Agenda item
Minutes:
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Steve Morgan presented the report. This was the 2nd quarterly report for 2020/21 as detailed in the Risk Management Plan 2017-2022.
Members considered the Key Performance Indicators that were in positive and negative exception as detailed on pages 26 and 27 of the agenda pack. This showed 1 positive exception (KPI 1.4, Accidental Dwelling Fires) and 1 negative exception (KPI 4.2.1, Staff Absence – excluding on?call duty system).
Members then examined each indicator in turn as follows:
KPI 1 – Preventing, fires and other emergencies from happening and Protecting, people and property when fires happen
1.1 Risk Map
This indicator measured the fire risk in each Super Output Area. Risk was determined using fire activity over the previous 3 fiscal years along with a range of demographic data, such as population and deprivation.
The standard was to reduce the risk in Lancashire – an annual reduction in the County risk map score.
The current score 32,448, previous year score 31,816.
1.2 Overall Activity
This indicator measured the number of incidents that the Service attended with one or more pumping appliances.
Quarter 2 activity 4,582, previous year quarter 2 activity 4,544 an increase of 0.84% over the same quarter.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 |
|
9,498 |
4,582 |
9,076 |
4,544 |
Incidents attended consisted of a myriad of different types. The report presented a chart which represented the count and percentage that each activity had contributed to the overall quarter’s activity; most notably was that 50% were false alarms.
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan introduced Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Jon Charters to present information to Members on the current policy position in relation to automatic fire alarms and unwanted fire signals.
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Charters advised that an unwanted fire signal (UWFS) was “Attendance by one or more Fire Appliances to a premises where, on arrival there was found to be no fire or emergency; where the initial call to North West Fire Control was generated by an Automatic Fire Alarm system (AFA).” It was noted that the term UWFS was only applied after arrival.
Automatic Fire Alarm systems were typically found in commercial buildings incorporating systems that detected a fire (smoke/heat detectors) and raised the alarm (sounders etc) which might link to other systems such as a sprinkler system. The Service would receive a call from a variety of sources (ie: telecare provider, fire alarm monitoring organisation, or other monitoring system provider) into North West Fire Control (NWFC) where call challenge procedures were used but could lead to appliance mobilisation. Where, after attendance and faulty equipment was determined as the cause, the call would be categorised as an UWFS.
The organisational cost of AFAs included: the diversion of essential resources from emergencies; creation of disruption for businesses that employed on-call Firefighters; the risk created to staff and public whilst responding; disruption to community and business safety activities; disruption to operational training; impact on the environment; a drain on public finances and potential call handling delays at NWFC. Data presented in graphical form showed that a significant proportion of activity (circa one-third of calls year-on-year) was attendance to UWFS.
The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) had published national guidance to assist Fire and Rescue Services in reducing the risks created by UWFS.
Tactics to reduce risk at the time of call included:
• Undertaking call challenge in Fire Control rooms (used by the Service at NWFC to query calls and filter those that did not require attendance);
• Ensuring Fire Alarm Monitoring Organisations undertook call-back to originators premises;
• Sending reduced or no attendance, under risk-based and defined conditions.
The NFCC also provided guidance on tactics to reduce risk by reducing recurrence including:
• Setting reasonable expectations for UWFS;
• Providing Business Advice to nudge compliance;
• Using Fire Safety Enforcement to secure compliance;
• Exercising capability to raise charges which some Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) had adopted to perhaps the most persistent premises.
To proactively manage UWFS, the Service’s Business Safety Advisors undertook business engagement and dealt with poor AFA performance using the following triggers: 2 or more UWFS received in a 4-week period; 3 or more UWFS received in a 26-week period and where the cause of the UWFS had not been remedied within 7 days. Where advice was not followed the case was escalated and a Fire Safety Audit undertaken by an Inspecting Officer, legal powers could be used and where necessary an Enforcement Notice issued to secure compliance. To withstand legal scrutiny the Service had to demonstrate the fire alarm system generating the AFA was poorly installed, defective or poorly managed against criteria detailed in standard BS5839:1.
A breakdown of the distribution of AFAs over the last 3 years across different building and types were shown (in decreasing order) as: self-contained sheltered housing, single-occupancy house, hospitals and medical care, education, retail, industrial manufacturing, multi-occupancy purpose built flat/maisonette, single-occupancy bungalow, multi-occupancy converted flat/maisonette and offices/call centres. These were the property types that officers worked with on a routine basis. In addition, there were a lot of other commercial premises which might only have one or two AFAs per year and the trigger system would be used before these became a significant issue.
Recent changes in social care and improvements in technology had enabled people to live safely in their own homes for longer which had resulted in a steady but significant increase in AFA calls to domestic properties generated by telecare systems.
Findings from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) inspection stated: “We found that Lancashire FRS may be attending more false alarm calls than it needs to. It shares the North West Fire Control Centre with other services but does not use the call challenging protocols they use”.
This highlighted that Lancashire FRS was potentially attending more false alarms than needed and was out of alignment with protocols undertaken by other Fire & Rescue Services in North West Fire Control (Cumbria, Cheshire and Greater Manchester) who currently employed exemptions based on building risks, ie: building types exempt from the wider AFA policy (as demonstrated in the table below where for example there would always be an attendance made either day or night or during the times shown).
|
Cheshire FRS |
Day & Night Care Home/Nursing Home/EPH Hospital Penal institution Police or Fire Station Airport Domestic Dwelling Highrise COMAH Site Sleeping Risk |
|
|
Cumbria FRS |
Day & Night Care Home/Nursing Home/EPH Hospital Penal institution Police or Fire Station Airport Domestic Dwelling Highrise COMAH Site Sleeping Risk |
|
|
Greater Manchester FRS |
0800 – 1700 Sleeping Risk Care Home/Nursing Home/EPH COMAH Site Highrise Hospital Penal Institute Police or Fire Station Unknown |
1700 – 0800 hours Sleeping Risk |
Lancashire FRS position was different as it did not presently use exemption principles. Using incident data from the last 3 years a comparison was provided to demonstrate the difference had Lancashire FRS adopted the same exemption principles as Cheshire FRS and this showed a significant decrease:
|
Year
|
Fire alarm due to Apparatus incidents |
AFA incidents following Cheshire approach |
Difference |
% Difference |
|
2017/18 |
4,379 |
2,543 |
-1,836 |
-41.9% |
|
2018/19 |
4,362 |
2,731 |
-1,631 |
-37.4% |
|
2019/20 |
4,810 |
3,032 |
-1,778 |
-37.0% |
|
Total |
13,551 |
8,306 |
-5,245 |
-38.7% |
Should Members wish to review the AFA policy, the following was noted: a national report from NFCC was due imminently, LFRS could review its call challenge policy or use fire alarm monitoring organisations differently. Exemption principles could be considered and there were powers under the Localism Act to levy a charge. An example was provided of Humberside FRS who levied a charge per incident where a business had 4 or more calls to an UWFS within a 12?month period. Also, there was an opportunity to consider refreshing the false alarm policy to address the emergent risk in domestic premises, particularly in some communities. Any proposed changes to the domestic policy would need consultation with telecare providers. From a performance reporting perspective, it may be beneficial to separately report domestic and commercial type incidents. Members considered in graphical form the number of incidents received during 2019/20 as AFAs which subsequently became a primary fire (by property type) and these were very low, with the Service attending a total of only 30 incidents (which equated to 0.5%). Potential benefits of a change in policy included: simplifying and thereby speeding up call handling times; increased appliance availability; Lancashire FRS alignment with other North West FRS and National Fire Chiefs Council guidance; potential reduction in attendances to non-exempted premises (typically non-sleeping risk during the day) and charging provided a deterrent and possible cost recovery option.
The Chairman advised that the use of exemption principles in the same way as neighbouring FRSs had previously been discussed with the agreement not to apply these in Lancashire however, as the dynamics and the areas from which the UWFS calls were being received had shifted, he did think it now worthy of debate again although as this could be a major policy change he thought the Performance Committee should make a recommendation for further debate at a full Authority meeting.
Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer advised that detail had purposefully been shared with the Committee to provide the background for new Members and an update for more long-standing Members. In addition, the intention was to share what had occurred since the last time this was discussed which was at a time when most FRS were making changes. There now was clarity that: i) FRSs were using the charging levy (and it was noted that the most prolific premises types that would most likely be charged would be hospitals, care homes and educational establishments); and ii) there was now a level of insight and confidence gained from neighbouring FRS as to what happened when you made these type of changes and LFRS was better placed to understand the short, medium and long-term impact any changes made would have on levels of organisational risk.
In response to questions raised by County Councillor Riggott to understand the relationship between changes in the market and the response to those changes the Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer advised that in terms of the domestic setting there were 2 key issues: i) fire alarm systems, CCTV systems and other installations in the home were far more affordable and therefore more widespread which meant it was more likely LFRS would be called out to incidents which turned out to be false-alarm calls; and ii) the domiciliary care sector was changing significantly where not all people who required huge elements of support were in care home commercial settings, therefore there was a true need to respond to alarms in domestic settings. It was noted that this would be considered as part of the next Integrated Risk Management Plan and the Strategic Assessment of Risk which would be carried out the following year. He confirmed that over time there had been successes made ie: Lancaster University, Preston University and some hospitals had welcomed the business support advice provided and after their investment in management and infrastructure huge improvements had been achieved.
He advised that growth in AFA numbers was from a variety of factors including: i) given economic challenges some businesses were not investing in maintenance of their systems and were not being proactive; and ii) there were many different systems. Previously, alarm receiving centres (ARCs) were often huge multi-national companies that were easy to deal as there were a few of them however, now there were a great many businesses with some operating from home settings without means to call challenge (and double-check whether a response is required), without which NWFC mobilised and the current policy enabled that.
It was noted however, that there would only be a significant difference made to the volume of AFAs to free up capacity to carry out other work by accepting there was some risk of commercial / financial loss by not attending UWFS.
County Councillor O’Toole commented that calls that could cause loss of life and property should not be ignored however, regular offenders should pay a penalty and positive action taken to include making the names of offenders’ public.
In addition, the Chairman commented and there was general agreement that 0.5% of the calls initially perceived to be false alarms which were proven to be actual incidents was a very small percentage but there was also the possibility life risk therefore, stopping attending altogether was not an option however, there were policy changes that should be considered; an exemptions list could be introduced and consideration should be given to charge repeat offenders. This was the start of a fuller and wider debate with the wider membership of the Authority to capture all opinions before any change to policy.
It was agreed that a report be presented to the next Performance Committee meeting detailing proposed policy changes including: exemption principles, a penalty system and a small number of case study examples be provided by independent fire alarm engineers to evidence negligence which could be published on the website to raise awareness. The Committee could then make recommendations to a subsequent full Authority meeting.
1.3 Accidental Dwelling Fires
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of the fire had been recorded as 'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
It was noted that quarter 2 activity was 197, the previous year quarter 2 activity was 200, which represented a decreaseof 1.50% over the same quarter. Year to date performance was 421 which was broadly comparable with the strong position held over the last 2 years where the lowest number of accidental dwelling fires was reported in the history of the Service.
In response to a question raised by County Councillor Riggott regarding the longer-term trends in performance, Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan advised that the aim was to maintain throughout the year the position seen at quarter 2 however, quarters 3 and 4 could be really challenging therefore, there was a focus on community engagement through the winter safety campaign. It was noted that because of the level of detail scrutinised, a 3% change in high risk equated to 6 incidents.
1.3.1 Accidental Dwelling Fires – Extent of Damage (Fire Severity)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of the fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental or Not known’ presented as a percentage extent of fire and heat damage.
The extent of fire and heat damage was recorded at the time the ‘stop’ message was sent and included all damage types. The report charted a rolling quarterly severity of accidental dwelling fire over the previous two years with each quarter broken down into high, medium and low severity. Each quarter included the percentage (out of 100%) that each severity type represented of the total, with an indicator to illustrate the direction against the same quarter of the previous year.
The latest quarter recorded a combined ‘low’ and ‘medium’ severity of 96.4% which was an increase of 2.9% against the 93.5% recorded in the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Severity |
Previous Rolling 4 Quarters |
Quarter 2 |
||||
|
Quarter 2 |
Quarter 3 |
Quarter 4 |
Quarter 1 |
|||
|
High |
ò |
6.5% |
4.9% |
8.2% |
7.1% |
3.6% |
|
Medium |
ò |
51.5% |
57.8% |
51% |
52.7% |
43.7% |
|
Low |
Ç |
42.0% |
37.4% |
40.8% |
40.2% |
52.8% |
1.3.2 Accidental Dwelling Fires – Number of Incidents where occupants have received a Home Fire Safety Check
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental or Not known’ by the extent of the fire and heat damage. The HFSC must be a completed job (i.e. not a refusal) carried out by LFRS personnel or partner agency. The HFSC must have been carried out within 12 months prior to the fire occurring.
|
|
2020/21 |
2019/20 |
||
|
|
ADF’s with previous HFSC |
% of ADF’s with previous HFSC |
ADF’s with previous HFSC |
% of ADF’s with previous HFSC |
|
Q1 |
26 |
12% |
23 |
11% |
|
Q2 |
21 |
11% |
26 |
13% |
|
Q3 |
|
|
31 |
15% |
|
Q4 |
|
|
27 |
14% |
1.4 Accidental Dwelling Fire Casualties
This indicator reported the number of fire related fatalities, slight and serious injuries at primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental or Not known’. A slight injury was defined as; a person attending hospital as an outpatient (not precautionary check). A serious injury was defined as; at least an overnight stay in hospital as an in-patient.
There were no fatalities during the latest quarterly period. One casualty was recorded as serious and 6 slight. The same quarter of the previous year recorded 1 fatality, 4 serious and 5 slight.
|
Casualty Status |
2020/21 Quarter 2 |
2019/20 Quarter 2 |
|
Fatal |
0 |
1 |
|
Victim went to hospital visit, injuries appeared Serious |
1 |
4 |
|
Victim went to hospital visit, injuries appeared Slight |
6 |
5 |
|
TOTAL |
7 |
10 |
This was a positive exception report as the number of Accidental Dwelling Fire casualties met the lower control limit during the month of July 2020.
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan presented Members with the analysis, which showed that during the month of July 2020 there were no recorded Accidental Dwelling Fire casualties. It was noted that it was unusual to have no casualties within a single month, with the previous monthly occurrence being September 2010. Although the numbers involved were thankfully low, the average monthly count for the year to date was 3 casualties; which was also an improvement on the previous 3-year average of 4 casualties per month. It was also noted that there were no Accidental Dwelling Fire fatal incidents in either first or second quarter of 2020/21.
The cumulative casualty figure (up to and including the second quarter) was 17, a reduction of 5 casualties on the previous year; this was likely due to an unusually poor April in 2019 when there were a number of serious incidents
involving 3 casualties. This increased the overall casualty figures for 2019/20 and in conjunction with the success of multiple media campaigns (cooking and gardening safety) this was now presenting as a reduction of around 20% during the first and second quarters of 2020/21.
Actions undertaken to maintain performance included the commitment to deliver advice and provide interventions to the most vulnerable within our communities, through the continuation (albeit in a revised format) of the Home Fire Safety Checks. Community Safety Advisors had operated within Covid 19 secure guidelines to maintain the provision of a broad range of fire safety advice and checking / installation of smoke alarms in the domestic setting.
In addition, successful media campaigns continued across a multitude of platforms, which would be used again at key times of the year in line with the Service’s Campaign’s calendar.
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan introduced Group Manager Liam Wilson who gave a presentation to provide further information in relation to the performance of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 1.3, accidental dwelling fires and 1.4 accidental dwelling fire casualties, as follows:
Accidental Dwelling Fires (KPI 1.3)
The number of accidental dwelling fires from the previous 3 years were noted as:
2017-18 = 944
2018-19 = 815
2019-20 = 811
This demonstrated an almost 16% reduction in activity over the period.
It was noted that cooking activity was the main cause, shown as a percentage by year as:
2017-18 = 49%
2018-19 = 51%
2019-20 = 51%
Upon further investigation the three main causes of cooking fires were:
1. Negligent use of equipment or appliance;
2. Cooking - chip pan / deep fat fryer;
3. Combustible articles, too close to heat source.
Electrical defects / misuse of electrical appliances, smoking materials and heating sources were the other main causes of accidental dwelling fires in Lancashire.
Accidental Dwelling Fire Casualties (KPI 1.4)
The number of accidental dwelling fire casualties from the previous 3 years were noted as:
2017-18 = 44
2018-19 = 49
2019-20 = 56 (this included 4 incidents each with multiple casualties)
It was noted that by comparison, in the first six months of 2020-21 the number of casualties was 18 which pro?rata gave a reduction overall of over 22%.
Group Manager Wilson advised Members of the prevention activities and safety campaigns undertaken by the Service to inform and educate:
· Home Safety campaign – delivered as part of the safe and well package in response to an uplift in casualty numbers during the winter of 2019. Advice and information were provided particularly, detailed evacuation plans and the safe evacuation of premises when a fire did occur; this was communicated through the safe and well visit;
· Cook Safe Campaign (#cooksafe) - cooking safety advice had been provided;
· Home Fire Safety Advice provide re: nuisance fires - particularly in relation to those in the gardening environment and subsequent development into accidental dwelling fires, in response to the spike in these type of fires in spring;
· Community Engagement - as part of the Service response to Covid staff had provided support to the most vulnerable and people had been encouraged through the Nosey Neighbour Campaign to check on vulnerable people in the community.
In response to a question raised by County Councillor Britcliffe on the use of chip pans at home, Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan confirmed that the advice provided was to replace them with a deep fat fryer as this was much safer. Further to a point raised at the recent Authority meeting regarding a person-centred approach to the delivery of a Home Fire Safety Checks (HFSCs), he advised that during 2016/17 the HFSC visit was expanded into a safe and well visit to encompass consideration of health inequalities within the domestic setting and to provide advice on: falls prevention, social isolation, dementia, type 2 diabetes and cooking and as part of the wider safety looking at how homes were heated ie: advising the use of oil filled radiators as opposed to using naked flames.
In response to a query from County Councillor O’Toole, Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan advised that on occasion the Service received a late fire call after the occupant had dealt with a small fire but then required assistance re: heat/smoke damage. This was viewed as an opportunity to provide advice: do not tackle the fire yourself, close your doors and call the Fire Service.
1.5 Accidental Building Fires (Non-Dwellings)
This indicator reported number of primary fires where the property type was ‘Building’ and the property sub type did not equal ‘Dwelling’ and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental’ or ‘Not known’.
Quarterly activity decreased 2.63% over the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Total number of incidents |
2020/21 Quarter 2 |
2019/20 Quarter 2 |
|
74 |
76 |
1.5.1 Accidental Building Fires (Non-Dwellings) – Extent of Damage (Fire Severity)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where the property type was a building and the property sub-type was not a dwelling and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental or Not known’ presented as a percentage extent of fire and heat damage.
The extent of fire and heat damage was recorded at the time the ‘stop’ message was sent and included all damage types. The report charted a rolling quarterly severity of accidental building fires over the previous two years with each quarter broken down into high, medium and low severity. Each quarter included the percentage (out of 100%) that each severity type represented of the total, with an indicator to illustrate the direction against the same quarter of the previous year.
The latest quarter recorded a combined ‘low’ and ‘medium’ severity of 60.8%. This was a decrease of 19.5% against a combined severity of 80.3% in the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Severity |
Previous Rolling 4 Quarters |
Quarter 2 |
||||
|
Quarter 2 |
Quarter 3 |
Quarter 4 |
Quarter 1 |
|||
|
High |
Ç |
19.7% |
12.5% |
16.4% |
43.4% |
39.2% |
|
Medium |
ò |
57.9% |
58.3% |
64.4% |
47.8% |
44.6% |
|
Low |
ò |
22.4% |
29.2% |
19.2% |
8.8% |
16.2% |
1.6 Deliberate Fires
This indicator reported the number of primary and secondary fires where the cause of fire had been recorded as 'Deliberate'. Secondary fires were the majority of outdoor fires including grassland and refuse fires unless they involved casualties or rescues, property loss or 5 or more appliances attended. They included fires in single derelict buildings.
|
Deliberate Fire Type |
2020/21 Quarter 2 |
2019/20 Quarter 2 |
|
1.6.1 Deliberate Fires – Anti-Social Behaviour |
367 |
394 |
|
1.6.2 Deliberate Fires – Dwellings |
36 |
36 |
|
1.6.3 Deliberate Fires – Non-Dwellings |
31 |
43 |
1.7 Home Fire Safety Checks
This indicator reported the percentage of completed Home Fire Safety Checks (HFSC), excluding refusals, carried out where the risk score had been determined to be high.
An improvement was shown if: i) the total number of HFSC’s completed was greater than the comparable quarter of the previous year; and ii) the percentage of high HFSC outcomes was greater than the comparable quarter of the previous year.
The number of HFSCs undertaken during the quarter had decreased by 39% over the same quarter of the previous year and the percentage of those with a high-risk outcome had increased by 11%.
|
|
2020/21 |
2019/20 |
|
% of High HFSC outcomes |
% of High HFSC outcomes |
|
|
Q1 |
71% |
65% |
|
Q2 |
72% |
61% |
|
Q3 |
|
60% |
|
Q4 |
|
61% |
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan advised that while the total HFSCs had decreased to 3,298 during the quarter when compared with the previous year, Lancashire FRS had also delivered over 5,500 visits to vulnerable people carried out on behalf of the Lancashire Resilience Forum.
In addition, a footnote had now been included in the report to show properties were being monitored where they had previously refused a HFSC but had subsequently suffered an accidental dwelling fire. During the quarter, 2 properties were recorded during the previous rolling 12?month period.
1.8 Road Safety Education Evaluation
This indicator reported the percentage of participants of the Wasted Lives and Road Sense education packages that showed a positive change to less risky behaviour following the programme; based on comparing the overall responses to an evaluation question before and after the course.
Total participants were a combination of those engaged with at Wasted Lives and Road Sense events.
|
|
2020/21 (cumulative) |
2019/20 (cumulative) |
||
|
Total participants |
% positive influence on participants’ behaviour |
Total participants |
% positive influence on participants’ behaviour |
|
|
Q1 |
The covid-19 pandemic led to the closure of educational facilities which meant it was not possible to deliver road safety activities in the normal way. |
4,354 |
85% |
|
|
Q2 |
8,158 |
85% |
||
|
Q3 |
16,417 |
85% |
||
|
Q4 |
21,516 |
85% |
||
It was noted that the pandemic had led to the closure of educational facilities and the Service had been unable to deliver road safety activities in the normal way. However, to ensure road safety messages continued to be available, the Service had undertaken Wasted Lives sessions via an online video chat service. During quarter 2 there had been 8 Wasted Lives sessions, involving 120 attendees. The Service also continued to engage with people via social media platforms and shared information via the Biker Down webpage.
1.9 Fire Safety Enforcement
This indicator reported the number of Fire Safety Enforcement inspections carried out within the period resulting in supporting businesses to improve and become compliant with fire safety regulations or to take formal action of enforcement and prosecution of those that failed to comply.
Formal activity was defined as one or more of the following: enforcement notice or an action plan, alterations notice or prohibition notice.
An improvement was shown if the percentage of adults ‘requiring formal activity’ was greater than the comparable quarter of the previous year. This helped inform that the correct businesses were being identified.
*The ‘number of inspections’ count included business safety advice and advice to other enforcement authorities not captured within the formal/informal or satisfactory counts.
|
|
2020/21 |
2019/20 |
||||
|
*No. of Inspections |
Requiring |
Satisfactory Audit |
% requiring Formal Activity |
% requiring Formal Activity |
||
|
Formal Activity |
Informal Activity |
|||||
|
Q1 |
18 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
28% |
9% |
|
Q2 |
48 |
7 |
29 |
9 |
15% |
9% |
|
Q3 |
|
|
|
|
|
10% |
|
Q4 |
|
|
|
|
|
13% |
KPI 2 – Responding, to fire and other emergencies quickly and competently
2.1.1 Emergency Response Standards - Critical Fires – 1st Fire Engine Attendance
This indicator reported the ‘Time of Call’ (TOC) and ‘Time in Attendance’ (TIA) of the first fire engine arriving at the incident in less than the relevant response standard.
The response standards included call handling and fire engine response time for the first fire engine attending a critical fire, these were as follows: -
· Very high-risk area = 6 minutes
· High risk area = 8 minutes
· Medium risk area = 10 minutes
· Low risk area = 12 minutes
The response standards were determined by the risk map score and subsequent risk grade for the location of the fire.
Standard: to be in attendance within response standard target on 90% of occasions.
Quarter 2 – 1st pump response increased 0.70% of total first fire engine attendances over the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 |
|
88.40% |
88.31% |
88.43% |
87.61% |
2.1.2 Emergency Response Standards - Critical Fires – 2nd Fire Engine Attendance
This indicator reported the time taken for the second fire engine to attend a critical fire incident measured from the time between the second fire engine arriving and the time of call. The target is determined by the risk map score and subsequent risk grade for the location of the fire.
Standard: to be in attendance within response standard target on 85% of occasions.
Quarter 2 – 2nd pump response increased 1.82% of total second pump attendances over the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 |
|
85.64% |
87.97% |
87.83% |
86.15% |
2.2.1 Emergency Response Standards - Critical Special Service – 1st Fire Engine Attendance
This indicator measured how long it took the first fire engine to respond to critical non-fire incidents such as road traffic collisions, rescues and hazardous materials incidents. For those incidents there was a single response standard which measured call handling time and fire engine response time. The response standard for the first fire engine attending a critical special call was 13 minutes.
Standard: to be in attendance within response standard target on 90% of occasions.
The latest quarter 1st pump response decreased 0.42% over the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 |
|
89.23% |
87.14% |
88.69% |
87.56% |
2.3 Fire Engine Availability – Wholetime, Day Crewing and Day Crewing Plus
This indicator measured the availability of fire engines that were crewed by wholetime, day crewing and day crewing plus shifts. It was measured as the percentage of time a fire engine was available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
Fire engines were designated as unavailable for the following reasons:
|
• Mechanical |
• Lack of equipment |
|
• Crew deficient |
• Miscellaneous |
|
• Engineer working on station |
• Unavailable |
|
• Appliance change over |
• Welfare |
|
• Debrief |
|
Standard: 99.5%
Year to date availability of 99.43% was an increase of 0.01% over the same period of the previous year.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 |
|
99.36% |
99.43% |
99.50% |
99.42% |
2.4 Fire Engine Availability – On-Call Duty System
This indicator measured the availability of fire engines that were crewed by the on-call duty system. It was measured as the percentage of time a fire engine was available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
Fire engines were designated as unavailable (off the run) for the following reasons which include the percentage of off the run hours that each reason contributed to the total. Members noted that fire engines can be off the run for more than one reason; hence the percentages were interpreted individually (rather than as a proportion of the total):
· Manager deficient 57%
· Crew deficient 61%
· Not enough BA wearers 54%
· No driver 35%
Standard: above 95%
Year to date availability 91.76%, a 5.6% increase against the previous year to date total availability of 86.16%.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 Quarter 2 |
|
91.76% |
87.31% |
86.16% |
85.50% |
2.4.1 Fire Engine Availability – On-Call Duty System (without wholetime detachments)
Subset of KP1 2.4 and provided for information only
This indicator measured the availability of fire engines that were crewed by the on-call duty system (OC) when wholetime detachments were not used to support availability. It was measured by calculating the percentage of time a fire engine was available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
Fire engines were designated as unavailable (off-the-run) for the following reasons:
· Manager deficient
· Crew deficient
· Not enough BA wearers
· No driver
Standard: As a subset of KPI 2.4 there was no standard attributable to this KPI.
The percentage of time that OC crewed engines were available for quarter 2 was 84.97%. This excluded the wholetime detachments shown in KPI 2.4.
North West Fire Control Update
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan introduced Ged Basson, Senior Operations Manager, North West Fire Control (NWFC). Mr Basson introduced Kellie Matthews who was the new point of contact for Lancashire FRS. He then updated Members on key areas of interest from throughout quarters 1 and 2 as follows:
· Business as usual services had been provided throughout the pandemic;
· Callers were asked covid questions for reporting symptoms to the fire crew which enabled preparation while on route to incidents;
· There had been a number of significant incidents which included:
o fires on the moors at Longridge and Rivington which lasted several days; and
o a 5-storey building fire in Blackpool. This was the first time a Highrise Immediate Residential Evacuation (HIRE) message was sent which worked really well. This allowed the incident commander to change call handling advice to inform callers to get out of the premises immediately, regardless of their building evacuation policy;
· Business continuity arrangements for mobilising had been tested; Lancashire FRS had upgraded their mobile data terminal gateway which enabled testing of the ‘fallback’ arrangements over a 3-day period and NWFC had been able to consolidate their mapping software;
· Performance statistics had now been included on the NWFC website;
· A graph was presented which showed the number of incidents created against the number of incidents where the call challenge procedure meant no attendance was made. This showed the percentage of calls that resulted in no mobilisation was between 39% ? 43% of calls per month;
· Lancashire paid 25.5% of the running costs for NWFC. A graph was presented which showed the percentage of activity was between 26% ? 27% therefore demonstrating Lancashire received good value for money;
· A graph was presented which showed the length of time from answering a call to mobilising the first resource; the graph and data evidenced continuous improvement year on year;
· A graph was presented that benchmarked Lancashire with other FRS for call handling times for fires. All average call handling times for fires for each FRS were consistently 90 seconds or below throughout the period. Overall average call handling time for fires for 2019 – 2020 was 94 seconds which, after a thematic review, had improved for Q1 and Q2 for 2020 – 2021 to 79 seconds;
· Graphs were presented which showed the length of time from answering a Special Service Call and how Lancashire benchmarked against other FRS. Special Service calls took longer as more information was extracted from the caller; data showed an improvement over the past 6 months;
· 95% of calls were being answered within 10 seconds with the average time taken being 5 seconds;
· Lancashire FRS had been consistently the highest requisitioner for changes to the mobilising system since transition to NWFC. Currently work was being undertaken regarding attendance to vulnerable people and requests for specialist officers;
· In response to previous Committee Member requests, benchmarking data against other FRS across the country had been sought; although not readily available it had been possible to extract data from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services inspection reports that demonstrated: i) NWFRS supported more fire stations; ii) it mobilised more incidents per control room operator and iii) the cost per incident mobilised was cheaper than any other control room in the country;
· NWFC continued to respond to high risk incidents and review action plans to be more efficient;
· NWFC was involved in the Manchester Arena bomb inquiry with staff expected to present evidence in March 2021;
· One of the key areas for improvement would be Multi-Agency Incident Transfer between agencies instead of ringing someone to pass on the information it could be electronically transferred from one control room to another however, as NWFC did not generate income it would be working with North West partner FRSs regarding this.
The Chairman thanked Mr Basson for his attendance and update.
In response to a question from County Councillor O’Toole regarding approaching Merseyside FRS to be included as a partner in North West Fire Control (as originally planned) the Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer advised that the greater to consortium the greater the benefit for all parties and NWFC had capacity to grow. However, from insight as regional lead for Airwave systems and the investment Merseyside FRS had made with Merseyside Police in a joint control room led him to think this was unlikely.
2.5 Staff Accidents
This indicator measured the number of staff accidents.
The number of staff accidents during the latest quarter decreased by 10.00% against the same quarter of the previous year.
|
Year |
2020/21 |
Previous year |
2019/20 Quarter 2 |
|
35 |
18 |
41 |
20 |
KPI 3 – Delivering, value for money in how we use our resources
3.1 Progress against Savings Programme
The annual budget for 2020/21 was set at £57.3m with a budget to 30 September of £27.5m. The spend for the same period was £26.7m which gave an underspend of £0.8m; a variance of -1.40%. This was a result of the pandemic continuing to affect planned spend activity during the period. This position would continue to be monitored in the forthcoming months.
3.2 Overall User Satisfaction
There had been 2,526 people surveyed since April 2012 and the number satisfied with the service was 2,498; % satisfied was 98.89% against a standard of 97.50%; a variance of 1.43%.
During the latest quarter, 54 people were surveyed and 51 responded that they were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ with the service they received.
KPI 4 – Valuing, our people so that they can focus on making Lancashire safer
4.2.1 Staff Absence – Excluding on-Call Duty System
This indicator measured the cumulative number of shifts (days) lost due to sickness for all wholetime, day crewing plus, day crewing and support staff divided by the total number of staff.
Annual Standard: Not more than 5 shifts lost
Cumulative total number of monthly shifts lost 3.156
This was a negative exception report due to the number of shifts lost through absence per employee being above the Service target for the months of August and September.
Acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Morgan presented Members with the analysis, that:
During quarter 2 (July 2020 to September 2020), absence statistics showed wholetime personnel and non-uniformed personnel were above target for August and September and below target for July.
There were 5 cases of long-term absence which spanned over the 3 months and there were 18 other cases of long-term absence which were recorded within the 3 months with the reasons detailed in the report.
Members also considered the actions undertaken to improve performance which included that the Service aimed to continue with:
· Early intervention by Occupational Health Unit (OHU) doctor / nurse / physiotherapist;
· Human Resources supported managers in following the Absence Management Policy managing individual long-term cases, addressing review periods / triggers in a timely manner and dealing with capability of staff due to health issues;
· To be included again within the leadership conference to assist future managers understanding and interpretation of the policy;
· Encouraging employees to make use of our Employee Assistance Programme provider Health Assured and The Firefighters Charity;
· HR to be in attendance at Stress Risk Assessment meetings, to support managers and to offer appropriate support to the employee along with signposting;
· OHU to organise health checks for individuals on a voluntary basis;
· Support from Service Fitness Advisor / Personal Training Instructors;
· Promotion of health, fitness and wellbeing via the routine bulletin and Employee Assistance programme.
4.2.2 Staff Absence – On-Call Duty System
This indicator measured the percentage of contracted hours lost due to sickness for all on-call contracted staff.
Annual Standard: Not more than 2.5% lost as % of available hours of cover.
Cumulative on-call absence (as % of available hours cover) at the end of the quarter, 0.88%.
RESOLVED: - That the Committee:
i) endorsed the Measuring Progress report for Quarter 2 (including noting the contents of the 1 negative and 1 positive KPI exception reports);
ii) received a report on proposed changes to the Automatic Fire Alarms Policy at its next meeting.
Supporting documents:
PDF 2 MB