practices. And whatever form the COP takes, it should be user-friendly, easy to navigate, and geared to the requirements of busy decision makers under pressure. 

Joint Decision Model

This is where the Joint Decision Model (JDM) comes in. The JDM, depicted below, is designed to help responding agencies make effective decisions during fluid circumstances.

When using the JDM, the priority is to gather and assess information and intelligence. Responders should work together to build shared situational awareness, recognising that this requires continuous effort as the situation, and responders’ understanding, will change over time. 

Understanding the risks is vital to establishing shared situational awareness, as it enables responders to answer the three fundamental questions: what, so what, and what might? But once the process of building shared situational awareness has begun, the desired outcomes should be agreed to as the central part of a joint working strategy. 

If a Strategic Co-ordinating Group (SCG) is convened to this effect, that SCG will agree and share the joint strategy for the multi-agency response. The strategic command teams from each organisation should then review and amend their single-agency strategy to be consistent with the joint strategy and support them in achieving the jointly defined outcomes, or overarching aim.

Deciding how all agencies will work towards the desired outcome reflects the available capabilities, powers, policies, and procedures (means) and the arising options, constraints, and contingencies (ways). 

Identifying options and contingencies comes next. Some options, however, will not be viable, either difficult to implement, technically or logistically infeasible, or illegal and/or ethically indefensible. Such options, though, should still be logged with rationale as to why they were not achievable. 

At this point, the JDM advises responders to take action after they’ve mulled over the appropriate considerations. Responders should also list the various stages taken to reach that decision. 

This, of course, is just a cursory picture of the JDM. Further considerations include:

 

Decision making support

Thoroughly assessing the information received helps to ensure quality and suitability for the task at hand. This is critical to ensuring that joint decision making is based on the best possible information, which can only happen by identifying where critical uncertainties lie. 

Of course, once decisions have been made and actions agreed to, information should be relayed in a structured way. That way it can be easily understood by those who will carry out actions or support activities. This process is commonly known as briefing. 

The mnemonic IIMARCH, short for Information, Intent, Method, Administration, Risk Assessment, Communications, and Humanitarian Issues, is commonly used in these circumstances, so that information can be briefed in appropriate detail. 

Finally, the matter in which information is shared is also important to support joint decision-making. JESIP, here, recommends using a common information sharing platform, preferably digital, to share and manage information collaboratively. 

What are the advantages of using a digital information sharing platform for incident response? Per JESIP, using a digital platform helps with automating aspects of sourcing, combining, analysing, and displaying data. 

What platforms to consider, though?

Certain advanced emergency management platforms carry both information sharing and full-lifecycle emergency management capabilities. What’s more, those platforms have the added benefit of providing JESIP incident management dashboards, as well as the capability to create both M/ETHANE reports and IIMARCH briefings. 

Those aren’t the only capabilities of notee. 

A truly digital EOC suited for governments, corporation, and non-profits in the U.K. and abroad, these platforms have been designed for industry best practice, such as ICS and JESIP. This means, in close, that the platforms boast powerful workflows which go the critical last mile to automate key response steps, making it easier for practitioners of JESIP models and principles to collaborate, communicate, and coordinate to improve their response to major incidents.

Sources

i. Marius Rehn et al., BMC Emergency Medicine: A concept for major incident triage: full-scaled simulation feasibility study. Available at https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/943577/viewer.

ii. The internal direction of the members and resources of an organisation’s roles and tasks by agreement or in accordance with relevant legislation. Command operates vertically within an organisation.

iii. The overall direction of emergency management activities in an emergency situation. Control relates to situations and operates horizontally across organisations.

iv. The bringing together of organisations and other resources to support an emergency management response. It involves the systematic acquisition and application of resources in an emergency situation.

v. Peter Aitken and Peter Leggat, Emergency Medicine: An International Perspective: Considerations in Mass Casualty and Disaster Management. Available at https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/25867/1/25867_Aitken_Leggat_2012.pdf.

vi. Federico Coccolini et al., World Journal of Emergency Surgery: COVID-19 the showdown for mass casualty preparedness and management: the Cassandra Syndrome. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7145275/.