How do lifeguards detect a drowning casualty?
Dec 31, 2021RESEARCH DIGEST
How do lifeguards search for drowning incidents?
Two studies that measured eye movements (Page et al., 2011a; Lanagan-Leitzel & Moore, 2010) suggested experienced beach lifeguards’ eye movements were not significantly different from newly-trained lifeguards. In a study involving UK beach lifeguards and real-life footage, no significant difference in eye movements between the beginning and end of the season (Smith, 2011). Laxton and Crundell (2018) also found that UK swimming pool lifeguards adopted broadly the same fixations and eye movements as non-lifeguards, lifesavers and trainers.
Experienced lifeguards were found to use longer and more variable fixations than novice lifeguards (Vansteenkiste et al., 2021). Increased fixation duration is thought to increase the quality and quantity of data that informs decision-making and would be expected to lead to higher detection rates.
Is head movement (scanning) a good indicator of lifeguard detection performance?
Of the lifeguards that fixated on the correct location in the final 3.5 seconds in both conditions, 40% (biased) and 42% (non-biased) did not detect the person disappearing. Observers were reported by Page et al. (2011) to frequently miss changes to scenes they are observing.
Hunsucker and Davison (2013) found in a US documentary analysis of pool inspection records that 79% of scans took less than 30 seconds, and only 42% of scans were completed in under 15 seconds. The average scan time was 22 seconds.
A study of 14 YMCA swimming pools in the US supervised by American Red Cross lifeguards (Schwebel, Jones, Holder, and Marciani, 2011) found that risky behaviours decreased as scanning increased, as Harrell (2001) had previously found.
How do lifeguards identify hazards?
Lifeguards, trainers, experts, and non-lifeguards are less consistent in their definition of a hazard in a pool environment displayed via video footage than in real life.
In another video study of beach lifeguards, Smith et al. (2011) found that lifeguard instructors identified more hazards than experienced lifeguards and experienced lifeguards more than less experienced lifeguards. Large variations in what experienced lifeguards identified as hazardous were found (Smith, 2011). Lanagan-Leitzel (2019) asked a group of participants to provide numerical ratings of severity for some of the incidents identified in a 2012 video study (Lanagan-Leitzel, 2012). Events given a high severity rating by participants in Lanagan-Leitzel (2019) were identified as hazards at broadly the same rate as events given a lower severity rating (Lanagan-Leitzel, 2012), suggesting that agreement about what is a more or less serious hazard in the pool environment is inconsistently understood.
Does experience improve performance?
Experience does not appear to alter a lifeguard's scanning strategy (Smith, 2011).
In a video simulation study, experienced beach lifeguards were 4.9 times more likely than less experienced lifeguards to make a positive detection (Page et al., 2011). In a study involving UK beach lifeguards and real-life footage, no significant difference in the performance of a lifeguard at the beginning and end of a season was identified (Smith, 2013). Laxton and Crundell (2018) found that lifeguard detection accuracy and response times were only marginally better than non-lifeguards and lifesavers.
Current results suggest experience does not alter scanning strategy but produces more accurate detection rates because of improvements to the contextual interpretation of visual information resulting from increased knowledge of what drowning casualties look like (Pia, 2017b; Vansteenkiste et al., 2021). Laxton and Crundell (2018) found that lifeguard detection accuracy and response times were only marginally better than non-lifeguards, further supporting the notion that knowing what to look for may be more important to detection rates than scanning techniques, particularly where drowning is passive, and signs are less obvious.
One study showed that only about a third of drowning incidents in lifeguarded facilities were detected by on-duty lifeguards; most are detected by non-lifeguard bystanders (Pelletier and Gilchrist, 2011). However, it cannot be said to be a failure of lifeguard detection where a proximate non-lifeguard responds quickly to a person in danger, and this can be difficult to ascertain in documentary analyses.
How do higher pool user numbers affect how lifeguards scan?
Page et al. (2011b) found no differences in the visual search patterns adopted by lifeguards viewing animated footage when observing 43, 53 and 63 heads in the water. Vansteenkiste et al. (2021) found the number of swimmers had no effect on fixation duration in his in situ study of beach lifeguards but did observe a difference in the direction of gaze lifeguards' adopted.
Scanning behaviour decreases with a lower child-adult ratio, more children in the pool, and later in the day (Harrell, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006). An increase in scanning behaviour (i.e. vigilant with active head movement) appears to reduce the number of rule violations by pool users resulting in an overall increase in the safety of the pool (Harrell, 2001). Harrell (1999, 2001; Harrell & Boisvert, 2003) suggested that lifeguards tended to increase their head movement when the ratio of children to adults increased, indicating they perceived adults supervising more children as posing a greater risk.
How are detection rates affected by higher pool user numbers?
Laxton and Crundall (2018) found decreasing drowning detection accuracy as pool user numbers increased from three to six to nine swimmers in a pool.
References
Brenner, J., and Oostman, M. (2002). Lifeguards watch, but they don't always see! (World Waterpark Magazine, May 14–16). 14–16 [article reports the findings of the Jeff Ellis & Associates 2002 study].
Fenner, P., Griffiths, T., Oostman, M., & Pia, F. (2006). Lifesaver surveillance and scanning: Past, present, future. In J. J. L. M. Bierens (Ed.), Handbook on drowning (pp. 214–219). World Health Organization.
Fenner, P., Leahy, S., Buhk, A., & Dawes, P. (1999). Prevention of drowning: Visual scanning and attention span in lifeguards. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety. 15(1), 61–66
Griffiths, T., Chambers, V., and Steel, D. (1995). Systematic scanning for lifeguards: Survey results. Parks & Recreation. 30(2), 40–47
Harrell, A. (1999). Lifeguards' vigilance. Effects of child-adult ratio and lifeguard positioning on scanning by lifeguards. Psychological Reports. 84, 193-197. [A study of four Canadian lifeguards at an indoor swimming pool between 13:25-17:30]
Harrell, A. (2001). Does supervision by a lifeguard make a difference in rule violations? Effects of lifeguards' scanning. Psychological reports. 89, 327-330. [A study of five Canadian lifeguards at five different indoor pools were recorded lifeguarding a pool without eye-tracking technology].
Harrell, A. and Boisvert, J. (2003). An information theory analysis of duration of lifeguards' scanning. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 97, 129-134. [A field observation study of six Canadian lifeguards over sixty minutes at three indoor pools].
Hunsucker, J. and Davison, S. (2013). Scan time goals with analysis of scan times from aquatic facilities. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 7, 227-237. [A documentary analysis of two pools over 289 inspections involving 15,737 lifeguard observations over six years with one pool using a risk triage scanning strategy and the other using the 10:20 scanning strategy].
Hunsucker, J., and Davison, S. (2008). How lifeguards overlook a victim: Vision and signal detection. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 2(1), 59–74.
Lanagan-Leitzel, L. (2020). Does incident severity influence surveillance by lifeguards in aquatic scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 35, 181-191. [A live, recorded study involving three lifeguards of three to five years' experience observing twenty video clips; each of two minutes duration].
Lanagan-Leitzel, L. K. (2012). Identification of critical events by lifeguards, instructors, and non-lifeguards. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 6(3), 203-214. [A live, recorded video study of ten lifeguard instructors, twelve newly qualified lifeguards, seventeen lifeguards with experience an average experience of 2.5 years, and twenty non-lifeguards. Participants watched four, two-minute videos from each of the five ocean, lake and pool locations].
Lanagan-Leitzel, L., and Moore, C. (2010). Do lifeguards monitor the events they should? International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 4(3), 241-256. [A recorded simulation study involving ten primarily pool lifeguards of one and seven years experience and twenty non-lifeguards watched sixty, thirty-second video clips].
Lanagan-leitzel, L., Skow, E., and Moore, C. (2015). Great expectations: Perceptual challenges of visual surveillance in lifeguarding. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 29, 425–435
Laxton, V., and Crundall, D. (2018). The effect of lifeguard experience upon the detection of drowning victims in a realistic dynamic visual search task. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 32(1), 14-23. [An eye-tracking live video playback study of twenty-one UK lifeguards and twenty-one non-lifeguards observation of 45 video clips involving 3, 6 and 9 swimmers in an indoor pool].
Michniewicz, I., Michniewicz, R., and Stallman, R. (2017). The surveillance behavior of lifeguards: An observational analysis. Paper presented at World Conference on Drowning Prevention. 143.
Page, J., Bates, V., Long, G., Dawes, P., and Tipton, M. (2011). Beach lifeguards: Visual search patterns, detection rates and the influence of experience. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 31(3), 216 –224. [A recorded simulation study involving beach lifeguards and non-lifeguards].
Schwebel, D., Jones, H., Holder, E., Marciani, E. (2011). The influence of simulated drowning audits on lifeguard surveillance and swimmer risk-taking at public swimming pools. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 5(2), 1-10.
Schwebel, D., Lindsay, S., and Simpson, J. (2007). Brief report: A brief intervention to improve lifeguard surveillance at a public swimming pool. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 32(7), 862–868. [This field study observed fourteen lifeguards for twenty days pre-intervention and fourteen days post-intervention recording pool incidents and lifeguard scanning behaviour. The hour evening meeting ("intervention") sought to decrease perception around the likelihood of drowning, increase knowledge of the severity of incidents, and sought suggestions to overcome barriers to supervision].
Smith, J., Long, G., Dawes, P., Runswick, O., Tipton, M. (2020). Changes in lifeguards' hazard detection and eye movements with experience. Is one season enough? International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education. 13(1), 1-22. [A live, recorded video study involving 39 UK beach lifeguards using real-life beach footage displayed from a realistic angle. Twenty lifeguards of less than five years' experience and nineteen lifeguards of more than five-years experience].
Szpilman, D., Doyle, B., Smith, J., Griffiths, R., & Tipton, M. (2017). Challenges and feasibility of applying reasoning and decision making for a lifeguard undertaking a rescue. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience. 9,1-9.
United States Lifeguard Standards. (2011). An evidence-based review and report by the United States lifeguard standards coalition. Available at: http://www. lifeguardstandards.org/pdf/USLSC_FINAL_APPROVAL_1-31-11.pdf accessed 29th December 2021.
Vansteenkiste, P., Lenoir, M., Bourgois, J. (2021). Gaze behaviour of experienced and novice beach lifeguards. An exploratory in situ study. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 35, 251-257. [A study of sixteen Belgian beach lifeguards, nine with one-to-two years' experience and seven with over two years' experience, assessed using eye-tracking technology, a live beach scene between 12:30-18:00].
Citation: Jacklin, D. 2021. How do lifeguards detect a drowning casualty? Water Incident Research Hub, 27 December).
