Call filtering to NHS premises

[harley]

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the pressure being placed on our call receiving company to filter/challenge AFD calls.
Whilst this may be acceptable in certain commercial premises, I believe that the consequent time delay is unacceptable in NHS units.
Some units have only 3, or perhaps even 2 staff members on duty during weekend and night shifts.
To expect one of these nurses to answer a telephone during a fire incident or even a false alarm is, in my view not acceptable.
Does anyone have similar problems?
Have the DoH issued any guidance?
I would be grateful for any feedback.
Many thanks in advance.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Does anyone have similar problems?

harley consider this, my local hospital approx 400m from a fire station produces approx 50 unwanted calls (false alarms) to the fire service each year. In many of these somebody usually a nurse, doctor or other member of staff smells smoke and operates the nearest manual call point. Nobody in the area starts any sort of evacuation or carries out any of the agreed procedures. They wait for the fire service to attend to tell them it is a false alarm and carry on completely as normal during the whole episode. Therefore,

If they really think there is a fire why don’t they start an evacuation of the area concerned?
Why is there an expectation for a fire crew to take responsibility to say it’s a false alarm?
Are you also saying that staff don’t make a repeat call if there is a fire? This call will ensure full attendance from the fire service at the incident.

[messy]

Harley - it's not just AFD calls I am afraid. Fire calls may also be challenged

I am aware of a mental health group home (with minimal staffing during the day and none at night) which, despite being situated about 3 miles from the local mental health hospital, has it's telephones linked via that hospital.

During a fire in the kitchen with no staff available, a panicked service user in distress, phoned 999 and was repeatly challenged by the fire service operator. The grounds for the 'challenge' were that the address the fire which the caller given wasn't the registered address of the (hospital) phone, and that the caller was abusive!

The caller simply didn't understand what the 999 operator was explaining and become angry as the fire continued to develop whilst being disbelieved by the fire service that an emergency existed( wouldn't you be angry?!).

This call challenging system is now part of the modernised fire service fabric across the UK, and has made good progress in reducing false calls in some locations. But as ever, operators of vulnerable premises like this group home were not consulted or considered.

 The difficulties posed by remote telephone lines connected to a central exchange  were also poorly considered/assessed when devising the call challenging procedure, despite the Brigade involved having an identical system at all thier fire stations!!

[Chris Houston]

It is very frustrating.  I phoned 999 one to report a fire in a warehouse loading bay just of The Highway in London.  The operator clearly didn't belive me (perhaps due to the unusual name of the street, perhaps because I don't have a local accent).  She wanted a postcode from me (I had no idea what the local postcode might be), and she wanted to know the name of the adjoining street (again, no idea, no street names).  She insisted that I ask a passerby.  It was the early hours of the morning and nobody was about.  Amazingly after about 10 minutes of me calmly and firmly telling here there most defineatly was a fire, she would not accept "The Highway, East London" as being an address, even though I just checked it on google maps while typing this post and it is the correct address.  It is very frustrating.

[Galeon]

It is very frustrating.  I phoned 999 one to report a fire in a warehouse loading bay just of The Highway in London.  The operator clearly didn't belive me (perhaps due to the unusual name of the street, perhaps because I don't have a local accent).  She wanted a postcode from me (I had no idea what the local postcode might be), and she wanted to know the name of the adjoining street (again, no idea, no street names).  She insisted that I ask a passerby.  It was the early hours of the morning and nobody was about.  Amazingly after about 10 minutes of me calmly and firmly telling here there most defineatly was a fire, she would not accept "The Highway, East London" as being an address, even though I just checked it on google maps while typing this post and it is the correct address.  It is very frustrating.

I am not surprised at all , when I work in London and there are some old 999 autodiallers out there if you phone them and ask for it to be taken off watch in the control room , you will get a reference number , but they will still respond to the call , work that one out.
I know there are obvious difficulties ie arson etc , but why would you advertise the fact by taking a building off watch , then set fire to it.
Sussex and Surrey have always been reactive to this matter , and I have never had a problem .
A solution need to be found to counter the above.

Coincidentally we were on site at an old open air shopping center in Kent , and phoned through a blazing shopping trolley that was underway on a roof , we had the same response you had. We had to bolt the system together (we were on maintenance)and let the ARC do its stuff via a call point.

It seems the boys are out on a daily basis , so our call was treated with some distrust.

[Roy]

Hospital staff are trained to operate the fire alarm if they have a smell of burning, they do not have the experience or time to investigate smells of burning and determind if the fire service are needed. It has to be better to alert the fire service and have them investiagate an potential problem. In my experience fire crews don't have a problem with this sort of call, it tends to be things like system faults that they have an issue with.

As for staff 'carrying on competely as normal' during a fire alarm, again this is what they are trained to do. Due to the type of occupancy staff will not evacuate patients due to a smell of burning, they are trained to set off the alarm and assess the situation. If they feel safe they are to stay on the ward and monitor the situation, they only evacuate if they feel in immedaite danger.

Moving patients carries the risk of having an impact on their level of care, hence staff trigger the alarm as soon as a potential problem is detected, it can than be swiftly investigated to minimise the chances of patients having to be evacuated.

[Chris Houston]

As someone from outside the NHS and outside the fire service, it seems that noone wants to take responsibility for a possible/suspected fire in an NHS hospital.

Sorry if I'm over simplifying things, but it would seem to be that the NHS should have their own on site team who can investigage and respond to small fires, if the other staff are unable to.

[Dinnertime Dave]

In my experience fire crews don't have a problem with this sort of call, it tends to be things like system faults that they have an issue with.

Roy, you are right as a firefighter I would rather be out dealing with AFA`s than doing some of the other tasks we as firefighter are given.

But the targets being set by government to reduce unwanted fire signals mean that you will be challenged when somebody rings 999 and says "My fire alarm is operating"

From my experience as a watch manager I was usually met by 2-3 security staff who could in my opinion have investigated to some extent first before calling 999. All this in non patient areas in hospitals

[Midland Retty]

It is very frustrating.  I phoned 999 one to report a fire in a warehouse loading bay just of The Highway in London.  The operator clearly didn't belive me (perhaps due to the unusual name of the street, perhaps because I don't have a local accent).  She wanted a postcode from me (I had no idea what the local postcode might be), and she wanted to know the name of the adjoining street (again, no idea, no street names).  She insisted that I ask a passerby.  It was the early hours of the morning and nobody was about.  Amazingly after about 10 minutes of me calmly and firmly telling here there most defineatly was a fire, she would not accept "The Highway, East London" as being an address, even though I just checked it on google maps while typing this post and it is the correct address.  It is very frustrating.

Im am absolutely amazed and disgusted that this type of thing is happening. I think it reflects very badly on the fire service.

Challenged calls have their place for persistant nuiscance properties, but even then the fire control operator needs to establish whether they are talking to an owner occupier (or his her representative) or a member of the public before challenging the call.

To be disbelieved just because the operator thinks you are unsure of the address is ridiculous

I know you probably have 101 things to do Chris but it might be worth following that up if you can by complaining. I think it is totally unacceptable to be dealt with like that.

I was in Blackpool last year and saw a factory unit on fire, I was driving past didnt know what road I was on, or what part of town it was but fire control operator was very good and asked me to identify landmarks and managed to get a rough fix on where it was. Thats how I expect the fire service to treat people.

yes false or nuisance 999 calls are a drain on resources and annoying but crikey !

[jokar]

Have a look at the new CFOA policy on False Alarms and UWFS.  They are quite rightly separated, one is a local mangement problem, the other is a fire brigade resource problem.  Whether it is liked or loathed the Governments modernisation agneda is coming home to roost.

False alarms, deal with them as managers as a FS problem.

Uwfs are to be dealt with separately and will attract no attendance in the end unless they are managed.  Part of the letter will tell the premises to inform the insurance company that the FRS will no longer attend calls.

[Chris Houston]

I know you probably have 101 things to do Chris but it might be worth following that up if you can by complaining. I think it is totally unacceptable to be dealt with like that.

This was about 2 years ago, and I cannot remember the date, so I've left it too long.  I was furious at the time.  I ended up driving closer and found that it was in a concrete walled, floored and roofed loading bay so I concluded that it would burn itself out eventually.  But what a ludicrous situation I found myself in.....

[messy]

Chris

Its outragous behaviour by the LFB (assuming it was the LFB control you were talking to). It's a pity you didn't take it further

The Highway is a major thoroughfare, and should have been known by the control operator or one of her colleagues.

Mind you, I have been in LFB control (many years back) when 'obvious' addresses have been phoned in with a poor or incomplete address - on one ocassion, a major Hotel- and control staff have been left scratching their heads. IT dependant control staff make this even more likely

These sort of problems maybe repeated all over the UK soon with the loss of local fire control centres (and thereby local knowledge) & the setting up of huge remote IT/GPS led regional centres as big as the LFB centre.

[Dinnertime Dave]

These sort of problems maybe repeated all over the UK soon with the loss of local fire control centres (and thereby local knowledge) & the setting up of huge remote IT/GPS led regional centres as big as the LFB centre.

Please put the lid back on that can of worms.

Chris I also find your treatment outrageous I had similar treatment by an ambulance service. Strange town, old lady fallen with a head injuries didn’t know the road name I was on but I could see the street name of the road opposite.  

Well, I was trying to give some sort of first aid whilst being grilled by a control operator who clearly didn`t believe a word I was saying.

[harley]

Many thanks for the replies.
Going back to my original posting - Have the DoH given any guidance regarding call filtering/challenging?
I would be grateful for any advice.

[Roy]

Have you read HTM 05-03 part H, this gives advice regarding unwanted fire signals, how to reduce them and how many false alarms are 'acceptable'