method in Canada revealed that the Incident Command System (ICS) is the primary method utilized. Some have the opinion that the system is used across the nation as a standardized approach to incident management (ICS Canada, n.d.), while others state that the use of ICS is left to each individual province (personal communications). Research revealed that Canadian's have made some slight adjustments to ICS to meet their needs, and the overall system appears to have widespread use.
An organization called ICS Canada (n.d.) claims that the first iteration of ICS in Canada happened in the Province of British Columbia during the mid‐1990s. In 2002, the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC), mandated that all provincial, territorial, and federal agencies should learn and utilize the CIFFC's version of ICS for wildland firefighting. This version of ICS included a standard doctrine and provided training materials for the wildland fire community across Canada. The mandate was directed at wildland firefighting operations, but the mandate did not include nonwildland firefighting organizations. Even without the mandate, many agencies who were not involved in wildland firefighting operations began to utilize this IMS method for daily response, and soon, the use of the Canadian ICS system increased (ICS Canada, n.d.).
When the CIFFC was reviewing potential updates to the wildland firefighting courses, it was realized that the Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) was looking to provide a single command and control system that incorporated an all‐hazards approach that would meet their long‐term provincial emergency management needs. These two separate entities with very different response areas cooperated and collaborated with each other to create the groundwork for the use of ICS in Canada (ICS, Canada). While it appears that not every province has decided to utilize the ICS method, the organization known as ICS Canada was actively recruiting provinces and organization to adopt this standard for incident management as of the writing of this book.
This brings us to the use of Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) in the country of Canada. Research revealed that the clear majority of hospitals in Canada have adopted the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) method as a standard. Since 2006, the Ontario Hospital Association (2006) created a hospital emergency management toolkit, which included the call for implementation of the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). From information found in research, it appears that this has become a voluntary standard across Canada, although it does appear as if there was some government urging.
3.9 China
Prior to May 2018, China had no nationwide emergency management agency or a nationwide IMS method in place. Until the formation of the new Chinese emergency management agency in 2018, the process of managing emergencies, planning for emergencies, and managing response and recovery efforts were handled by a hodgepodge of national, regional, and local governmental agencies. These agencies usually responded with no specific or defined way of handling incidents, and they usually did not integrate well when they were forced to work together. In a 2018 press release, it was stated that the new formation of the emergency management agency would improve the speed and efficiency of the Chinese response to disasters (Liqiang, 2018). No information was found on the use of a hospital IMS method in China, so it is assumed that there is none in place.
3.10 Germany
In Germany, their IMS method is known as Dienstvorschrift 100 (DV 100), Leadership and Command in Emergency Operations. The regulation of DV 100 was approved by the Board of Firefighting Affairs in Germany around the year of 2007. It is a regulation that was designed in a way that it was in harmony with the German Federal Constitution and allowed the states to be autonomous. DV 100 is a regulation that explains the command and control system for Germany, and it places the responsibility for emergency response to the 16 states within the boundaries of Germany. DV 100 was implemented in 1999 among the fire service, then later implemented by other national organizations. Since 1999, it appears to have become the single system utilized in Germany for the purposes of incident management (Dienstvorschrift, 2007).
Much like the ICS method developed in the United States, the roots of this method of IMS came from the fire service: it was later transformed to an all‐hazards IMS method, for use in all types of incident. Also similar to the NIMS and its companion ICS, the DV 100 system is flexible and allows operational leaders to make basic decisions based on the circumstances evolving around them. The DV 100 system relies on motivated staff as a key to success, and much like NIMS, it does not micromanage operations. It allows operational flexibility to tactical crews so that they can achieve the mission's goals without being micromanaged. This IMS method is different because it identifies the disposition that the Incident Commander (IC) should possess, and the leadership styles that should be used. In most instances, it calls for the Cooperative Leadership, with an Authoritarian Leadership Style as needed. This regulation calls on the Incident Commander (IC) to be both confident and competent (Dienstvorschrift, 2007).
Confidence and competency are based on the protocols for an Incident Commander (IC). Requirements to serve as an Incident Commander (IC) include specific training and qualifications. To serve as an Incident Commander (IC) usually requires 24 months of training that helps ensure that they are competent in operational leadership. In most instances, it is also required that the candidate who wishes to become an Incident Commander (IC) must possess the minimum of a bachelor's degree, thereby putting an importance on higher education. Individuals are groomed and developed over a period of time to become specialists within their defined roles (Dienstvorschrift, 2007).
DV 100 has several mandates that require a noticeable involvement of elected officials. In this IMS method, elected officials are required to have a more hands‐on role than the method used in the United States. In extended response and/or in major incidents, the overall command is held by the local or regional elected official (or authority). This might be a governor, a mayor, or some other political figure. To guarantee that the regulation is obeyed, they must oversee administrative‐organization‐component and the operative‐tactical component. An administrative council is required by DV 100 so that quick decisions can be made to help manage major incidents. This council is tasked with focusing on political conditions, financial responsibilities, and other administrative tasks. This allows operation‐tactical‐component to focus on operations (Dienstvorschrift, 2007).
The Incident Commander (IC) is charged with managing the operational‐tactical‐component. They will use a continuous process of analyzing the situation, assessing the situation and deciding a plan of action, and implementing directives or orders. This is the German method for planning the response to an incident, where the United States uses the Planning P (Chapter 15). In assessing the situation phase, reconnaissance is heavily emphasized as an important factor to mitigating or ending the incident (Dienstvorschrift, 2007)
It should be noted that the arrangement of personnel commanded by the Incident Commander is similar to that of the ICS method. They have varying levels of responsibility and specific jobs. Technical and tactical considerations are handled by these individuals, based on their assigned position (Dienstvorschrift, 2007)
The synopsis of the DV 100 is a quick review; it is not a detailed analysis. While many portions of DV 100 are similar to NIMS and its companion IMS method, ICS, however, they are not exactly alike. An entire book could be written on the differences between the two, so it is strongly suggested that the reader do a more in‐depth study on the German system to gain a better understanding.
While not very much information could be found, it appears that hospitals in Germany use the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) to manage disasters and in‐house emergencies. The lack of information could be related to security protocols, or it could be due to just a lack of information sharing. It appears that Germany began researching and preparing to use Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) since approximately 2005.
3.11 Haiti
Due to the geographical location, and the situation that Haiti is an economically depressed country, large disasters tend to affect this country considerably more negatively than most countries. Historically, the socioeconomic status in Haiti usually creates compounding and cascading effects when disasters strike. In