For anyone not familiar, NWCG revised the Medical Incident Report, but I never saw a memo on it if there was one. It’s no longer a 9-line, has been reduced to 8, and streamlined to relay essential information, but in such a way that a non-EMS person can complete and relay. The challenge is that from what i’ve seen, there wasn’t a lot of publicity about the change. The new IRPG (purple cover) has the new version, and it’s appearing in IAPs, but if some folks use the old version and some use the new, or someone prepares a 206 with the old version, it defeats one of the benefits - that everyone is looking for the same info in the same order. So, might be worth a few minutes to review with folks and make sure everyone is using the current version.
Eric,
This one came up behind us without any notification. Because of the elimination of the “nine line”, many of the 206’s that I have seen and approved now have the “8 line” which in itself is still written out as the Dutch Creek protocol.
I suppose it really has a lot to do with the individual IMT’s (Feds and State). I have seen both and there is some inconsistencies where I have seen the FEDS utilize the FEMA 206 fillable forms and add in the wildfire medical plan as the 'back page" and state and regional IMT’s utilizing the old forms with some modifications.
Bottom line, as long as you identifying aid stations, assigned ambo’s to the incident , and making sure you have one trauma center and burn unit identified with locations and ground/air transport times, and finally, how to request the help that you need out on the line as a IWI, you should be fine.
If you have a safety officer that is on top of their game, they will help out the MEDL or LOGS with producing a quality 206 product.
And that is why we go over the 206 as well as we do during the morning briefing. As a safety, I always re-iterate the 206 as part of my brief…remember, everyone deserves 3 good briefings, main, division breakouts, and on the line as a tailgate…
Stay Safe and Pace…
Thanks - I’d heard one of our plans guys at work recently refer to the “8 line” and thought he was confused, until I got my new IRPG and saw the change. Just did a 206 and realized the version I had still contained the older 9 line. Just concerned that if folks haven’t heard there was a change, we could have different versions on different ends of the radio, and go back to the old “20 questions by radio” that used to be common on IWIs before we were using a standard format.
Eric and soft_bear, I agree. The release of this information was not widely disseminated. I caught it when the IRPG was released in April (really late, in my opinion) because I was updating the curriculum for the EMPF/EMTF course. I also agree that the late release and potential for multiple versions to be on the ground can lead to the “20 questions” situation. Strong leadership from MEDLs and SOFRs will be needed to get it square until the “new normal” is internalized.
Well, we had our first 20 questions on the 206 this morning on the Holy fire. The 206 WF did not have the emergency proceedure form on the back, and the 7 line remote aid stations were stations from the 2014 Eclipse fire up on the Siskyou. Foutunately our type 1 STEN have some very talented individuals and of course our SOF1 on the STEN caught it at the briefings.
Unfortunately the 2 safety’s who signed off on the 206 didn’t catch it prior to going out on today’s IAP. I don’t mean to be critical, but this information that we put out to the troops has got to be as correct as possible, not only to get our folks the proper response, treatment, and transport to the appropriate receiving facility, but during the SART investigation, you don’t want to look like you didn’t do your due diligence.
Be Safe and Pace.