Preventing - Protecting - Responding

[johno67]

Having recently returned from the Fire Research Symposium at the Fire Service College, I was left asking myself the following question:

Taking into account that the ethos of the Fire Service should be 'Preventing, Protecting, Responding', specifically in that order (indeed it is displayed in the logos of FRS' and even in the mission statements of many) how much emphasis is there on the 'Prevention' element?

From my own observations, it seems that:
60-70% is on Responding (fire engines going out and dealing with the fires);
20-30% is on Protecting (having measures in place to ensure the persons can escape from fire when it occurs); and  
<10% on Prevention (making sure the fire doesn't happen in the first place).

Is this not the wrong way round? Should a much greater part of our focus be on 'Prevention'?

Whilst I believe that it is very important to have a well equipped and well trained Fire Service and that there must be measures in place to protect people in case of fire, surely our primary aim has to be preventing the fires occurring in the first place.

To put my thoughts into a little scenario.

I have an elderly neighbour living on his own. Which of the following would I prefer for him.

1. He won't have a fire in his house because resources have been used to cut the risk of fire to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP);
2. When he does have a fire he will be able to get out safely because resources have been used to protect his escape, warn him of fire etc; or
3. We have a well trained Fire Service with good equipment who can rescue him when a fire does occur in his house.

Although I realise all 3 are required, I would ask 'Which should be the priority?'

Your thoughts please.

[slubberdegullion]

Cultural:

For those within the profession:

In the past most fire fighters have been attracted to the job because they like the idea of going to fires, not because they like the idea of giving advice to vulnerable members of society.

FRSs are huge lumbering beasts that possess almost insurmountable inertia against change.  Change only occurs over a generation or more.  I've been in over 26 years and, though things look a bit different superficially, nothing much has changed underneath.  I'm starting to see some attitude changes that I think are significant - I'm not talking about what people say and do, I'm talking about what they think and believe.

Unless the majority believe that some change is for the good, that change wont happen.

Then, we are all subject to a quirk of the workings of the brain.  There is a natural and inevitable tendency to assign priorities incorrectly - what would you respond to first: a house on fire or a house that needs a battery replacing in a smoke detector??

For those outside the profession:

People think of the fire brigade, and I use the word 'brigade' deliberately, and they think of fires.  They don't think of talks and advice and everyday assistance.  Perhaps this is changing.

Economic:

Fire losses are well documented.  They are collected, analysed, apportioned, offset and thoroughly accounted for.  They offer an immediate measure of value for money offered by FRSs.

Fire losses which do not occur because preventative measures have precluded their occurrence are immeasurable, unquantifiable and cannot be used to justify investment.

Well, that's couple of things, a cup of tea is calling me, let's hear someone else...

[kurnal]

Johno
First question is what do you mean by "emphasis" and "focus"?
If you are measuring emphasis and focus in financial terms and in terms of the amount of time allocated by operational firefighters during the working shift to each element  then clearly intervention is always going to at the top of the tree.

You cannot address prevention without resources these have been mainly allocated to "Brigades" on the basis of what is needed for effective intervention to whatever standards.

Effective prevention will to some extent reduce demand for intervention but the focus cannot be changed until the cycle is broken, either with maximum effect by introducing additional funding and resources for say a 10 year program, or by fiddling at the edges over generations as we are currently doing - improving building regulations, changing the enforcement regime, and through IRMPs reducing operational standards to allow alternative use of operational resources- inefficient as you try to introduce such a significant cultural change to people who are dedicated and still responsible for delivering first class intervention as their primary function and defending anything they see as detracting from this focus. Any change will be very slow and inefficient this way.

I think "brigades" will lose enforcement to another authority under the HSE in the medium to long term. Many are already paving the way to this by putting so little into the enforcement or protection functions and destroying any possible career progression within the uniformed section.

And the role of prevention will be carried out by another wing - or even organisation integrating social needs. And brigades will then be a shadow of their former selves  putting a glossy front  on the prevention initiatives but essentially an emergency service.

[jokar]

The Audit Commission report on the Fire Service decided that the Japanese Model was ideal for services in the Uk.  Therefore, more resources and people were put towards the prevention route, hence the CFS bits in the FRA 2004.  Operational response is only 10% of the firefighters role or so it is stated.  However, it is chased 100% by those in the service, rightly or wrongly.  Fire deaths normally occur in the home and it is almost impossible for any Fire Service to prevent this or to respond in time to save the lives of those who die because of the dynamic nature of fire and the toxicity of smoke and the products of combustion.

As stated above to move the fire service wheel forward and transform it to a truly preventative role is and will take time, effort and resources.  However, the public expectation is the reactive bit, a fire station on every corner and being in attendance in a short time frame.  This is not only not possible but against the Modernisation agenda of this Government and while this happens the in fighting goes on.

[kurnal]

Operational response may only be 10% of the firefighters role but it will always take up 80% of the firefighters working time- attending, testing, training and planning for incidents- information gathering etc.

Despite what you say about  fire deaths in the home and the role of intervention you will never cancel attendance at a  fire call to carry out a home safety risk assessment!
The tax payers hold this side of the service very dear and you are their safety net.
Training and operational readiness will always be time consuming but will always take priority because the potential consequences of not doing so are so high.

[John Webb]

Slubberdegullion puts his finger on one important point - economics. Having spent 28 years in Fire Research and most of that time being a (scientific) civil servant, I was always aware that behind the whole government ethos was cost, regardless of political party. One of the greatest problems we had was justifying our existance because it was impossible to quantify how much life or property our work would save in the future. One could make intelligent estimates, but that's all they were. Another problem is that politicians have a short time span and just as you've got one minister actually grasping what we were attempting to do, there's either an election or a government 'shuffle' and we had to start the education programme all over again!

It worries me that the FRS (for whom I have the greatest admiration, having worked with them on many occasions)  will find that as they move towards prevention and continue to help reducing fires and fire deaths, that politicians will lose sight of the catastrophes where the FRS needs to render assistance - the flooding in S Yorks and the SW this year, Buncefield etc. - and may not have the full resources given them to cope with these major incidents.

[jokar]

John, you are right and it is one of the amny problems that the service has.  Those CFO's and other Principal officers in the main joined as firefighters and still retain the basic ideals of why they joined.  They then adopt the ideals of the politicians but deep down know that is not why they are in post.  That is why the 10% is chased a 100% of the time.  I too have the greatest respect for todays and yesterdays firefighters, the job they do and the time and effort that they put into it.  Unfortuntely in some areas exactly what Kurnal has said will never happen has already, when appliances are off the run for CFS work and miss calls on their station grounds which go to other stations with the associated timing delays.

[Ken Taylor]

Let's look at things the other way round. If the FRS has to be able to respond adequately to fire and other incidents that are occuring now, it has to have sufficient resources and time to do so in the current environment. Beyond that there is a need to audit and inspect to enforce legislation toward improving the current premises environment to protect persons and property and enable occupants to escape. Then, in order to seek to achieve improvements to prevent future incidents there is a need to promote, educate, teach, advertise, etc, etc. It seems to me, therefore, that, unless resources are adequate to fully discharge these duties, the immediate will always take precedence and whatever's left will go to the more aspirational stuff. Whatever the mission statements say, the primary duty of emergency services will be to respond to emergencies. Fortunately, duty holders and their advisers are also (hopefully) involved in prevention and protection so things aren't all bad.

[messy]

Despite what you say about  fire deaths in the home and the role of intervention you will never cancel attendance at a  fire call to carry out a home safety risk assessment!

Sadly not quite true:

Perhaps FFs would never choose to perform CFS instead of attending fire calls, but this is happening regularly in London.

Every day, around 30 pumps are effectively taken 'off the run' for the crews to perform whatever duties have been planned for them. Known as the 'Strategic Resource', the bunch of FFs are tasked with training, 72(d) visits, and CFS.

There's no way out as when you are deemed on strategic resource you are off the run unless there's a spate of grass fires, floodings or some other catastrophy is threatened.

So it is quite possible -indeed a daily occurance- that a local pump(s) & crew will be tied up lecturing the local Women's Institute, whilst a standby crew (from several stations away) will be floundering around either attempting to find an address or, panicking over a water supply or finding their way (blindly) around a risk that is well known to the local crews.

Local information, 7(2)d type pre-planning, hydrant inspection & topography are now seen old fashioned fire fighting skills bt 21 century managers, as IRMP, strategic targets and league tables are seen as the way foward.

Personally, I would like to see virtually all CFS and Regulatory Fire Safety taken away from front line crews to leave them time solely to plan and prepare for  risk reducing operational response preparation. This would mean huge investments in resources such as training aids and regular off station training courses (perhaps not too popular with some).

However, at a time when the UKFRS is still reeling from the events in Warwickshire, it's worth remembering that the 'safe person concept' (A H&S control measure where training and competence of crews is used instead of controlling workplace/fireground risk) is wholly reliant on regular training and staff input.

Any prospect of maintaining a 'safe person concept' will certainly fail whilst crews spend too many hours installing smoke detectors and posting leaflets

[kurnal]

There have always been occasions when pumps have been, by prior arrangement, booked off the run for other duties and other crews cover the patch. Even under the old standards of fire cover so sadly missed, out in the sticks we only ever applied the attendance times to the first call and after that it it was whoever was next nearest.

But my point was that if on call you will always drop whatever you are doing to attend a fire call therefore the fire call will remain the most important part of your work.

So it is quite possible -indeed a daily occurance- that a local pump(s) & crew will be tied up lecturing the local Women's Institute, whilst a standby crew (from several stations away) will be floundering around either attempting to find an address or, panicking over a water supply or finding their way (blindly) around a risk that is well known to the local crews

I dont except that there is any excuse for floundering around in someone elses patch though- this should be on a pre planned basis and there is no excuse for poor topography skills and operational knowledge especially now with sat nav, mobile data, GIS systems, GPS vehicle tracking etc.

I guess that with the demise of the old systems for property based categorisation of risk and the new IRMP there has been a reduction in the number of pumps available on immediate turn out? How does the current compare with the previous?
 I must admit that my sister set fire to her sofa once- she lived on Talgarth Rd West Kensington- and 6 appliances arrived very quickly- what would happen today? That always seemed way over the top to me for a first attendance.

[Mike Buckley]

Yes I agree that you will always drop whatever you are doing for a fire call. However this does affect the work you are tasked to do. If you are tasked to do a lecture to the WI then you must be expected to turn up on time for the image of the brigade.

It was bad enough trying to arrange an old 1id visit when you got a fire call on the way there and the representative of the firm was standing around waiting for you to turn up, let alone an audience.

The job of the fire brigade was explained once like a shop. In a conventional shop the emphasis is on how many jars of jam that are sold, in the fire brigade shop the requirement is that you must always have a jar of jam to sell.

To drive the number and cost of fires down you are reducing the number of jars of jam to be sold and this eventually will have a knock on effect on the number of jars you need to keep in stock. You cannot do this by reducing the number of jars and then expect the demand to deminish, all you will get is a larger number fo disatisfied customers.

The solution as I see it will need an increase in staff employed on fire safety work CPS etc.without affecting the number of staff available for operational work. As the fire safety work has increasing effect then the operational requirement will reduce. Unfortunately this would mean an increase in staff and costs in the short term which is probably not what HMG wants.

[Ken Taylor]

So we have the FRS, HSE, Police and EHOs under-resourced, hospitals being closed and air-ambulances and life boats running on voluntary contributions - but lots more targets and form-filling. There must be something wrong somewhere!

[wee brian]

switch to marmalade. its the only way forward.

[messy]

Kurnal: You wrote "there is no excuse for poor topography skills and operational knowledge especially now with sat nav, mobile data, GIS systems, GPS vehicle tracking etc"

Sat Nav? Mobile Data? GIS? Vehicle tracking? You must be joking!!!

LFB are still firmly holding on to an A to Z and main scheme radio approach to mobilising

We have only recently got rid of carbon paper! so we are a little behind the times with front line communications. However, I did note that message board (for radio orderings) on the pump at my old station has recently been upgraded, with it's pencll now attached to the board by nylon string rather than an old shoe lace!!

As for 6 pumps to a sofa fire, this would have almost certainly have been due to two calls with differering addresses attracting an 'A' attendance to each location. Today - with the demise of the 'A' risk PDA, you would get 4 pumps - maybe with one on standby from an outer London Station driving up and down the A4 trying to find it!!

[Ken Taylor]

Still in A-Z mode here on the Isle of Wight too, Messy - but they say that they are expecting a national locating system to come about at some time. Fortunately local knowledge is good in this well-defined area - but 'reinforcements' from the mainland would take some time in arriving.