What are the steps to prepare emergency response guidelines

There is no absolutely unified and fixed process for compiling emergency response guidelines. Currently, the most widely used path in practice is to first investigate all risk points in the corresponding scenario, then build a logical framework for hierarchical treatment, supplement implementation details of executable operations, and finally iteratively optimize through multiple rounds of deductions. However, for industries with strong supervision (such as hazardous chemicals, cultural tourism, and public transportation) and market-oriented entities (such as chain stores, Internet companies), the industry has always been divided on whether to align regulatory requirements first or to explore actual risks first. Both ideas have their own applicable scenarios, and there is no absolute right or wrong.

When I worked with experts from the Emergency Management Bureau to prepare township-level flash flood emergency guides for districts and counties two years ago, I first encountered the pitfall of applying a universal template. At that time, I tried to save trouble by taking the finished product from the district and county next door with similar landforms. However, it was rejected when it was sent to the village level. The village cadre said that our township floodway is next to the residence of three left-behind elderly households, and the county next door does not have such special risks. However, the general evacuation route given in the guide did not work at all, so we went back and spent a whole week to visit all the flash flood risk points in the township. We knew which sections of roads were prone to collapse during the flood season, which households needed special personnel to notify them of evacuation, and how much relief materials could be stored in the temporary resettlement sites. Later, this version of the guide was actually used in the flood season early warning that year, and there were zero errors in the evacuation of the entire township.

After figuring out the risk base, there is no need to rush to write the specific operations. You must first smooth out the core logic of the treatment, just like when writing a script, you must first establish the characters and clarify the story line. You cannot write the lines right away. For example, when we made a gas leakage emergency guide for a chain tea brand in a business district in Hangzhou, the first thing we set was not the operation steps, but the standards for graded response: if the hose is loose and there is a slight smell of gas, the on-duty clerk can close the valve and open the window for ventilation without reporting to the headquarters; if a small open flame has appeared, he must evacuate as soon as possible. Go to the safe area outside the store and report 119 again. Employees are absolutely not allowed to deal with it privately. If a leak from a surrounding store affects our store, just follow the unified command of the business district to evacuate. There is no need to judge the risk level by yourself. Once this logic is settled, there will be no confusion when filling in the details later, and there will be no situation where employees take risks to protect equipment.

The most common mistake that many people make when making guides is to write empty words, such as "report in time" and "evacuate as soon as possible". When an accident happens, ordinary people panic and have no idea how long "timely" means and who to "report" to, so the details must be down to the level that they can be followed directly. I have seen the fire emergency guide of an Internet company before. It even clearly marked the iconic stores next to the evacuation assembly point on each floor, the mobile phone numbers of pregnant women and employees with limited mobility, and even which DingTalk group to join to report safety if they ran away. Last year, during an emergency fire drill in an office building, more than 200 people on the entire floor were assembled and counted in 5 minutes, which was more than twice as fast as that of a company of the same size next door.

Don’t think that the guide is over once it’s written. If it’s left to gather dust for three to five years without being updated, there’s a good chance it won’t be needed if something goes wrong. Last month, I heard from a friend that a water pipe burst in their company's warehouse and flooded the goods. I checked the previous emergency guide and found that the property management phone number was from two years ago. It took more than half an hour to contact someone, and the damage to the goods was nearly RMB 100,000 more. Normally, information should be updated at least quarterly against changes in personnel, venues, and partners, and every six months all relevant personnel should be invited to conduct live simulations. Any unreasonable areas should be adjusted at any time. Otherwise, no matter how thick and organized it is, it will just be waste paper to cope with inspections.

Going back to the controversy mentioned at the beginning, if you are making a guide for areas with strong supervision such as hazardous chemicals, mining, and public transportation, you must first list all the mandatory requirements of the competent authorities without touching the red lines, and then make adjustments based on the actual risks; if it is a market-oriented scenario such as ordinary stores and offices, then first understand your actual risks and then align with the general requirements. On the contrary, it will be more efficient, and there is no need to rigidly impose unified procedures and standards. To put it bluntly, the emergency manual is never made for inspection by superiors. It is an operation manual that even new employees who come here for the first time can pick it up and follow it when something goes wrong. All the preparation steps must ultimately fall into this standard to be useful.