helped me to realise what it was that I wanted, what stage was I at in the process, what can I do and what am I going to do. The paramedic then helped to assist me to achieve these goals. Whitmore and McFarlane (2017) designed the model that can provide the structure that has the potential to increase the persons potential by increasing confidence and motivation, with both long term and short-term benefits. I realised that the paramedic used a coaching style as it is designed for individual situations and provides short term education, whereas mentoring is more useful for longer periods (Alred, Garvey and Hailstone, 2011). Once on the ambulance I was able to adopt a more charismatic leadership role, whereby I was able to allow the student to get on with the tasks assigned to them whilst I was able to get the patient to do what was required of them so that everyone was working to the same goal (Bass and Riggio, 2006). St. Thomas University Online (2018) states that both autocratic and charismatic styles are very similar, with differences being that a charismatic style inspires people to do what is wanted, whereas autocratic demands, with both styles producing similar results in the short term. Shortly after getting on the ambulance, both MERIT and the OM arrived on scene to assist, with the OM taking a laissez-faire leadership style. Marriner Tomey (2009) states that a person can allow the experience of the members of staff around them can be left to perform their duties whilst still receiving feedback from the team, which worked well for the OM as the MERIT team has a doctor who has a higher clinical skill set. Bass and Riggio (2006) do suggest that a laissez-faire approach can lead to ineffective decision making, whereas Lewin (1939) goes further to state that a group without leadership can become non-productive over time. Einarsen (1999) states that a lassa-faire leadership can create friction within the groups due to the lack of leadership. Although this maybe the case, due to the small group of the crew. The MERIT team used a very autocratic leaderships due to the possible seriousness of the wounds, as this method provided clear instructions on what needed to be done without having to worry about why (Stanley, 2016). A democratic leadership style may have worked well due to it allowing the delegation of the work to varying crew members to do the tasks required (Gastil, 1994) However due to the nature of injuries to the patient, they would not have benefitted from a democratic leadership style, as Frandsen (2014) states this style takes time to collect on the information and is slow. Frandsen (2014) states a more relaxed style, such as democratic, would have been good to put the patient at ease and be able gather the opinions of everyone who was there, which can lead to better staff satisfaction as their opinions are seen as of value. Frandsen (2014) does go on to explain that this process takes a long time to process the opinions and can lead to anxiety in experienced staff. This style of leadership would not have been effective as the situation required a rapid decision process.>