|
DRAFT ITEM CM11
CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY –2
JULY 2007
OXFORDSHIRE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE –
RESPONSE STANDARDS PERFORMANCE 2006/07
Report by Director for Community Safety & Chief Fire Officer
Introduction
1.
Since April 2005 Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service (OF&RS) has
had local Response Standards for attending emergency incidents in the
county. Cabinet approved these standards
on 22 June 2006 (Reference Item CA11). Additionally, the Director for Community Safety and Chief Fire Officer was required to report annually on the
F&RS’s performance against these standards and bring forward any
recommendations as appropriate for future improvements, particularly to address
life-threatening situations, which involve people. This report fulfils that
requirement.
Response
Standards
2.
Local Response Standards are based on the historical location and
status of our current fire stations and are used as a basis for improvement
planning in the future. The Standards provide a common performance target
across the County, based on risk and acknowledging that fire deaths and
casualty reduction is a National Performance Target which will drive future
improvement options. The standards are
as follows:
o
80% of all
emergency incidents will be responded to within 11 minutes;
3.
Note: The above
is measured by the time it takes to get the first fire appliance to the scene
from the time at which the fire station is first alerted.
4.
In addition to
the Response Standards for the first attending appliance, the Fire & Rescue
Service will despatch a sufficient number of vehicles and personnel to safely
and effectively deal with the type of incident reported as determined by
national and local risk assessments.
5.
OF&RS attend
a wide variety of incidents and not all are emergencies. Therefore it is
necessary to categorise incidents to enable improvement plans to concentrate on
the highest priority areas. All Incident
Commanders classify incidents they attend into one of five categories:
(a)
life threatening
emergency
(b)
serious, but non life threatening emergency
(c)
other emergencies
(d)
urgent, but not an emergency
(e)
non-urgent.
6.
Our operational
effectiveness is measured against these first three categories (a, b and c)
which all involve emergencies.
2006/07
Performance
7.
In 2006/07,
OF&RS attended 7349 incidents of which 4088 were classed as an emergency
(a, b and c categories). The overall
performance is as follows:
8.
The target set, as can be seen above, has
not been achieved. This can be
attributed to a number of factors. The
F&RS was aware of potential under-performance in this area and consequently
commissioned a review of Response Standards. This was carried out in January 2007. The findings of that review are as
follows:
• A number of incidents
have been included as ‘in-scope’ that should have been filtered out as the
“normal provision of fire cover” was not available at the time of an
incident. This is due to either the
nearest appliance already attending another incident or the crew not being
available due to other reasons;
• There have been a
number of occasions where a poor address has been given by the caller,
sometimes several miles from the actual incident and therefore response times
are virtually impossible to meet due to any delay in locating the correct
address;
• Stolen/abandoned vehicles
are often driven to remote locations and then set on fire. Often these remote locations are in fields or
down lanes where appliances have difficulty in accessing and offer no threat to
life or to a third party property;
• A number of incidents
have been wrongly categorised. This was
particularly evident in the ‘c’ category. On investigation it was found that this was partially due to the
definition of ‘c’ incidents and a training need has been identified for some of
the newly promoted Incident Commanders;
• A few incidents
concerning the rescue of animals from rivers, lakes, bogs and slurry pits have
been identified. Again these are often
in remote locations and are difficult to find and access;
• At the time the
original proposals outlined in the report to Cabinet were made, the ‘standards’
were identified as a ‘stretching’ although achievable target. We believe that the use of the word ‘target’
as opposed to ‘standard’ is more appropriate and better aligned to the original
intentions of that report.
9.
The Fire Authority can only be expected to
achieve response standards targets in ‘normal circumstances’ as stated in the
Service Pledge. In this instance,
‘normal circumstances’ is defined as ‘when the normal provision of fire cover
on any station ground where an emergency incident has been reported is
available’. Any incident occurring
outside of normal circumstances would therefore be ‘out of scope’ and
discounted for performance purposes. Initial investigations into the effect these proposed ‘modifications’
might have on current reporting methodology indicate that, whilst still
stretching, the targets become much more realistic and achievable.
10.
If the above was applied to the 2006/07
response standards* OF&RS’s performance would be adjusted to the following
level:
(*Note:
Incidents in scope = 3908)
11.
It should also be borne in mind that these
new targets do not show any worsening of emergency cover provided when compared
to the original a, b, c, and d standards of fire cover expected by central
government.
12.
Subject to approval by the Cabinet Member for Community Safety it would be
OF&RS’s intention to tighten the parameters of the ‘incidents-in-scope’.
Additional training for all Incident Commanders will be provided and the
definition of ‘C’ categories will be reviewed.
Community
Fire Safety Activities
13.
Through the Fire Service Emergency Cover modelling
tool (FSEC) the F&RS has now identified all the areas that fall outside the
14 minute response time and are currently carrying out Community Fire Safety work in the form of
Home Risk Assessments (HRA) and, where determined through the HRA, the fitting
of smoke detectors. This is in addition to those known areas where vulnerable
groups are located.
Conclusion
14.
The local response standards have now been
in operation for two years. Unlike the
old Standards of Fire Cover the new standards are designed to be challenging
and improve the service provided to the community. The standards require the F&RS to examine
closely the reasons for failure and to understand both internal and external
factors that impinge on this performance indicator. Following the recent review
it is acknowledged that the ‘incidents-in-scope’ definition needs to be refined
to reflect ‘normal’ fire cover provision in the county and those other factors
listed above. This will indeed provide a level playing field for the F&RS
to aspire to and to achieve response standards which are considered to be
challenging and fit for purpose.
RECOMMENDATION
15.
The Cabinet Member for
Community Safety is RECOMMENDED to acknowledge the attached
report, note the reasons for under performance in this area and approve the
amendment of the definition of ‘incidents-in-scope’.
JOHN PARRY
Director for Community
Safety and Chief Fire Officer
Background papers: Cabinet
Contact Officer: Mike
Smyth (Tel: 01865-855206)
June 2007
|