The coroner’s report into deaths in the London bombings on 7 July 2005 is likely to include recommendations for saving lives through better communication between emergency services. On the last day of evidence, Lady Justice Hallett criticised evidence from the fire service about a “conference demountable unit” which, it emerged, meant a portable incident room. She said “it is really important, when it comes to communication at the scene of an incident, I think, and I think it’s been an ongoing theme for me throughout this, that we need to just say to people, if they prepare a report that’s got jargon in it, give me the report back in plain English.”
Plain English was a recurring theme during the evidence. In January, on hearing that the emergency services were working on “a uniform type of nomenclature”, the coroner asked “Are they using plain English”? The witness said “Yes, that’s a good question.” As its name suggests, the Emergency Responder Interoperability Lexicon – a consolidated guide to the emergency services’ jargon – is not a quick or easy read. It includes over 270 acronyms, some with multiple meanings. Does it matter that the emergency services speak in acronyms and jargon, if they are all trained to use the same jargon? Does it save time, or hinder operations? The coroner’s report is expected around Easter.
Update
The coroner’s report, on 6 May 2011, dealt with this point in paragraphs 172 to 174. Families of those killed in the July 7 bombing had asked the coroner to recommend clearer communication in the emergency services. But she found that all 52 victims of the bombing would, sadly, have died no matter how quickly help had reached them. Her report did speak of her frustration at the “complex acronyms and unnecessary jargon” used by the emergency services, and the coroner’s recommendation for plain English after the King’s Cross fire. But she made no new recommendation on this point herself. She said:
“I accept that the proper use of acronyms and mnemonics (such as ‘CHALET’ standing for Casualties, Hazards, Access, Location, Emergency and Type) contribute significantly to the important aim of communicating information speedily and helpfully. However, the use of complex acronyms and unnecessary jargon may also confuse and impede communication. It tends to undermine a proper understanding of the roles and intentions of members of the other emergency services, and so hinder the coordination of effort. In a life-threatening situation everyone should be able to understand what everyone else is saying and what they are trying to do … This problem is not new … It might be thought, therefore, that organisations, for which communication is a vital part of their job, would demand from their staff the use of plain English and a fully reasoned justification for any change. The evidence before me suggested that is not the case. Easily recognisable and understood names or titles are changed, for no obvious reason, into ones which are not.”
