Agenda item
Minutes:
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer introduced Area Manager Charters who gave Members a brief update on 2 major fire incidents that had occurred the previous evening.
1. Six fire engines from Darwen, Blackburn, Hyndburn and Preston had attended a fire involving a thatched roof at a house in Mellor. Firefighters used 2 breathing apparatus, a hose reel, a ladder, 3 jets and 2 pumps to get the fire under control. There were no injuries reported and the cause of the fire was under investigation.
2. A more significant incident was a fire at Alston Hall, Longridge. When the first fire engines arrived at the scene they found a large fire involving the three storey heritage building which was approximately 40 metres by 40 metres in size. The fire was affecting at least 30% of the building and firefighters requested 10 fire engines, 2 aerial ladder platforms and a command support unit to help bring the fire under control. The Arial Support Unit (drone) was also used to gather information; with images from the Unit tabled for Member information. The incident remained ongoing but had now been scaled down to 2 fire engines to allow damping down. The fire had mostly affected the roof and the first floor however, the Service had been able to protect the key elements of the structure. A fire investigation would begin later that morning.
The Committee asked that Members’ thanks be extended to all those involved.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer then welcomed Sarah Wilson, Head of North West Fire Control and Ged Basson, Operations Manager, North West Fire Control who had been invited to attend to discuss the call handling Key Performance indicators.
Mrs Wilson presented Members with an update on how the move to North West Fire Control (NWFC) from Lancashire had added a greater degree of complexity and how technology was being used to support improvements. She explained that NWFC data (measured as a mean average) was not directly comparable with LFRS’ data (which had been measured as a median average). In addition LFRS measured critical fires and special service calls whereas NWFC measured priorities which meant the data sets were different; thereby making data comparison very difficult.
NWFC had been operating for 3 years in May this year and during that time there had been a lot of change. Because NWFC operated on a regional basis it was important to consider outputs and outcomes:
· People considerations included: individual performance, additional training and team performance by time of day / shift. Currently there was a high level of staff turnover with 47% staff ‘in development’ bearing in mind that it could take up to 2 years to achieve competence;
· FRS Partner requirements involved the need to question callers and carry out additional actions with operators reading information and following rules to get the right resources to the right location. The construction of resources in Lancashire, although complex, enabled all resources to be despatched at the same time which all extended the call-handling time but the outcome was that specialist resources were mobilised more quickly; and;
· Systems included caller location information, the use of a nationally used public service Gazetteer (a large geographical data reference source) and Call Challenge systems brought fewer mobilisations from operators asking challenging questions.
There had been a number of beneficial changes to workflows:
· Call handling in NWFC was measured from the time the call was answered to the time of mobilisation. In LFRS this was the time the incident was created (approx. 10-15 seconds after call answer) to time of mobilisation.
· Enhanced caller location information – more location information needed to be processed by the operator. Caller information displayed the location of the caller on a map which the operator could use to pinpoint the incident location if the caller did not know the address. This led to a higher level of accuracy in the address passed to crews and made it easier to identify malicious callers and therefore reduce mobilisations – none of this information had been available in LFRS Control.
· The ability to mobilise to x and y co-ordinates from a point on a map; this was also not available in LFRS Control. LFRS would have had to check the origin of the call or re-contact the caller, the pumps would still have been mobilised but they would not have proceeded to a validated address and may have therefore needed to change location once in attendance.
· Premises based gazetteer – LFRS Control only had street based gazetteer. Information relating to specific addresses was now passed to crews on turnout.
· Emergency Call Management Protocols – reduced unnecessary mobilisations and maintained pump availability for critical incidents – 27% of calls challenged or 3,561 incidents since go live.
There had also been a number of improved outcomes:
·
Site Specific Risk Information could be attached to individual
premises and passed to crews on mobilisation; this was not
available in LFRS Control;
· High Rise, Heritage and Crown premises were all identified on address selection; again this was not available in LFRS Control;
· Ability for LFRS to specify pre-mobilising actions e.g. advise National Inter-Agency Liaison Officer before mobilising and provide FireMet information prior to mobilising;
· Ability for LFRS to apply special mobilising rules;
· Quicker mobilising time for special appliances;
·
Bespoke LFRS attendances linked to converged incident types,
whereas LFRS Control only mobilised pumps on the initial
attendance.
System improvements included:
· Enhanced caller location information using GPS instead of mobile phone mast triangulation thereby making it easier to locate rural incident locations;
· Gazetteer enhancements included updated filtering options to reduce address options, fallow land, grazing land, orchards, ponds, phone masts, verges, heathland and advertising hoardings. In addition a specific emergency services gazetteer was being considered, in the meantime there would be access to a cleansed gazetteer in the next couple of months;
· Inclusion of parishes in address database to enable quicker identification of major roads running through different parishes;
· Liaison with LFRS to reduce unnecessary mobilising rules and pre-mobilising actions;
· Research had begun into the use of pre-alerting in Lancashire.
In response to Members questions Mrs Wilson confirmed that:
· Parish data was received from Lancashire. Although the gazetteer was provided by ordnance survey, information was entered by local authorities but without any national standards set the information was provided in different ways;
· An additional factor for consideration was the support the operator was trained to give the caller, particularly if the caller was panicking or chatty. Statistics for emergency first responder mobilisations were quicker because operators were not talking to a member of the public;
· The 27% of calls challenged where resources were not needed were not included in the statistics, only where an appliance was mobilised was it included.
The Chief Fire Officer summarised that when NWFC was set up LFRS
had tried to passport the same performance standards and since then
had tried to compare data that was not comparable. In addition, emergency first responding and call
challenge systems had been added and there had been a number of
external changes including the way in which people used mobile
phones and the change to a premises-based gazetteer
system. The fundamental aim was to have
the right resources, at the right place, at the right time and with
the right information.
The question now was whether we were measuring the right thing. In terms of outcomes, Lancashire’s average attendance to dwelling fires was 7.5 minutes which put LFRS in 7th place nationally and for primary fires Lancashire was the 6th fastest.
Members agreed that the current Mobilising Performance Indicators (KPI) were not sophisticated enough to take into consideration all the new innovations and therefore requested a review of these KPIs which focussed on outcomes, including benchmarking these against other family group fire and rescue services of a comparable size and geography. The Assistant Chief Fire Officer agreed to undertake the review, the findings of which would be presented to the Planning Committee for consideration after consultation with the Performance Committee Chairman.
In addition, CC Holgate, the Chairman of the Committee requested Mrs Wilson provide a plan of action report to a future meeting.
Members then considered the written report.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer advised Members that this was the 3rd quarterly report for 2016/17 as detailed in the Risk Management Plan 2013-2017.
The report showed there were 4 negative KPI Exception Reports. An exception report was provided which detailed the reasons for the exception, analysis of the issue and actions being taken to improve performance.
Members focussed on the indicators where an exception report was presented and examined each indicator in turn as follows:-
2.2.1 Critical Special Service Response – 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. The response standard for the first fire engine attending a critical special call (including call handling time KPI 2.2.2) is 13 minutes. We have achieved our standard when the time between the TOC and TIA of the first fire engine arriving at the incident is less than13 minutes.
Standard: To be met on 91.5% of occasions
Quarter 3 results 89.21% achieved against a target of 91.5%, previous year quarter 3, 79.58%, an improvement of 9.63%
This is a negative exception report due to critical Special Service 1st pump response being below the standard. Overall quarter 3 pass rate was 89.21%, with a cumulative pass rate of 87.14% which is outside of the 91.5% standard.
Exception report provided.
The Assistant Chief Officer advised during this reporting period it was a mixed monthly performance for quarter 3; with October and December being below standard but in November being within the 2% tolerance. This could be attributed to a very low activity count for the month of November (89) the lowest activity count since February 2015.
The Officer in Charge (OIC) was now required to provide a narrative for the failure to respond to the incident within standard. The analysis of 78 narratives implied that the travel distance involved, along with incidents which occurred outside of their own station area, were the main reasons for longer travel times.
The failure to book in attendance or the Mobile Data Terminal failing to acknowledge an attendance, was still accountable for a small number of failure reasons. This was still the subject of continued focus by the Heads of Service Delivery.
Over the quarter 3 period, 32% of the failures failed by less than 60 seconds. Call handling was a contributing factor as this was now included within the overall response time. It was hoped that on going initiatives to address these issues would bring the cumulative standard back within the 2% tolerance.
2.2.2 Critical Special Service Response – Call Handling
This indicator measured the time from the ‘Time of Call’ to the ‘Time of Send’ of the first appliance mobilised. A median was used to calculate the average time for the month. This excluded duplicate calls for the same incident.
The median call handling time for quarter 3 was 124 seconds, previous year quarter 3 was 116 seconds; a worsening of 8 seconds. The previous quarter 2 (July to September 2016) recorded 127 seconds.
Standard: Within 90 seconds
This was a negative exception report due to performance being below standard, with quarter 3 call handling recording a similar return as previous quarters in the year.
Exception report provided.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer advised Members each of the 3 quarters of 2016/17 returned similar performance which varied by only one second; with a cumulative median of 126 seconds. This was in contrast to the previous year where quarterly call handling varied up to 14 seconds. The April to December period of 2015/16 returned a median call handling time of 115 seconds. The latest performance report from North West Fire Control (NWFC) showed that the average time taken from receiving a call to alerting the first resource was 112 seconds for Lancashire, the same as achieved during quarter 2. This was 3 seconds slower that the average for all FRS’s handled by NWFC. This average was for all emergency calls, however, this KPI looked at a subset of calls which tended to be more challenging in terms of identifying an addressable location. This naturally occurred when either the caller was in an unfamiliar location or when the incident occurred away from a landmark or road junction.
It was hoped that further analysis of call handling data, in conjunction with NWFC, would help highlight where the issues were and would aid targeting of areas of improvement.
2.4 Fire Engine Availability – Retained Duty System
This indicator measured the availability of fire engines that are crewed by the retained duty system. It is measured as the percentage of time a fire engine is available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
The percentage of time that RDS crewed engines were available for quarter 3 was 90.7%, previous year quarter 3 was 89.88%, an improvement of 0.19%.
The previous quarter 3 (July to September 2016) recorded 88.28%.
Annual Standard: Above 95%
This was a negative exception report due to the cumulative RDS availability for the three months of quarter 3 being below the standard and outside of the 2 percent tolerance.
Exception report provided.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer advised Members quarter 3 had showed an improvement over quarter 2 however, the cumulative position at the end of quarter 3 had seen a slight worsening in RDS appliance availability over the cumulative position of quarter 2. The number of RDS personnel who had been successful in obtaining a Wholetime (W/T) position had had an impact on available RDS hours. This was due to leaving the RDS service, being able to commit fewer hours due to W/T commitment or being unavailable due to development (W/T recruit course). An ageing workforce, the loss of staff due to retirement had also had an impact on the ability to fully crew an appliance and a number of retirements had occurred over the last three quarters. The Service had also seen a number of resignations although some temporarily which had also reduced coverage.
It was reported to Members that continued work by the Retained Duty System Recruitment and Improvement Group (RIG) would be responsible for progressing areas for improvement. This would not be viewed as a project with start and finish dates but as a number of ongoing pieces of work which would strive to deliver incremental improvements in order to strengthen and support the Retained Duty System. It was hoped that ongoing initiatives to address these issues would bring the standard back to within the 2% tolerance.
4.2.1 Staff Absence – Excluding Retained 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 4.1
Quarter 3 results indicated the number of shifts lost through absence per employee being above the Service target for one month during quarter 3.
Exception report provided.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer advised Members that during quarter 3 the shifts lost through absence month on month showed December 2016 being above the Service target. There were 4 long term absences cases which had span over 3 months for W/T staff. At the end of the quarter there were 3 other long term absences of less than 3 months who had since returned to work.
At the end of December the cumulative totals showed that non-uniformed staff absence was below target at 3.31 shifts lost per employee, W/T staff absence was above target at 4.40 shifts per employee. Overall absence for all staff (except RDS) was 4.12 shifts lost which exceeded the Service target of 3.75 shifts at the end of the third quarter.
Members then examined each indicator in turn as follows:-
KPI 1 – Preventing and Protecting
1.1 Risk Map Score
This indicator measured the risk level in each neighbourhood (Super Output Area) determined using fire activity over the previous three fiscal years along with a range of demographic data.
The County risk map score is updated annually, before the end of the first quarter. An improvement is shown by a year on year decreasing ‘score’ value.
Score for 2013-2016 – 32,990, previous year score 33,268.
No exception report required.
1.2 Overall Activity
This indicator measured the number of incidents that the Service attended with one or more pumping appliances.
Quarter 3 activity 3,994, previous year quarter 3 activity 4,363, a decrease of 8.46%.
Total number of incidents 2016/17 – Year to Date, 11,895
Included within this KPI was a new incident type of ‘Gaining Entry’. This was where LFRS had attended on behalf of the North West Ambulance Service. During quarter 3 we attended on 88 occasions.
No exception report required.
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'.
Quarter 3 activity 249, previous year quarter 3 activity 222, an increase of 12%.
Total number of Accidental Dwelling Fires – Year to Date, 633
No exception report required.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer was pleased to announce that accidental dwelling fires were at the lowest level they had been in the last decade.
1.3.1 Accidental Dwelling Fires – Extent of Damage
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.
This indicator shows the total number of Accidental Dwelling Fires where damage is limited to the item first ignited and limited to the room of origin (it excludes incidents that are limited to heat/smoke damage only).
Cumulative Accidental Dwelling Fires activity, 178: -
30% limited to item 1st ignited
60% limited to room of origin
8% limited to floor of origin
3% spread beyond floor of origin
No exception report required.
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 Home Fire Safety Check must be completed within 12 months of the fire occurring.
|
|
2016/17 |
2015/16 |
||
|
|
ADF’s with previous HFSC |
% of ADF’s with previous HFSC |
ADF’s with previous HFSC |
% of ADF’s with previous HFSC |
|
Q1 |
13 |
7% |
7 |
3% |
|
Q2 |
13 |
7% |
7 |
3% |
|
Q3 |
20 |
8% |
4 |
2% |
No exception report required.
1.4 Accidental Dwelling Fire Casualties
This indicator reported the number of fatalities, slight and serious injuries occurring at primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of fire had been recorded as 'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
|
Casualty Status |
2016/17 Quarter 3 |
2015/16 Quarter 3 |
|
Fatal |
0 |
1 |
|
Victim went to hospital visit, injuries appeared Serious |
3 |
5 |
|
Victim went to hospital visit, injuries appeared Slight |
15 |
6 |
|
TOTAL |
18 |
12 |
No exception report required.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer advised that sadly, there had been 2 fatalities at the end of January in Chorley which would be reported as part of the Measuring Progress report in quarter 4.
1.5 Accidental Building Fires (Non-Dwellings)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where the property type is a building and the property sub-type is not a dwelling and the cause of fire has been recorded as 'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
|
Total number of incidents |
2016/17 Quarter 3 |
2015/16 Quarter 3 |
|
85 |
93 |
No exception report required.
1.5.1 Accidental Building Fires (Non-Dwellings) – Extent of Damage
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where the property type is a building and the property sub-type is not a dwelling and the cause of fire has been recorded as 'Accidental' or 'Not known' presented as a percentage extent of fire and heat damage.
This indicator shows the total number of Accidental Building Fires where damage is limited to the item first ignited and limited to the room of origin (it excludes incidents that are limited to heat/smoke damage only).
Quarter 3 Accidental Building Fires activity, 69: -
|
|
2016/17 |
2015/16 |
|||||||
|
ADF activity |
Item 1st ignited |
Room of origin |
Floor of origin |
Spread beyond floor of origin |
Item 1st ignited |
Room of origin |
Floor of origin |
Spread beyond floor of origin |
|
|
Q1 |
75 |
11% |
41% |
17% |
31% |
29% |
26% |
13% |
32% |
|
Q2 |
63 |
10% |
49% |
14% |
27% |
26% |
28% |
11% |
34% |
|
Q3 |
69 |
20% |
45% |
16% |
19% |
20% |
49% |
12% |
19% |
No exception report required.
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 are the majority of outdoor fires including grassland and refuse fires unless they involve casualties or rescues, property loss or more appliances attend. They include fires in single derelict buildings.
|
Deliberate Fire Type |
2016/17 Quarter 3 |
2015/16 Quarter 3 |
|
1.6.1 Deliberate Fires – Anti-Social Behaviour |
538 |
514 |
|
1.6.2 Deliberate Fires – Dwellings |
32 |
23 |
|
1.6.3 Deliberate Fires – Non-Dwellings |
31 |
40 |
No exception report required.
1.7 High / Very High Risk 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 either high or very high.
|
|
2016/17 |
2015/16 |
|
% of High and Very High HFSC outcomes |
% of High and Very High HFSC outcomes |
|
|
Q1 |
79% |
67% |
|
Q2 |
75% |
68% |
|
Q3 |
74% |
74% |
No exception report required.
1.8 Road Safety Education Evaluation
This indicator reported the percentage of participants of the Wasted Lives and Childsafe Plus education packages that show 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.
|
|
2016/17 (cumulative) |
2015/16 (cumulative) |
||
|
Total participants |
% positive influence on participants’ behaviour |
Total participants |
% positive influence on participants’ behaviour |
|
|
Q1 |
1832 |
87% |
4811 |
82% |
|
Q2 |
2847 |
85% |
6630 |
84% |
|
Q3 |
6398 |
85% |
8119 |
85% |
No exception report required.
1.9.1 Fire Safety Enforcement – Known Risk
This indicator reported on the percentage of premises that have had a Fire Safety Audit as a percentage of the number of all known premises in Lancashire to which The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies.
|
Number of premises |
Number of premises audited to date |
% of all premises audited Year end: 2016/17 |
% of all premises audited Year end: 2015/16 |
|
30,449 |
16,941 |
56% |
55% |
No exception report required.
1.9.2 Fire Safety Enforcement – Risk Reduction
This indicator reported the percentage of Fire Safety Audits carried out within the period resulting in enforcement action. Enforcement action is defined as one or more of the following: notification of deficiencies, action plan, enforcement notice, alterations notice or prohibition notice.
|
Period |
Satisfactory audits 2016/17 |
Requiring formal activity – 2016/17 |
Requiring informal activity – 2016/17 |
|
Q1 |
28% |
8% |
59% |
|
Q2 |
34% |
10% |
57% |
|
Q3 |
26% |
9% |
63% |
No exception report required.
KPI 2 – Responding to Emergencies
2.1.1 Critical Fire Response – 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 for the first fire engine attending a critical fire (including call handling time KPI 2.1.3) are 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 are 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 88% of occasions.
Quarter 3 – 1st pump response 86.27%, previous year quarter 3 was 85.25%
No exception report required.
2.1.2 Critical Fire Response – 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 it was sent to the incident. 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 3 – 2nd pump response 85.31%, previous year quarter 3 was 83.87%
No exception report required.
2.1.3 Critical Fire Response – Call Handling
Critical fire criteria as 2.1.1 Call handling time is calculated from the ‘Time of Call’ to the ‘Time of Send’ of the first fire engine. The measure used is taken from the Performance Framework used by North West Fire Control. A median is used to calculate the average time for the quarter. Excluding duplicate calls for the same incident.
Standard: within 90 seconds
The median call handling time for quarter 3 was 83 seconds, previous year quarter 3 was 78 seconds, a worsening of 5 seconds.
No exception report required.
2.3 Fire Engine Availability – Wholetime, Day Crewing and Day Crewing Plus
This indicator measured the availability of fire engines that are crewed by wholetime, day crewing and day crewing plus shifts. It is measured as the percentage of time a fire engine is available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
Fire engines are designated as unavailable for the following reasons:
· Mechanical
· Crew deficient
· Engineer working on station
· Alternate crew
· Appliances change over
· Debrief
· Lack of equipment
· Miscellaneous
· Unavailable
· Welfare
Annual Standard: Above 99.5%
Quarter 3 availability 99.50%, previous year quarter 3 - 99.32%
No exception report required.
2.5 Staff Accidents
This indicator measured the number of staff accidents.
Total number of staff accidents 2016/17 – Year to Date, 40
Quarter 3 results indicate percentage pass within standard
No exception report required.
KPI 3 – Delivering Value for Money
3.1 Progress Against Savings Programme
Annual budget for 2016/17 - £55.7m
Budget to end of quarter 3 - £39.6m
Spend for the period to date was £37.9m
Underspend for the period £1.7m
Variance -3.05%
No exception report required.
3.2 Overall User Satisfaction
Total responses 1458; number satisfied 1446
% satisfied 99.18% against a standard of 97.5%
Variance 1.72%
No exception report required.
KPI 4 – Engaging With Our Staff
4.1 Overall Staff Engagement
This indicator measured overall staff engagement. The engagement index score was derived from the answers given by staff that related to how engaged they feel with the Service.
Three times a year all staff were asked the same questions in on online survey to gauge engagement. Staff engagement index for period two is 64%, based upon 141 replies. This was 4% higher when compared against the same period last year.
|
Period |
2016/17 |
2015/16 |
||
|
Number of Replies |
Engagement Index |
Number of Replies |
Engagement Index |
|
|
1 |
220 |
62% |
199 |
58% |
|
2 |
141 |
64% |
148 |
60% |
|
3 |
|
|
195 |
56% |
4.2.2 Staff Absence – Retained Duty System
This indicator measured the percentage of contracted hours lost due to sickness for all retained duty staff.
Annual Standard: Not more than 2.5% lost as % of available hours of cover
Quarter 3 results indicate percentage pass within standard
Cumulative retained absence (as % of available hours cover) 0.63%
No exception report required.
RESOLVED:- That the Committee:
i) approved a review of the Mobilising Performance Indicators be presented to the Planning Committee for consideration, after consultation with the Performance Committee Chairman;
ii) requested Mrs Wilson, NWFC provide a plan of action to a future meeting; and
iii) endorsed the report and noted the contents of the 4 negative KPI exception reports.
Supporting documents:
PDF 765 KB