Mason scheme
The Maurer scheme is a procedure developed by Klaus Maurer for risk assessment at major events . With the help of an algorithm, it can be determined which potential danger poses an event and how many emergency services of the medical security service should be available. The algorithm is based on empirical values that may still have to be adapted to the local conditions. The bricklayer scheme is established and recognized both in Germany and Austria. It is often part of the approval process for major events by the municipal regulatory authorities.
Procedural principle
Maurer assumes that the visitors to the event themselves are an essential factor for the potential danger posed by the event. Therefore, the number of maximum permitted and expected visitors is the basis of the calculations. The number of permitted visitors and the actually expected visitors are each assigned a point value according to a rule. These point values are added and multiplied by a weighting factor. The weighting factor indicates the danger of the event and is given in a table for different event types. Point values for special hazards can also be added to the value calculated in this way, e.g. B. the presence of celebrities or knowledge of the police about increased propensity to violence. At the end, a point value is calculated which can be used to look up in tables how many emergency services, rescue equipment and management components will be required.
algorithm
Calculation of the tendency to risk
The Maurer scheme works according to an algorithm that takes into account various criteria that influence the danger of an event. Using a point value system, which assigns a numerical value to the individual criteria according to their risk of danger, these criteria are made comparable with regard to their risk of danger. The algorithm combines the risk propensity of the criteria and calculates an overall risk propensity. The criteria mentioned are listed below.
Number of visitors
A major part of the overall risk emanates from the visitors to an event. The bricklayer scheme considers the maximum number of visitors and the expected number of visitors.
The maximum number of visitors allowed indicates the maximum number of visitors allowed to be on the event site. As a rule, this number is specified by the regulatory authorities, but structural and spatial conditions also influence this value. For calculation in the Maurer scheme, the maximum number of visitors allowed is assigned a value that can be found in the following table.
| Visitors | Point value |
|---|---|
| 500 | 1 |
| 1,000 | 2 |
| 1,500 | 3 |
| 3,000 | 4th |
| 6,000 | 5 |
| 10,000 | 6th |
| 20,000 | 7th |
If the number of visitors exceeds 20,000, the point value is increased by one point for each additional 10,000 visitors. If there are no statements about the permissible number of visitors, 4 people per square meter of event space can be expected. If the event takes place in a structurally enclosed area (e.g. a concert hall), the point value is doubled in order to take into account the significantly increased risk of danger in structurally enclosed systems. Maurer himself cites the danger of fire smoke as the reason for the doubling. In addition, inside closed buildings - at least for certain events - there is also the risk of significantly poorer ventilation compared to an open-air event.
For the expected number of visitors, one point is awarded for every 500 expected visitors.
kind of event
An essential criterion for the risk assessment of an event is its type. The Maurer scheme uses a weighting factor depending on the type of event. This factor is based on experience with comparable events. In this case too, the weighting factor can be adapted to the local conditions.
| kind of event | Weighting factor |
|---|---|
| General sporting event | 0.3 |
| exhibition | 0.3 |
| bazaar | 0.3 |
| demonstration | 0.8 |
| Fireworks | 0.4 |
| flea market | 0.3 |
| Flight event | 0.9 |
| Carnival event | 0.7 |
| Carnival parade | 0.7 |
| Combined event (sport + music + show) | 0.35 |
| concert | 0.2 |
| rally | 0.5 |
| Cross-country skiing | 0.3 |
| Martin's parade | 0.3 |
| Fair | 0.3 |
| Motorsport event | 0.8 |
| Music event | 0.5 |
| Opera / operetta | 0.2 |
| Cycling race | 0.3 |
| Equestrian event | 0.1 |
| Rock concert | 1.0 |
| Rock concert with boy band | 1.2 |
| Drama / theater | 0.2 |
| Shooting festival | 0.5 |
| show | 0.2 |
| District festival | 0.4 |
| Street party | 0.4 |
| Dance sport event | 0.3 |
| Folk festival | 0.4 |
| Christmas Market | 0.3 |
Special circumstances
In addition to the basic risk resulting from the number of visitors and the type of event, there may also be special circumstances that influence the risk of the event. This includes the presence of famous personalities as well as knowledge of the police about an increased propensity for violence among the visitors or visitor groups. Accordingly, 10 points are set for every 5 people with VIP status, whereby the point value for this criterion may not exceed 30. The point value does not rise above 30, even if more VIPs should be present. In this context, only those persons who receive police protection usually have VIP status . If there is evidence of an increased willingness to use violence, 10 points are set once for this criterion.
Calculation of the overall risk of danger
To calculate the overall risk of danger, the point values for the maximum number of visitors and the number of expected visitors are added together. This sum is multiplied by the weighting factor. The point values for any special circumstances that may exist are then added to the product. The result is the overall risk of the event, which must be evaluated using the tables below.
Evaluation and assessment of forces
Number of helpers or paramedics
| Point value | Helper number |
|---|---|
| 1.5-2.0 | no paramedic service (possibly 2 helpers) |
| 2.1-4.0 | 3 helpers |
| 4.1-13.5 | 5 helpers |
| 13.6-22.0 | 10 helpers |
| 22.1-40.0 | 20 helpers |
| 40.1-60.0 | 30 helpers |
| 60.1-80.0 | 40 helpers |
| 80.1-100.0 | 80 helpers |
| 100.1-110.0 | 100 helpers |
| 110.1-120.0 | 120 helpers |
| 120.1-140.0 | 160 helpers |
The numbers of helpers listed here only refer to helpers who are directly entrusted with emergency medical care. In particular, the vehicle crews, helpers from the accident rescue centers, telecommunications, managers and helpers for their own care are added.
Number of ambulances (KTW)
In general, when providing rescue equipment such as KTW and RTW, it must be considered for what purpose it is to be used. In principle, it can be used as a stationary treatment unit; Here the use is therefore not primarily made from the point of view of transport. Due to the increased danger of the event, an increased transport volume is to be expected, analogous to the increased deployment volume. Because the organizer is causally responsible for the increase in the transport volume, he is also required to provide appropriate rescue equipment. The use of the rescue equipment according to the Maurer scheme is essentially based on this premise. Here, too, the local conditions must be taken into account, not least because it cannot always be assumed that the commissioned aid organization also has a transport authorization. Aid organizations often also use ambulances from disaster control stocks for paramedics. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this use, but despite the possibility of transporting up to four patients with these vehicles, only one patient should be transported at a time.
| Point value | Number of KTW |
|---|---|
| 0.1-4.0 | no KTW |
| 4.1-13.0 | 1 KTW |
| 13.1-25.0 | 2 KTW |
| 25.1-40.0 | 3 KTW |
| 40.1-60.0 | 4 KTW |
| 60.1-80.0 | 5 KTW |
| 80.1-100.0 | 6 KTW |
| 100.1-110.0 | 7 KTW |
| 110.1-120.0 | 8 KTW |
| 120.1-140.0 | 10 KTW |
Number of ambulances (RTW)
| Point value | Number of ambulances |
|---|---|
| 0.1-6.0 | no ambulance |
| 6.1-25.5 | 1 ambulance |
| 25.6-45.5 | 2 ambulance |
| 45.6-60.5 | 3 ambulance |
| 60.6-75.5 | 4 ambulance |
| 75.6-100.0 | 5 ambulance |
| 100.1-120.0 | 6 ambulance |
| from 120.1 | 7 ambulance |
Number of emergency doctors (NA)
| Point value | Number of emergency doctors |
|---|---|
| 0.1-13.0 | no ambulance |
| 13.1-30.0 | 1 emergency doctor |
| 30.1-60.0 | 2 emergency doctors |
| 60.1-90.0 | 3 emergency doctors |
| 90.1-120.0 | 4 emergency doctors |
| from 120.1 | 5 emergency doctors |
Number of large-capacity ambulances (GRTW)
| Point value | Number of GRTW |
|---|---|
| 0.1-90.0 | no GRTW |
| From 90.1 | 1 GRTW |
Operations management
| Point value | Type of command |
|---|---|
| 0.1-30.0 | no staff command |
| 30.1-60.0 | Staff command with a reduced crew |
| from 60.1 | full staff command |
Accident relief centers
An accident relief center (UHS) provides the treatment capacities required for major events. Patients can receive first emergency medical care and care over a longer period of time. This approach serves to reduce the number of transports. The equipment of the UHS according to Maurer is to be understood here as an example. It generally varies greatly locally. Every larger local association of an aid organization will provide one or more UHS equipped according to its possibilities and needs. Rather, it is important to distinguish it from an ordinary medical station, as is typically used by smaller medical services. Several patients can be cared for at the same time in a UHS. As a rule, a distinction is made between patients who require more intensive emergency medical care and those who only need brief care after a syncope , for example . Both types of patient can be cared for in large numbers in a UHS. A number of intensive care or treatment places and care or nursing places are available for this. In this context, the term “treatment station” is not to be understood as a treatment station in the sense of MANV concepts, but as a possibility of providing emergency medical care to a patient. Often, UHS are supplemented by elements of an MANV-like treatment station, so that, for example, there is also a viewing point. Especially for the needs of a medical guard, common rooms and even social rooms are often provided for the helpers deployed. The UHS staff see themselves in addition to the helpers mentioned above.
| Point value | designation | Treatment places | Emergency doctors | Paramedics | Paramedic | Nursing places | Rescue workers / paramedics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 - 50.0 | no UHS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 50.1-80.0 | UHS 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 5 |
| 80.1-110.0 | UHS 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 20th | 10 |
| from 110.1 | UHS 3 | 8th | 2 | 2 | 8th | 25th | 12 |
criticism
The guidelines for choosing the weighting factor from the Maurer scheme relate exclusively to the type of event and the audience or its activity to be expected with it. Maurer himself asked for a closer look at the external influencing factors such as the weather, which is not taken into account here. The presence of people with police protection does not necessarily increase the number of patients, but rather the attention that might fall on the medical service provider. The approach to taking into account the willingness to use violence and the overall risk of danger is very simplistic.
The Maurer scheme is one of the simplest algorithms for evaluating the danger of an event and for proposing a medical service concept. The staggered derivation of the necessary forces and resources from a parameter has the Maurer scheme in common with many other methods. Other methods such as the Cologne algorithm deal with the various requirements and influencing factors, as well as empirical values and local conditions, in a more differentiated manner. Bottlenecks (as an obstacle for emergency services or the main area of injury) or the spatial expansion, for example a running route, require individual adjustments. The derivation of the necessary forces and resources as well as their organization and management must also be adapted to the local and organizational conditions. Specifications for cooperation with the regular rescue service or specifications from sports associations can have additional influence on the necessary rescue equipment.
The correct prediction of the behavior of a crowd, for example of people density peaks like those that occurred during the accident at the Love Parade 2010 , cannot be made by an algorithm. Therefore, the planning of a medical service primarily requires experience, algorithms should at most be used to enable those who are not familiar with the matter or inexperienced to assess an elaborated concept.
Procedure for risk assessment of events
- Hanno Peter, Klaus Maurer: Danger prevention at major events paperback, 259 pages, Stumpf & Kossendey, 2005, ISBN 3-932750-94-2 .
- B. Dirks et al .: Recommendations for emergency medical coverage at major events , in: Emergency & Rescue Medicine 6/2004.
- Hartmut H. Starke, Christian A. Buschhoff, Harald Scherer: Pocketguide Sport Events: guidelines, data and facts for the implementation of sporting and major events . Paperback, 180 pages, 2006 ISBN 3-938862-12-2 .
- Jörg Schmidt et al: Cologne algorithm and comparison with Maurer scheme , Association for the Promotion of German Fire Protection eV, accessed May 29, 2018