Decision‐making in multi‐agency groups at simulated major incident emergencies: In situ analysis of adherence to UK doctrine

Identifying challenges to critical incident decision-making through a macro-, meso-, and micro- lens: A systematic synthesis and holistic narrative analysis

It is predicted that emergency responses to critical incidents will increase over the next few decades, as society faces unique and dynamic challenges (e.g., pandemics, migrant crises, and terrorism). As such, it is necessary to breakdown, identify, and evaluate the unique barriers associated with decision-making in the context of critical incident responses. The aim of the current study was to synthesize the bibliographic characteristics of the research on decision making and present a holistic narrative analysis of the multi-layered factors. Additionally, the systematic synthesis of evidence facilitated a critical appraisal of the quality and distribution of evidence across macro-, meso-, and micro- levels. Results suggested that research was moderately heterogeneous, as evidence captured diverse narrative factors. However, micro-centric characteristics (e.g., cognitive-related factors) were not well represented. Instead, research primarily focused toward intermediate meso-level characteristics, capturing factors such as "interoperability" and "organization policy and procedure" as critical challenges to decision-making. Six key narratives were also identified and discussed. Both the quality appraisal and narrative findings suggested that research should seek opportunities to experimentally assess, evaluate and validate decision-making. Whilst this has previously appeared ethically and practically problematic, advances in technology, research and analysis have allowed high-fidelity simulation experimentation to recreate critical incidents.

Group processes and interoperability: A longitudinal case study analysis of the UK's civil contingency response to Covid‐19

Our case study explored a Local Resilience Forum's (LRF) civil contingency response to COVID‐19 in the United Kingdom. We undertook 19 semistructured ethnographic longitudinal interviews, between March 25, 2020 and February 17, 2021, with a Director of a Civil Contingencies Unit and a Chief Fire Officer who both played key roles within their LRF. Within these interviews, we focused on their strategic level decision‐making and how their relationship with national government impacted on local processes and outcomes. Using a form of grounded theory, our data describe the chronological evolution of an increasingly effective localized approach toward outbreak control and a growing resilience in dealing with concurrent emergency incidents. However, we also highlight how national government organizations imposed central control on aspects of the response in ways that undermined or misaligned with local preparedness. Thus, during emergencies, central governments can undermine the principle of subsidiarity and damage the ways in which LRFs can help scaffold local resilience. Our work contributes to the theoretical understanding of the social psychological factors that can shape the behaviour of responder agencies during a prolonged crisis. In particular, the implications of our analysis for advancing our conceptual understanding of strategic decision‐making during emergencies are discussed.