An Analysis of 1
Running head: RESPONSE TIMES ANALYSIS
Response Times Analysis for the Excelsior Fire District
Scott Gerber
Excelsior Fire District, Shorewood, Minnesota An Analysis of 2
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
Signed: ______An Analysis of 3
ABSTRACT
Understanding Excelsior Fire District (EXFD) response times requires the evaluation of call processing, turnout, and travel times. The ability the EXFD to promptly deploy an effective firefighting force is critical to realizing a positive outcome at emergency incidents. The problem is that the EXFD does not meet the established response times to emergency incidents as established by the EXFD Board which has adversely affected the operations of the fire district.
The purpose of the research was to identify why established response times are not consistently met and to provide recommendations for standards of measure and improvement in response times. Six questions were asked. 1) What are the established response standards at the national, state and district? 2) How are benchmark response times for like agencies being accomplished?
3) How do the response times for the two fire stations differ? 4) What are the current call processing, turnout and travel times for the EXFD for 2009? 5) To what extent do technical problems contribute to turnout times for the EXFD? 6) To what extent do behavioral factors contribute to turnout times for the EXFD? A descriptive research method was utilized. The 2009
EXFD call data was analyzed for call processing, turnout, and travel times. One survey was sent to regional fire departments and another survey was sent to the members of EXFD. The average call processing time studied was 155 s (SD=.0006 s, Mdn=145 s). Average turnout time studied was 182 s (SD=128 s, Mdn=146 s). Average travel time studied was 268 s (SD=192 s, Mdn=202 s). No relationship was discovered between call processing times and types of calls. The EXFD firefighter’s personal perceptions in the survey did not match actual performance. It was recommended that EXFD and the regional fire departments explore implementing an education campaign on the behavioral factors of call processing, turnout, and travel times. Additional An Analysis of 4 recommendations included standardized data collection and adopting an updated overall response time standard to include call processing, turnout and travel times.
An Analysis of 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... 3
INTRODUCTION ...... 6
BACKGROUND AND SIGNFICANCE ...... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10
PROCEDURES...... 19
RESULTS ...... 24
DISCUSSION ...... 42
RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 47
References ...... 51
Appendix A: Main Categories Affecting Turnout Times from Literature ...... 55
Appendix B: Excelsior Fire District 2009 Call Data ...... 56
Appendix C: Response Times Questionaire/Survey for regional fire departments ...... 60
Appendix D: Response Times Questionaire/Survey Results for regional fire departments…..... 61
Appendix E: Turnout Times Questionaire/Survey for EXFD Firefighters ...... 66
Appendix F: Response Times Questionaire/Survey Results for regional fire departments ...... 70
List of Tables
Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………….……..24 Table 2…………………………………………………………………………………….……..25 Table 3…………………………………………………………………………………….……..26 Table 4…………………………………………………………………………………….……..28 Table 5…………………………………………………………………………………….……..29
An Analysis of 6
INTRODUCTION
The fire service today has many challenges with “all-hazard” response; however, the ability of a community to deploy an effective force of firefighting personnel and equipment to a scene in a timely manner is a critical task involved at a fire and emergency medical event.
Organizations work for continuous quality improvement. One of those areas is the organization’s response times, or the ability to respond quickly to an emergency. To fully understand response times requires the evaluation of the call processing, turnout, and travel time components, each which affects the ability of the organization to have a positive impact on the outcome of an emergency (Commission on Fire Accreditation International [CFAI],2006).
The problem addressed in this research project is that the EXFD does not consistently meet the established response times to emergency incidents as established by the EXFD Board which has adversely affected the operations of the fire district and compromised effective communications within the organization, thus increasing the risk in life safety to both the public and the firefighters. The purpose of the research was to identify why established response times are not consistently met, conduct a detailed analysis of current response time performance, including call processing, turnout and travel times, and to provide recommendations to standards of measure to improve overall response times. A descriptive research methodology is employed in this project.
The research questions being addressed by this project are:
1) What are the established response standards at the national, state and district?
2) How are benchmark response times for like agencies being accomplished?
3) How do the response times for the two (2) fire stations differ? An Analysis of 7
4) What are the current call processing, turnout and travel/“first on scene”
response times for the EXFD for 2009?
5) To what extent do technical problems contribute to turnout times for the
EXFD?
a. Call processing, notification (pagers) road design, location of home, location
of employment
6) To what extent do behavioral factors contribute to turnout times for the EXFD?
a. Employment, family, availability of calls for daytime, availability of calls for
nighttime, decision to come to call, etc.
By utilizing national standards and having a common benchmark to measure response
capabilities, goal and objectives can be developed to improve the quality of service that EXFD
provides for its citizens, thus helping EXFD meet the U.S. Fire Administration’s Operations
Objective of appropriately responding in a timely manner to emergent issues.
BACKGROUND AND SIGNFICANCE
The Excelsior Fire District (EXFD) was formed in January, 2000 as a Joint Powers
organization of five cities – Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay.
Located west of the City of Minneapolis in Hennepin County, the Fire District operates in an
outer-ring, suburban community, population approximately 18,000 covering approximately
fourteen square miles, (EXFD Year in Review, 2009). The Excelsior Fire District is a combination fire department composed of 47 personnel, a full-time Chief, a full-time Fire
Inspector, a part-time Administrative Specialist and forty-five paid-on-call firefighters. The paid on call firefighters also compose an Assistant Chief, two Battalion Chiefs, five Captains, and six program coordinators. The Excelsior Fire District operates two fire stations and responds to calls An Analysis of 8
for service covering fire suppression, hazardous materials, emergency medical service, special
rescue and disaster response.
The EXFD Board established a response standard by motion at an EXFD Board meeting
in July, 2005 when two fire stations were completed and operational. The response goal that was
adopted by the Board states that 8 firefighters on the scene in 8.5 minutes elapsed time for the
truck to be on the scene, and the District should continue working with resources at hand to
improve upon current data to achieve that goal (Excelsior Fire District Board minutes, July, 2005
p.6). The Board motion also delineated that if the response time exceeded 12 minutes then the
call information would be reviewed. The EXFD Board motion did not specify the breakdown of
the call processing, turnout and travel time components. This goal or standard is not written any
place other than in the original motion minutes and any calls exceeding 12 minutes have not been
reviewed as indicated in the original motion.
National Fire Protection Association 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment
of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the
Public by Career Fire Departments (National Fire Protection Association [NFPA], 2010)
discusses response time standards that include call processing time, turnout time and travel time.
(NFPA, 2010). This standard supports the need for fifteen personnel to be dispatched on a first alarm assignment to a fire event. NFPA 1710 also states that the outcome of a fire is greatly influenced by the ability of a department to quickly place adequate resources on a scene (NFPA,
2010). A fireground field experiment study conducted by Averill et al. (2010) in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) supports this conclusion by finding that four person crews arriving over a period of time complete critical fire ground tasks
30% faster than smaller crews (p. 52). The Commission on Fire Accreditation International An Analysis of 9
(CFAI) Standards of Cover (2008) also discusses this topic and defines the Effective Response
Force as the number of personnel required on scene to effectively complete an identified number
of tasks in a prescribed timeframe.
A fire district the size of EXFD is incapable of staffing to meet compliance with NFPA
1710 on its own. In 2009 the District responded to 657 calls for service of which 362 were
emergency medical response, 239 were fire suppression, and 56 were special response. Of the
total 657 calls, 112 were paged as an “all-call” for all EXFD members, 372 were paged for
station 1, 98 were paged for station 2 and 75 were paged for the EXFD duty officer.
Historically, the EXFD responds to fire calls using paid-on-call firefighters responding from the community during daytime and nighttime hours when paged for an emergency response. The firefighters may come from home, work, or elsewhere in the community. In 2009 recognizing the need to increase the number of firefighters on scene earlier in the scope of an incident, the need to impact response times, and the varying staffing deployment models available at different times of day, the Excelsior Fire District began to utilize automatic aid with
neighboring fire departments. Automatic aid is simply a request for mutual aid made earlier in
the incident and thus it is covered by the formal mutual aid agreement covering the fire agencies
in Hennepin County (Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association, 2003).
All structure fire responses in the EXFD area receive an automatic aid response (EXFD
Box Alarms, 2010). The EXFD area is divided into two districts and seven geographic box
alarms; the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system notifies the dispatcher which EXFD
resources are required along with which automatic aid fire department(s) to contact for the alarm
based on the location of the incident. Any delay in the call processing and turnout time will
directly result in an increase in the response time to that request. Since EXFD relies on its paid- An Analysis of 10 on-call firefighters and its automatic/mutual aid partners for a response to every structure fire, those delays in response times can be costly. As NFPA data demonstrates, there is a 253% increase in civilian deaths, a 71% increase in civilian injuries and a 280% increase in average dollar loss in fires that extend beyond the room of origin (NFPA 2010, p. 1710-17).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review was conducted through a review of fire service periodicals, research papers, and text books in an attempt to discover what is done throughout the nation in relation to response times, including call processing, turnout, and travel times. The internet was also used to search out on-line sources of information. It was anticipated that one research question would be partially answered during the literature review and that was the case. The question of what standards are currently in place nationally, at the state level, and locally.
Extensive research has been conducted on response times, fire department staffing, EMS response and alarm processing. This author found that the majority of the research conducted on response times, specifically turnout time and travel time, related to career fire departments. The review helps to show that the NFPA and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International seem to be leading the direction in establishing these standards. The current standards and laws that cover response times seem to revolve around consensus standards only. There is no State of
Minnesota law or standard that guides response times for fire departments operating in
Minnesota. (R. Dahm, personal communications, July 28, 2010). The current response time standard for the District was found in Board minutes. The standard is as follows:
When a call for service is initiated the EXFD will attempt to provide 8 firefighters on the scene in 8.5 minutes elapsed time for the truck to be on the scene, and the District should continue working with resources at hand to improve upon current data to achieve that goal. The An Analysis of 11
Board motion also delineated that if the response time exceeded 12 minutes then the call
information would be reviewed (Excelsior Fire District Board minutes July, 2005, p.6). The
response time standards are not currently found in the EXFD SOP’s.
In 2009 the Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association, which EXFD is a member of, established a uniform response standard indicating fifteen personnel on a scene in 9 minutes 80% of the time. This standard is a component of the Joint Powers Cooperative Agreement for use of fire personnel and equipment (HCFCA, 2003)
Ronny J. Coleman states that there is a period of time, usually about the first 10 to 15 minutes of a fire unit being on scene, when the vast majority of truly effective firefighting and rescue operations occur. Coleman goes on to call this the Diamond Time theory. Coleman shares that the Diamond Time theory is based on two ideas.
The first is that if you can’t find victims in the first 10 minutes, their ability to survive
decreases very rapidly. Simultaneously, if fire crews are on the inside trying to find both
the victims and control the fire, they can only do one at a time, or there have to be several
people working concurrently. Once a fire goes beyond the first burning period, things
can deteriorate quite rapidly. Firefighters can get hurt and fire losses increase rapidly.
This is why we need to be absolutely aware of the passage of time (Coleman, 2005 p. 31).
In the book “Managing volunteer and combination emergency service tips for the fire
department”, Fleming indicates that “quality management” is a critical factor is assuring quality
service. He goes on to state that a key component to quality management is timeliness. The time
crucial nature of the fire and emergency medical services that the contemporary fire department
provides dictates that the fire department must be prepared to respond to incidents and operate on
the incident scene in a manner that is both effective and efficient (Fleming, 2006). The An Analysis of 12
stakeholders of the fire department expect that when they call for assistance, the fire department
will be dispatched, respond and operate in an efficient manner. It is imperative that fire
departments proactively address any and all contributing factors to delays in response, including
those outside their immediate control such as the time required to receive and dispatch calls
through the 9-1-1 center (Fleming, 2006).
According to Marinucci, “Fire departments generally measure their response time based
on their drive time, not their entire reaction to a 9-1-1 call. Consider the processing time in the
dispatch center and the need to select the appropriate fire station or stations. Once the fire
department is alerted, there is turnout time, followed by the actual drive time” (Fire Engineering,
February, 2009, p. 26).
Moeller indicates that most recommendations for emergency response call for
calculations of both average and fractile times. Moeller goes on to state that citizens needing help
perceive response time from the moment they call 9-1-1 until someone is at their side. By that
definition, the average response time is just over eight minutes, and to hit the mark 90 percent of
the time would require the bar to be set at more than 15 minutes. It is generally agreed that faster
is better, but how fast remains elusive. Moeller stated, “Understand what response time means in
your community and work on each component to make it better.” (Moeller, 2009).
U.S. Department of Health recommends response times at nine minutes or less 90 percent of the time from the time of dispatch, while the U.S. Department of Transportation has endorsed a more stringent standard of eight minutes or less, 90 percent of the time from receipt of the 9-1-
1 call (Moeller, 2009).
Call processing. There currently are two nationally published standards in place; one
from NFPA and one from the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (NFPA, 2010; An Analysis of 13
CFAI, 2008). NFPA 1221 Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency
Communications Systems 2010 Edition discusses, in detail, the operating standards that should
be in place when processing emergency alarms. According to NFPA 1221, “Ninety percent of
alarm processing shall be completed within 60 seconds and 99 percent of alarm processing shall
be completed within 90 seconds” (NFPA, 2010, p. 1221-15). This time frame is the time
dedicated to the dispatcher interrogating the caller, selecting the call type and selecting the units
to respond. It does not include the actual unit notification time. Rather, NFPA 1221 is almost
silent on the amount of time it should take to notify units of an alarm by stating it should be in
accordance with the standard operating procedure of the authority having jurisdiction.
Staffing is a concern in the 911 centers similar to fire and emergency services staffing.
No 9-1-1 center is staffed to handle the large surge calls or “clusters of calls” when they are flooded with calls for service; yet, the public expectation is that all calls get answered immediately. Additionally, wireless 9-1-1 calls can also generate issues of its own. It is not
uncommon today to receive multiple wireless calls for one event on a roadway or in a
neighborhood (Furey, 2007).
Any attempts to improve the method of communication between the dispatch center and
the fire station can reduce the time required for crews to receive information and potentially
reduce the turnout times (Barr &Caputo, 2003).
Technology changes will also continue to impact call processing times. New services
enable PSAPs to take advantage of next generation 9-1-1 capabilities that can improve their
ability to route and manage 9-1-1 calls, streamline interagency collaboration, and support new
communications and data types. For example, a concept such as automatic call distribution might
be a new strategy in how agencies handle such calls. This is particularly helpful for PSAPs that An Analysis of 14
have seen statewide or regional consolidations. It can be one way to drive the right call to the
right agent who has the best skills and knowledge to best handle the specific 9-1-1 call. Furey found that in a survey of 14 emergency dispatch centers that four dispatched in less than two minutes, eight in less than three and another took longer than that. Only one met NFPA1221
(Furey, 2009). Furey goes on to explain that an increasing number of 9-1-1 calls require an increasing amount of telecomunicator intervention. Cellular calls not only add the cluster phenomenon, they behave differently from conventional phones. Time is spent trying to determine the correct location and effecting transfer to the proper agency. Because the majority of 9-1-1 calls are coming from wireless devices, over 50% of our volume is immediately at risk for substandard performance (Furey, 2009).
The most chronic and unresolved problem in measuring performance is the difficulty of
comparing apples-to-apples, sometimes described as definitional ambiguity (Moeller, 2005).
Moeller indicates that some dispatch centers start the clock when the 9-1-1 call is first answered
in the primary public safety answering point. Others wait until the call-taker has obtained all the
information, input that data into a CAD system and forwarded the incident to a fire dispatcher for
alerting emergency units. This research shows that the difference between these two common
methods was 47 seconds (Moeller, 2005).
While procedures should be in place in any system to expedite the dispatch of true
emergencies, taking the time to get it – and get it right – creates no more delay than the few
seconds “lost” by an engine stopping at a red light. Sending the right resources to the right place
with the right information should always be our standard (Furey, 2009).
Turnout times. Turnout time is defined similarly by CFAI and NFPA1710 as the amount
of time between when units acknowledge the receipt of an emergency call from the dispatch An Analysis of 15
center and when travel starts. NFPA 1710 requires that a fire department establish a turnout time
of 60 seconds, whereas NFPA 1720 does not specifically require a turnout time. CFAI and
NFPA 1710 require compliance with these turnout time objectives 90% of the time. These
standards stress the importance of speed during the turnout process and Coleman (2004) supports
this philosophy by asserting “the only way to get to an incident faster is to get out of the house
faster”. However, several studies (Kittterman, 2008; MacCharles, 2008; Metcalf, 2002; Spotich,
2005; Stauber, 2003; Weninger, 2004; West, 2008; Dell’Orfano, 2009) have found that
compliance with the 60 second turnout time standard is difficult. For instance, Metcalf (North
Lake Tahoe, CA) reported compliance only 28% of the time, Soptich (Eastside Fire and Rescue-
Issaquah, WA) only 9% of the time, and Dell’Orfano (South Metro Fire and Rescue-Centennial,
CO) complied only 29% of the time.
Turnout times, like many components of overall response time, are difficult to compare between fire departments due to the different methods that are calculated (U.S. Fire
Administration, 2006). A review of additional literature sources found several other factors that
may have an impact on turnout times. The main categories affecting turnout times as compiled
by Dell’Orfano (Centennial, Colorado, June, 2009) are noted in Appendix A.
Similar to concerns with the transfer of information to begin the turnout time, delays in
the end of the turnout time can also result from the methods used by the crews to indicate they
are enroute to the call. Often fire departments use manual methods to record the time stamp
associated with the end of turnout time and beginning of travel time, which can lead to a
significant margin of error (Coleman, 2006). Verbal transmissions of enroute status (e.g. via
radio) can result in travel time delays based on how quickly the dispatcher acknowledges the
information and where too much radio traffic prohibits the transmission (Kitterman, 2008). An Analysis of 16
Technology such as mobile data computers (MDC’s) would allow call information to be
transferred directly from dispatch to the unit and automatically record enroute status through the
push of a button, resulting in less radio traffic and reception of information exchange (Castillo,
2002). Kitterman (2008) estimated that having a similar acknowledgement button rather than
using a verbal method could improve turnout times by 2 to 3 seconds. Even this technology
comes with potential accuracy problems stemming from concerns with weak wireless signals
(Weninger, 2004) and human error when pushing the necessary buttons (MacCharles, 2008).
Once the call information is received, another important step in the turnout process is to select the route that will be taken to the call. The location, accuracy, and ease-of-use of wall maps or map books, as well as the drivers’ familiarity with the district are all factors that can lead to extended turnout times (Kitterman, 2008; Weninger, 2004; Dell’Ofrano, 2009).
The ability of the crews to turnout quickly may also be affected by the type of call they are responding to (Sopttich, 2005; Stauber, 2003; Weninger, 2004, Dell’Ofrano, 2009). The primary reason for this impact is the corresponding PPE that is required based on the call type.
This author did not find any literature related to turnout time specific to a combination fire department, specifically a paid-on-call fire department.
Travel times. The literature makes it clear that there should be a response time standard
but what the standard should be is unclear for our type of organization – combination fire
department. The best standard found is that it should be set to the expectations of the community.
NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical Operations, and Special operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments
2010 Edition discusses the operating standards that should be in place when responding to
emergency incidents. This standard takes the number of apparatus, personnel, and equipment An Analysis of 17
needed to mitigate an incident and places that into a timeframe that should be maintained. The
standard sets timelines that must be followed 90% of the time. The travel time for first due is 4 minutes and for the full first alarm is eight minutes and this has to be achieved 90% of the time
(NFPA, 2010). NFPA 1720 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer
Fire Departments 2010 Edition indicates there is no travel time requirement per se. There is section 4.2.2.1 which states: “Upon assembling the necessary resources, the fire department shall have the capability to safely initiate an initial attack within 2 minutes 90 % of the time” (NFPA,
2010).
Travel times are affected by many factors such as geography, weather conditions, call volume, and the availability of resources (Fuery, 2007). It is imperative that the apparatus arrive on scene in a timely and safe manner with the correct amount of personnel to properly mitigate the incident. This is not just a fire suppression issue, but also an EMS issue due to the need to help the non-breathing patient within the first few minutes.
Goldfeder stated that the location of the firehouse is one of the most important factors in response time and it has to do with planning firehouses in the best spots and factoring in all areas for consideration including ISO (Goldfeder, 2006). Firehouse locations have the most impact on travels times.
The work done by Bill Dedman of the Boston Globe illustrates many of the shortfalls of
response time analysis. In his series he speaks on how the fire service has tracked fire statistics since 1986 with no real analysis being conducted of the data. Of the 3.3 million structure fires that were reviewed during the series there were over 4,000 deaths in fires where response times were greater than six minutes. There were also 52 fires that killed 80 firefighters. Out of the 52 An Analysis of 18
fires in only 35 could firefighters get there in less than six minutes, in 27 four firefighters could
get there in less than six minutes, and in 18 fires 15 firefighters were on scene in 10 minutes or
less. The most alarming number was that there were people inside the building in only six of
these fires. Forty-six fires took firefighters’ lives with nobody in need of rescue. Property
damage also has a direct tie to response time. If response time is three minutes or less the
average loss is $17,000, and at five minutes the average loss is $34,000, at seven minutes the
average loss is $41,000, and after nine minutes the average is $61,000 (Dedman, B. 2005).
Mike Taigman illustrates that in EMS when you look from a patient’s perspective, our data is incomplete. He states that when you look at someone having a myocardial infarction, his/her clock starts with the onset of the symptoms. Taigman indicates that few systems measure time from when the phone is answered in the primary PSAP until the caller is transferred to the secondary PSAP. In the systems where its been evaluated, the time varies between an average of
22 seconds to more than 5 minutes (Taigman, 2008).
The literature shared information about what is currently done throughout the nation in relation to trends in response time standards and helps to show that the NFPA and CFAI seem to be the leading direction in establishing these standards. The current standards and laws that cover the development of response time standards seem to revolve around consensus standards only.
PROCEDURES
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, call processing time will be defined as the time from the receipt of the 911 call to the time the fire department is dispatched. Turnout time will be defined as the time between when the fire department is dispatched to the time the apparatus begins to travel to the call. Travel time will be defined as the time from when the apparatus begins to An Analysis of 19
travel to the call to the time when the apparatus arrives on scene. “First on scene” time will be
equal to travel time.
General Procedures
The Excelsior Fire District is dispatched by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office PSAP.
The PSAP uses the IPC Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to record all information.
Initial data entries into CAD such as address location, previous events, and cross streets are
automatically time stamped. However, all time stamps related to unit changes are manual entries
(C. Meyer, personal communication, August 16, 2010).
All calls for service from January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009 were reviewed for the
EXFD to evaluate call processing times, turnout times and travel times. The data was queried
from the EXFD NFIRS reporting system (Firehouse Enterprise v7.5.59), and the CAD system
utilized by Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office PSAP, IPC Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system. The summary data from this information is found in Appendix B.
All of the data used in the analysis was manually entered by the EXFD Administrative
Specialist into Microsoft Excel 2003 for data manipulation. The data was validated for address, including city, fire jurisdiction and station assignment.
In order to evaluate call processing time, turnout time, and travel time the call records from 2009 were evaluated using the identified CAD time on the CAD record. The elapsed time from the time the initial 911 call was received by the PSAP to the time the PSAP notified the fire department was calculated for each call for call processing time. The elapsed time from the time the PSAP dispatched the fire department to the time EXFD was enroute to the call was calculated for each call for turnout time. Finally, the elapsed time from the time the first apparatus going enroute to the call to the time the first apparatus arrived on scene was calculated for each call for An Analysis of 20
travel time. The average, standard deviation and median were calculated for all areas utilizing
Microsoft Office Excel 2003.
A questionnaire/survey was developed utilizing Survey Monkey on response times
including call processing times, turnout times, and travel times (Appendix C) and was distributed
to the regional fire departments in the area via a regional fire department email distribution list
with the Survey Monkey link attached. A total of 33 fire departments were surveyed and a total of 17 surveys were returned by the regional fire departments (Appendix D).
The gathering of this information has allowed for the analysis of how similar agencies utilize and track call processing, turnout and travel times and answers the question of benchmarking against similar organizations. The survey looked at population size, size of the department, and current response standards in place for the department as background information. The survey also gathered call processing times, turnout times, and travel times for
2009. Responses from the Salvation Army Disaster Services, HCMC Ambulance, and a response from the EXFD Asst. Chief were not included in the analysis.
A questionnaire/survey was also developed on turnout times (Appendix E) and was distributed to the members of the EXFD through the EXFD group email list. The questionnaire/survey was created using Microsoft Excel 2003 and the EXFD firefighters were sent an email with the questionnaire attached. The members were also given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire by utilizing a hard copy questionnaire left at each station. The group was given ten days to complete the questionnaire and a total of 15 were received back by the firefighters (Appendix F). Partial responses, where not all of the questions were answered, were included in the analysis. To analyze the effects of perception and motivation, the questionnaire/survey was designed to obtain feedback of their perceptions of the various factors An Analysis of 21 discussed in the study and their own performance, their motivation to perform well, and the organizations contribution to good performance. From the questionnaire, certain questions were designed to elicit feedback on individual perceptions of personal performance, areas for improvement, impacts of technical factors, impacts of behavioral factors, and recommendations.
The “perception” questions included questions 1, 2, 3, 17-21. Questions 4-10 were designed to elicit feedback on the knowledge of technical areas of turnout time performance. Questions 9,
11-16 were designed to elicit feedback on knowledge of behavioral areas of turnout time performance. Questions 22-25 were designed to elicit feedback on the knowledge and recommendation for improvements to the call processing, turnout and travel times standards and options for EXFD.
The main limitation to each of the questionnaires was the fact that the population was not selected in a scientific manner. The population in both questionnaires does have a vested interest in the results of the questionnaire and there was no control to keep two or more people from the same agency from completing the survey. In addition there was no way to verify or validate the information gathered as factual, the information has to be accepted at face value and has to be analyzed as is or discarded and not analyzed at all. With these limitations there is still enough confidence in the information to look at it for comparison to what EXFD has as current standards.
The Excelsior Fire District is divided into two response areas, one for each of its two fire stations. All EXFD firefighters carry a Motorola pager for notification of calls from the PSAP.
Five apparatus are outfitted with a Mobile Data Computer (MDC); however the use of the MDC does not figure into the calculations for call processing, turnout or travel times based on their defined use at EXFD at this time. An Analysis of 22
Call Processing Time Procedures
All call records for 2009 were used for calculating call processing times. The first notification time as defined on the CAD report was selected for beginning of the call processing time and the entry on the CAD report indicating “fire department dispatch and notification” was selected as ending the call processing time. This time is defined as the completion time of the notification period, in other words the two pages for the fire department have been completed.
Additional analysis was done on call processing utilizing the time the CAD system advises the dispatcher on the appropriate fire resource recommendations until the completion of the notification period as noted above. Call processing times were also analyzed to determine the impact the type of call may have on call processing times. 2009 data was grouped by four major call types (suppression, fire alarms, rescue and special) and by time of day. Calls having obvious errors with time stamps, improbable dispatch times or other missing data that did not allow for full analysis of the call were not used. The total number of calls was 657. The current technology used in the PSAP and EXFD has been in place since 2006.
Turnout Time Procedures
All call records for 2009 were used for calculating turnout times. Only the first enroute unit turnout time was selected for overall department analysis. Turnout times were also analyzed to determine the impact the type of call may have on turnout times. 2009 data was grouped by the same four major call types (suppression, fire alarms, rescue and special). Turnout times were also analyzed for each station and by time of day. Call records were not included if the unit was cancelled before going enroute. Calls having obvious errors with time stamps, improbable turnout times or other missing data that did not allow for full analysis of the call were not used.
The total number of call was 629. An Analysis of 23
Travel Time Procedures All call records for 2009 were used for calculating travel times. Only the first arriving unit travel time was selected for analysis of the overall department travel time. However, travel times were evaluated for each apparatus if they were the first enroute apparatus at any time during 2009. Travel times were also analyzed to determine the impact the type of call may have on travel times. 2009 data was grouped by the same four major call types (suppression, fire alarms, rescue and special). Travel times were also analyzed by time of day. Call records were not included if the unit was cancelled before going enroute. Apparatus that were requested in an emergent status then changed to non-emergent status enroute or requested in a non-emergent status were not segregated from the data. Apparatus that responded to automatic aid or mutual aid calls were also not segregated from the data. Calls having obvious errors with time stamps, improbable travel times or other missing data that did not allow for full analysis of the call were not used. The total number of call was 629.
General Limitations
Some of the specific limitations to the study have been identified above. In addition, one of the initial assumptions was that the literature would provide sufficient information on the causes of extended call processing, turnout and travel times and therefore in-depth observations, time and motion studies, collection of similar factors would not be necessary locally. Also, information was sorted into four major categories and only those categories were the focus of this study. These assumptions present potential limitations to this study, as much of the data in the literature is not scientifically based. However, there were similar trends and themes in the literature that suggest that much of the information is applicable outside of the originating departments. Another limitation associated with this study is the fact that much of the analysis An Analysis of 24 used data from 2009, which was not randomly selected and the process used to sort and clean the data may not have identified all sources of errors.
RESULTS
During the period under study, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009, Excelsior Fire
District responded to 657 calls for service. 254 were calls for suppression, 408 were calls for rescue or EMS calls and 71 were calls for special response. When evaluating all the requests for
EXFD the average call processing time for EXFD was 155 seconds (s), median=145 s and the standard deviation=.0006. The call processing times ranged from 133 s for suppression calls,
137s for fire alarms, 165 s for rescue/EMS calls and 184 seconds for special response calls. The call processing times were also evaluated for any differences depending on the time of day. The time of day with the longest call processing time at 171 s was from 21:00 – 21:59 and the time of day with the shortest call processing time at 124 s was from 03:00 – 03:59. The difference from the longest call processing time to the shortest call processing time was 47 s. Additionally the data showed us that from the time CAD identifies the necessary and appropriate fire resources that the average notification time is <60 s. Sorting the data based on time of day and based on the four major categories this average notification time stays at <60 s.
These call processing times compare to the data received from the regional fire departments. Table 1 summarizes the results of the data separated by PSAP.
Table 1
Summary of Call Processing Times for Regional Fire Departments
Department Population CP Time PSAP Affiliation
Minneapolis 386,000 Not tracked City owned/operated
Eden Prairie 65,000 < 60 s City owned/operated An Analysis of 25
Edina 47,425 <60 s City owned/operated
Minnetonka 52,000 Not tracked City owned/operated
Maple Grove 61,500 Not tracked Regional
Mound 16,049 Not tracked Regional
Long Lake 11,000 Not tracked Regional
Plymouth 72,000 Not tracked Regional
Brooklyn Center 30,000 161 s Regional
Hopkins 18,500 Not tracked City owned/operated
Brooklyn Park 78,500 Not tracked Regional
West Metro 43,761 Not tracked Regional
Robbinsdale 15,000 Not tracked Regional
Bloomington 85,000 59 s City owned/operated
The results show that 71.4% of the fire departments surveyed do not currently track call processing times. Of the departments that do track call processing times, 28.5% of the departments, EXFD has a call processing time greater than 75% of the departments reporting.
When evaluating all the requests for EXFD the average turnout time for EXFD was 182 seconds (s), median=146 s and the standard deviation=128 s. The turnout times ranged from 103 s for suppression calls, 106 s for fire alarms, 220 s for rescue calls and 127 s for special response calls. The turnout time for station 1 was 167 s; the turnout time for station 2 was 168 s. The fastest turnout time was 107 s during the hour period of 1600 – 1659 and the longest turnout time was 363 s during the hour period of 0300 – 0359. A summary of the turnout time based on the time of day is noted below in Table 2.
An Analysis of 26
Table 2
Summary of EXFD Turnout Times by time of day
Time Turnout time Time Turnout time
0-059 220 s (3 min 40 s) 1200 – 1259 108 s (1 min 48 s)
100-159 261 s (4 min 21 s) 1300 - 1359 141 s (2 min 21 s)
200-259 257 s (4 min 17 s) 1400 – 1459 125 s (2 min 5 s)
300-359 363 s (6 min 3 s) 1500 – 1559 123 s (2 min 3 s)
400-459 287 s (4 min 47 s) 1600 – 1659 107 s (1 min 47 s)
500-5559 264 s (4 min 24 s) 1700 – 1759 162 s (2 min 42 s)
600-659 260 s (4 min 20 s) 1800 – 1859 157 s (2 min 37 s)
700-759 281 s (4 min 41 s) 1900 – 1959 132 s (2 min 12 s)
800-859 217 s (3 min 37 s) 2000 – 2059 158 s (2 min 38 s)
900-959 189 s (3 min 9 s) 2100 – 2159 158 s (2 min 38 s)
1000-1059 177 s (2 min 57 s) 2200 – 2259 174 s (2 min 54 s)
1100-1159 137 s (2 min 17 s) 2300 – 2339 223 s (3 min 43 s)
The results show that turnout times for suppression calls and fire alarms were similar.
However there was a large difference (117 seconds) between rescue/EMS calls and fire calls.
This result is not similar to original assumptions that rescue/EMS calls would turnout faster than the others based on less need to don PPE and less staffing prior to traveling to the call. There was a 102 s difference (comparing turnout times) between night and day calls. While a standard could separate night and day response, it should be noted that only about 28% of the calls occur at night and with all calls about 55% of the calls are rescue/EMS calls, 36% are fires, and 9% are special responses. An Analysis of 27
These turnout times compare to the data received from the regional fire departments.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the data separated by fire department.
Table 3
Summary of Turnout Times for Regional Fire Departments
Department Population Turnout Time Station Staffing Notes
Minneapolis 386,000 60 s Career Avg. for Dept.
Eden Prairie 65,000 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Edina 47,425 <60 s Career 30 sec avg. for
both stations
Minnetonka 52,000 90 s Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Maple Grove 61,500 Not tracked Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Mound 16,049 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Long Lake 11,000 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Plymouth 72,000 70 s* Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew *Staffed
station
Brooklyn Ctr 30,000 164 s Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Hopkins 18,500 120 s Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Brooklyn Park 78,500 44 s Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
West Metro 43,761 220 s Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew Sta#1-264 s
Sta#2=269 s
Sta#3=271 s
Robbinsdale 15,000 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Bloomington 85,000 Not tracked Paid-on-Call/Duty Crew An Analysis of 28
The results show that 42.8% of the comparison fire departments do not currently track
turnout times. Of the departments that do track turnout times, 57.2% of the departments, EXFD
has an average turnout time less than only 12.5% of the departments reporting.
When evaluating all the requests for EXFD the average travel time / “first on scene” time
for EXFD was 268 seconds (s), median=202 s and the standard deviation=192 s. The travel times
ranged from 310 s for suppression calls, 255 s for fire alarms, 193 s for rescue calls and 428 s for
special response calls. Travel times from station 1 indicate an average of 228 s and 283 s for
station 2. The travel times for specific apparatus were also evaluated. Rescue 12 was the most
used first on scene vehicle and had an average of 196 s while Engine 11 had the longest travel
time at 548 s. One consideration with Engine 11 travel times is this is the most used apparatus for automatic and mutual aid requests to other fire departments. A summary of travel time based on apparatus is noted below in Table 4.
Table 4
Summary of EXFD Travel Times by Apparatus
Apparatus Travel time Avg. # of Times 1st arrival
Aerial 11 230 s (3 min 50 s) 8
Chief Truck 265 s (4 min 25 s) 57
Duty Truck 296 s (4 min 56 s) 209
Engine 11 548 s (9 min 8 s) 11
Engine 21 396 s (6 min 36 s) 7
Inspector Truck 219 s (3 min 39 s) 18
Rescue 11 190 s (3 min 10 s) 13
Rescue 12 196 s (3 min 16 s) 251 An Analysis of 29
Rescue 21 197 s (3 min 17 s) 46
Tanker 11 380 s (6 min 20 s) 1
Utility 11 153 s (2 min 33 s) 1
These travel / “first on scene” times compare to the data received from the regional fire departments. Table 5 summarizes the results of the data separated by fire departments.
Table 5
Summary of Travel Times for Regional Fire Departments
Department Population Travel Time Station Staffing Notes
Minneapolis 386,000 210 sec Career Avg. for dept.
Eden Prairie 65,000 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Edina 47,425 210 sec Career Sta#1=240 sec
Sta#2=180 sec
Minnetonka 52,000 360 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew Avg. for dept.
Maple Grove 61,500 461 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew Sta#1=425 sec
Sta#2=386 sec
Sta#3=506 sec
Sta#4=472 sec
Sta#5=550 sec
Mound 16,049 Not tracked Paid-On-Call
Long Lake 11,000 352 sec Paid-On-Call Avg. for dept.
Plymouth 72,000 401 sec* Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew *=Staffed
Station
Plymouth 72,000 692 sec* Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew Non-staffed An Analysis of 30
Station
Sta#1=699 sec
Sta#2=701 sec
Sta#3=771 sec
Brooklyn Ctr 30,000 393 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Hopkins 18,500 250 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
Brooklyn Park 78,500 242 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew
West Metro 43,761 343 sec Paid-On-Call/Duty Crew Stat#1-345 s
Stat#2=318 s
Stat#3=325 s
Robbinsdale 15,000 329 sec Paid-On-Call
Bloomington 85,000 264 sec* Paid-on-Call/Duty Crew *= w/ chiefs
334 sec** **= w/o chiefs
All times
dispatch to on
scene
The results show that only 14.3% of the fire departments compared to do not currently track travel times. Of the departments that do track travel times, 85.7% of the departments,
EXFD has a travel time greater than 33.3% of the departments reporting.
How are benchmark response times for like agencies being accomplished?
The questionnaire/survey that was conducted on response times with regional fire department also had a significant impact on this question. The data above has shown for the call processing times, turnout times and travel times across the sample that they are within a range An Analysis of 31
that is appropriate for the District. The need to look at the background questions and chart to
show the answers will require a separate approach. The chart will be followed by a narrative
response on how the chart answers the question.
What is the population you serve?
Population Answers Response Response Count Percent 10,000 - 30,000 5 33% 30,000 - 60,000 2 13% 60,000 - 90,000 5 33% 90,000 and greater 3 20% This was mainly a background question to determine the size of the department the
respondent was from. This shows that the largest groups of respondents was from 10,000 to
30,000 and from 60,000 to 90,000 population range. EXFD would be placed in the 10,000 –
30,000 range.
How many members do you have on your department and how many stations do you have?
Number of members on the Department Response Response Count Percent 25 – 35 2 13% 35-45 3 20% 45-55 2 13% 55 – 65 1 7% 65-75 2 13% 75 or greater 5 33% Number of Stations Response Response Count Percent One 3 18% Two 4 24% Three 3 18% Four 2 12% Five 2 12% Greater than 5 3 18% An Analysis of 32
These questions were also background questions that would lead to an understanding of
how large the departments were and their response capabilities. The greatest number of
respondents had two stations and this is the same as EXFD. The issue becomes that 80% of the
respondents have a different number of members than EXFD.
To what extent do technical problems contribute to turnout times for the EXFD and to what extent do behavioral factors contribute to turnout times for the EXFD?
The questionnaire/survey that was conducted on turnout times with EXFD firefighters
department had a significant impact on this question. The need to look at the questions and a
chart to show the answers will require a separate approach. The chart will be followed by a
narrative response on how the chart answers the questions.
The questionnaire/survey asked the firefighter to list their station affiliation?
Station Affiliation Response Response Count Percent Station 1 10 67% Station 2 5 33% This question was a background question related to station assignment. The greatest
number of respondents were from station 1.
How familiar are you with the current response standard for the EXFD?
Familiar with current EXFD Standard Response Response Count Percent Not familiar at all 0 0% Somewhat familiar 6 40% Very Familiar 9 60% An Analysis of 33
This question was also a background question related to how familiar current firefighters are with the standard in place for EXFD. The respondents indicated that 100% of the respondents have some type of knowledge about the current EXFD standard. The issues here are that to what extent and level of understanding the current standard is known is not known based on the data and this finding was not the understanding of the author prior to this study. Another issue could be that of the 15 respondents, they only represent 33.3% of the EXFD members and the 86.7% of the members that did not respond in the survey have no knowledge of the current standard.
How aware are you of your turnout time for your station response?
Aware of station turnout time performance Response Response Count Percent Not familiar at all 0 0% Somewhat familiar 9 60% Very Familiar 6 40% This question was also a background question related to how familiar current firefighters are with their station turnout time performance. The respondents indicated that only 40% of the respondents were very familiar with the station turnout time performance. The issues here again are that to what extent and level of understanding the current awareness is of station turnout time is unknown based on the data.
How would you rate your turnout time performance?
Individual Turnout time performance Response Response Count Percent Inadequate 0 0% Somewhat adequate 9 60% Adequate 6 40% An Analysis of 34
This question relates to turnout time performance for individual firefighters. The issue becomes that only 40% of the respondents felt that their turnout time performance was adequate even though 100% of the respondents indicated that they were familiar at some level with their station turnout time performance.
To what extent does the current dispatch notification and information affect your turnout time (e.g., pager reception, dispatcher information)?
Dispatch Notification affect on individual turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 2 13% Moderate increase in time 9 60% Decrease in time 4 27% This question relates to call processing and alarm notification. The issue here is that 73% of the respondents indicate that dispatch notification does have an affect on individual turnout time by increasing this time.
To what extent does the current technology utilized by dispatch, the apparatus, and in the stations affect your turnout time (e.g., MDC, radios, maps)?
Technology affects on Individual Turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 2 14% Moderate increase in time 6 43% Decrease in time 6 43% This question relates to technology utilized by dispatch, in the apparatus and in the stations that affects turnout time. The issue here is that 57% of the respondents indicate that the technology increases their turnout time, while only 43% of the respondents noted a decrease in turnout time with the use of technology.
To what extent does your familiarity of the response are affect your turnout time?
Familiar with response area affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 0 0% An Analysis of 35
Moderate increase in time 6 40% Decrease in time 9 60% This question relates to area familiarization. The issue here is that 60% of the respondents indicate that their familiarity with the area decreased their turnout time.
To what extent does the proximity of your home to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time?
Proximity of Home affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 5 33% Moderate increase in time 4 27% Decrease in time 6 40% This question related to where our paid-on-call firefighters live in relation to our fire stations. The issue is that 60% of the firefighters believe that the location of their home increases their turnout time.
To what extent does the proximity of your workplace to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time?
Proximity of work affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 9 69% Moderate increase in time 2 15% Decrease in time 2 15% This question relates to the where our paid-on-call firefighters work in relation to their assigned fire station. The issue is that 84% of the firefighters believe that the location of their workplace increases their turnout times.
To what extent does the time of day affect your turnout time?
Time of day affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 4 27% Moderate increase in time 7 47% Decrease in time 4 27% An Analysis of 36
This question deals with the time of day and firefighter response. The issue is that 74% of
the respondents believe that time of day increases their response time. This survey data correlates
with the actual data that time of day affects turnout time performance. The issue is that the
survey data does not get specifics on increases and decreases with time of day.
To what extent does the transportation infrastructure impact your turnout time?
Transportation infrastructure affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent Increased times 4 27% Moderate increase in time 9 60% Decrease in time 2 13% This question deals with transportation infrastructure and the impacts with the paid-on-
call firefighter responding to their assigned fire station. The issue is that 87% of the respondents believe that the transportation infrastructure increases their turnout time.
To what extent does the type of call (e.g., alarm, EMS, fire, other) affect your turnout time?
Call type affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent No influence 4 27% Moderate Influence 9 60% Large Influence 2 13% This questions deals with types of calls and a behavioral aspect to turnout times. The issue is that 73% of the respondents believe that the type of call has a moderate to large influence
on their turnout time. Another issue with this question is that it does not indicate how the call
type influences the turnout time, increased or decreased. This information shows correlation to
actual turnout time performance noting that turnout times were 117 seconds faster for fire calls
than rescue calls.
To what extent does being assigned to a specific station affect your turnout time?
Station assignments affects on turnout time Response Response An Analysis of 37
Count Percent Increased times 2 13% Moderate increase in time 6 40% Decrease in time 7 47% This question relates to station assignment and a behavioral aspect of turnout times. The issue is that 53% of the respondents believe that being assigned to this specific station increases their turnout time. The issue is that this information may be accurate for specific firefighters, but the actual avg. turnout times for both stations are only 1 second difference.
To what extent do the expectations of others affect your turnout time performance?
Expectations of others affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent No influence 6 40% Moderate influence 6 40% Large Influence 3 20% This question deals with the expectations of others and focuses on a behavioral aspect of
turnout time performance. The issue is that 40% of the respondents believe that the expectation
of others have no influence on their turnout time performance, while 60% of the respondents
believe that the expectations of others have a moderate to large influence on their turnout time.
To what extent does personal satisfaction motivate your turnout time performance?
Personal satisfaction affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent No influence 1 7% Moderate influence 6 40% Large Influence 8 53% This question deals with personal satisfaction and another behavioral aspect of turnout
time performance. The issue is that 93% of the respondents indicated that personal satisfaction
affects their turnout time performance with a moderate or large influence.
To what extent does competition between individuals and/or fires stations motivate your
turnout time performance?
Competition with individuals or stations Response Response An Analysis of 38
Affects on turnout time Count Percent No motivation 8 53% Moderate motivation 6 40% Large motivation 1 7% This question deals with another behavioral component of turnout time performance. The
issue is that 53% of the respondents do not believe that competition with other individuals or
other fire stations motivates their turnout time performance. However, 47% believe that
competition with other individuals or stations does have a moderate to large motivation.
To what extent does public perception motivate your turnout time performance?
Public perception affects on turnout time Response Response Count Percent No motivation 1 7% Moderate motivation 10 67% Large motivation 4 27% This questions deals with public perception and is another question related to behavioral
impacts on turnout time performance. The issue is that 94% of the respondents believe that
public perception has moderate to large motivation on their turnout time performance.
How would you rate the EXFD training and awareness programs related to the
preparation of turnout time?
EXFD training/awareness programs related to turnout time Response Response Count Percent Inadequate 2 13% Moderately adequate 8 53% Adequate 5 33% This question relates to training and awareness of the standards at EXFD. The issue here
is that only 13% of the respondents believe that the training and awareness is inadequate.
Another issue here is this finding was not the understanding of the author prior to this study. This issue could be related to the limitation of only15 respondents to the questionnaire/survey.
How would you rate the importance that EXFD has given to turnout times?
EXFD importance to turnout time Response Response An Analysis of 39
Count Percent Unimportant 0 0% Moderately important 8 53% Important 7 47% This question relates to the organizational importance of turnout time in training and operations. The issue is that 47% of the respondents believe that the EXFD organization has placed important emphasis on turnout times. Another issue here is this finding was not the understanding of the author prior to this study. This issue could be related to the limitation of only15 respondents to the questionnaire/survey.
How would you rate the importance that EXFD has given to call processing times?
EXFD importance to call processing time Response Response Count Percent Unimportant 0 0% Moderately important 5 33% Important 10 67% This question relates to the organizational importance of call processing times in training and operations. The issue is that 67% of the respondents believe that the organization has placed call processing times as important in the organization. Another issue here is this finding was not the understanding of the author prior to this study. This issue could be related to the limitation of only15 respondents to the questionnaire/survey.
How would you rate the importance that EXFD has given to response time (first on scene)?
EXFD importance to response time (first on scene) Response Response Count Percent Unimportant 0 0% Moderately important 6 40% Important 9 60% An Analysis of 40
This question relates to the organization importance of travel times (first on scene) in training and operations. The issue is that 60% of the respondents believe that EXFD has placed this are as important in the organization.
In your opinion, how important is call processing, turnout, and response time (travel time/first on scene) to EXFD?
Firefighter opinion on importance of call processing, Response Response turnout, and response (first on scene) times Count Percent Unimportant 0 0% Moderately important 3 20% Important 12 80% This question relates to firefighter input for the organization on where the organization
places the importance of call processing, turnout, and travel time for the EXFD organization. The
issue is that 80% of the respondents believe that overall response times including call processing,
turnout and travel times are important for the organization.
What are the obstacles to success of your turnout time performance?
Most common obstacles Response Response Count Percent Local traffic 6 40% Time of Day 3 20% Station location 3 20% Work 3 20% Weather conditions (snow, ice, cold, rain) 2 13% This question relates to obstacles for individual firefighter performance for turnout time.
The top 5 most common obstacles as listed by the firefighters were listed above. The issue is
that 40% of the respondents listed local traffic, a technical problem, as the most common
obstacle to an effective turnout time. It is important to note that 4 of the top 5 obstacles identified
by the respondents were technical problems.
What are the top 3 things the EXFD should do to reduce turnout time?
Top 3 things EXFD could do to reduce turnout times Response Response An Analysis of 41
Count Percent Duty Crews 5 33% Recruits live closer to stations 2 13% Educate readiness at home 2 13% This question relates to opportunities EXFD should do to reduce turnout times as noted by the respondents. The top 3 most identified areas that EXFD could focus on to reduce turnout times were listed above. The issue is that 33% of the respondents listed duty crews as an area to evaluate for reducing turnout times. Another issue is that all of the items listed by the firefighters are behavioral problems.
What are the top 3 things the EXFD should do to reduce call processing times?
Top 3 things EXFD could do to reduce call Response Response processing times Count Percent Work with Dispatch - educate, correct errors 4 27% Less data entry 2 13% Work with other fire departments to make a priority 2 13% This question relates to areas for consideration for reducing call processing times. The top 3 most common obstacles as listed by the firefighters were listed above. The issue is that
27% of the respondents listed education and working with the dispatch center and the top areas for consideration. It is important to note that all 3 areas for consideration listed by the respondents were behavioral problems.
What are the top 3 things the EXFD should do to reduce response times (travel times)?
Top 3 things EXFD could do to reduce response Response Response (first on scene) times Count Percent Duty Crew 3 20% Drive fast enough to get there safely 2 13% Increase knowledge of the area 2 13% An Analysis of 42
This question relates to what EXFD can do to reduce response times (travel times). The
issue is that all the items identified are behavioral items.
This study has not identified any substantial technical sources of time savings in the call
processing, turnout or travel time although it is anticipated that the benefits of education,
technology, and behavioral change modifications will have a benefit.
The respondents verified that the response data is not gathered consistently across
departments. The information shows that the gathered data is not necessarily consistent with the
standard that both NFPA 1710 and CFAI system requires to be successful in responding to incidents. The information shows that the generated data is consistent with the NFPA standard
1720.
Based on the 2009 call data analysis utilizing the average turnout time and travel time the current EXFD standard was met 100% of the time. The amount of firefighters on scene in the standard was not able to be quantified utilizing the current data collection and analysis. Based on the 2009 call data in this analysis, the NFPA 1221 (2010) standard for call processing was never met. Additionally, the 1710 (2010) standard for turnout time and travel time was also never met.
However, based on the 2009 call data, NFPA 1720 (2010) was met.
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to understand EXFD’s response time performance
so that the major areas for improvement could be identified. The currently adopted response time
standards for EXFD are not found in the current SOP’s, but are only found as a reference in
EXFD Board minutes from January, 2005. This response time standard is what currently guides
the response of the EXFD in reference to fire and rescue incidents that the units respond to both
inside of the EXFD area and outside of the EXFD area through automatic or mutual aid. The An Analysis of 43
current SOP’s provide guidance on apparatus response order but no specific timeframes are
listed. The current standard does fall within the guidelines of NFPA 1720 (2010) with the AHJ
creating the standard.
The response time performance was evaluated by using the call response data from 2009.
The average call processing time during the study period was 155.00 s. The average turnout time
during the study period was 182.00 s. The average travel time during the study period was
268.00 s. All of the response time components added together yields 597 s or 9 min 57 s. This
compares to the maximum call processing time of 90 seconds recommended by NFPA 1221
(NFPA, 2010), turnout time of 80 seconds recommended by NFPA 1710 (NFPA, 2010), and
travel time of 240 seconds recommended by NFPA 1710 (NFPA, 2010) yields 410 s or 6 min 50
s. While a single year still provides a large amount of data, it would be more beneficial to
perform a similar detailed analysis over multiple years to understand trends and produce stronger
conclusions.
Both the literature review and the results of this study clearly showed that compliance
with NFPA 1710 (2010), CFAI (2006), standards are not attainable. The results of this study
show that compliance with NFPA 1720 (2010) is attainable. This study suggested that an
alternate standard should be based on reliable performance levels with realistic goals for
improvement. EXFD could further refine the overall response time standard in accordance with
NFPA 1720 (2010). This author believes that detailing the various components, which include call processing, NFPA 1221 (2010), turnout time, NFPA 1710 (2010), and travel time NFPA
1710 (2010) will provide a measurable standard. A challenge in establishing a new standard for call processing times, turnout times, and travel times is the impact it has on the overall response times. While NFPA 1710 turnout time standard may be unrealistic for our type of combination An Analysis of 44 fire department, it is well justified by tying the total response time to fire growth curves and patient survival (Barr & Caputo, 2003; NFPA 2001). Therefore any attempts to increase that standard, even if justified by actual experience and maximum performance levels, need to consider what you are doing with total response times if you increase allow longer turnout times.
Ivancevich and Matteson (1999) also reminded organizational leaders that the desired performance levels or standards need to be attainable. Once a clear and attainable standard is established for EXFD, Ivancevich and Matteson (1999) suggested that mangers need to learn what rewards are valued by employees, or what will motivate good performance. Based on the questionnaire/survey, respondents stated that they were not motivated by recognition, but were more motivated by personal satisfaction and peer performance. Weninger (2004) suggested that a crew’s interpretation of the severity of the call may have an impact on turnout times. The results of the EXFD turnout time questionnaire/survey showed that the type of call was a factor in firefighter turnout time. The analysis of call types did show a substantial increase in turnout times for call types. This could be a result of calls being considered less important. Further analysis would be necessary to separate all calls into specific call types that might provide more insight into the impact of call severity. That effort may not be beneficial, as personnel need to develop an appreciation for all call types (Kitterman, 2008).
The literature focused mostly on technical factors affecting call processing, turnout and travel times. The literature often speculated that there was substantial human or behavioral components to call processing, turnout and travel times, but had not developed much insight into the topic. Behavioral components appear to have a substantial affect on turnout times. A formal campaign to decrease call processing, turnout, and travel times can be initiated that focuses on behavioral factors. As stated by Heifetz and Linsky (2002), this campaign will look very An Analysis of 45 different than addressing technical aspects and should establish a clear understanding of expectations, a focus on key elements that motivate individual performance, and effective reward system, and continual evaluation (Ivancevich & Matterson, 1999).
Based on the performance, the expected increase emphasis on behavioral themes identified, it is estimated that EXFD could experience at least a 30-60 second reduction in overall response times.
It is unknown how much data transferring systems actually reduce turnout times versus improve the accuracy of the data. Studies in the literature recognized that part of the benefit of better data capturing techniques is to improve the accuracy of the data and the analytical capabilities of the organization (Coleman, 2006; Stauber, 2003; Weninger, 2004; West, 2008;
Dell’Orfano, 2009). When one considers what is involved in receiving a 911 call for service, it is readily evident that processing the request will take time. The address must be located and verified, just this task is difficult. With the onset of wireless phones the challenge to locate and verify an address increases the time needed to complete this process. The request must be communicated and that request includes the type of call, the location of the call, and possibly resources needed. All of this takes time and seconds count when a fire department is counting providing timely and effective service. Not to mention that a dispatcher could simultaneously be handling traffic for additional calls, radio traffic for other public safety agencies and additional calls for service. All of these items involve the interaction between people and are most likely subject to the workload surrounding the request. The impact of staffing on call processing times is inconclusive based on the data obtained for this research. An argument can be made that it needs to be relatively fast in order to achieve departmental benchmarks and goals regarding total response time. The results from this research show that the amount of time it takes the PSAP to An Analysis of 46
notify the fire department is considerably longer than the NFPA 1221 (2010) standard. One of
the major limitations of this research is the small number of calls for service analyzed (N = 657).
Even though the sample is small, it is readily evident that the amount of time involved in call
processing is significant. The call processing time should meet the NFPA standard of less than
60 seconds 90% of the time and less than 90 seconds 99% of the time.
Based on our type of organization, combination fire department, the turnout standard
should lie somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes. This does not meet the standard specific to
NFPA 1710, but does meet the NFPA 1720 standard. The activities occurring prior to a call can
also impact turnout times. For the paid-on-call firefighter these activities are variable, but
extremely important. These variables include, but are not limited to, personal or professional
activities such as work or family events, daytime and night time performance, individual
preparedness such as setting out clothes. At this point, it can be concluded that while there are
some technical benefits and challenges in the turnout process, based on the use of the paid-on- call firefighter system all personnel do not have similar opportunity to perform at a similar level.
Variables include: home location, work location, time of day for the call, road design, traffic, and lifestyle to name a few. Considerations in changing response protocols, such as having the duty officer respond to rescue calls, could impact turnout time
Finally based on our type of organization the travel time standard should lie somewhere between the NFPA 1710 standard of four minutes for the first arriving apparatus 90% of the time and the current EXFD standard which meets the NFPA 1720 standard. NFPA 1710 (NFPA,
2010) recommends how many firefighters should be included in an initial full alarm assignment and the maximum amount of time it should take them to travel to the scene. It can also be concluded that while there are some technical benefits and challenges in the travel process, based An Analysis of 47
on the use of the paid-on-call firefighter system all personnel do have similar opportunity to
perform at a similar level in the travel time process. The stations are located in the same location
for all firefighters, geography is the same for all firefighters and the transportation infrastructure
(roads and traffic signals) are the same for all firefighters. Variables include: call location,
weather at the time of call, time of day for the call, and traffic to name a few.
The Standards 1710 and 1720 are the Technical Standards for the Organization and
Development of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special
Operations to the Public By Career and Volunteer Fire Departments and mandates staffing and
response times. The standards take the number of apparatus, personnel and equipment needed to
mitigate an incident and places that into a timeframe that should be maintained. With a
combination fire department and predominantly paid-on-call staffing, the EXFD can begin interior operations only when minimum staffing has been met. Minimum staffing need to meet the absolute minimum based on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) two-in/two-out standard (Respiratory Protection, 2000). Utilizing the paid-on-call model and automatic/mutual aid allows EXFD to accomplish fireground tasks faster and in a safer manner, but the key is getting those emergency resources on scene as fast as is safely possible.
By utilizing national standards and having a common benchmark to measure response capabilities, goal and objectives can be developed to improve the quality of service that EXFD provides for its citizens, thus helping EXFD meet the U.S. Fire Administration’s Operations
Objective of appropriately responding in a timely manner to emergent issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this research the following recommendations can be made. An Analysis of 48
1) Continue to collect and analyze data regarding call processing times, turnout times, and
travel times. Recognizing that the data in this research project is limited in quantity, it is
recommended that the procedures be kept in place and the data continue to be recorded
and analyzed for a longer time frame. The ability to evaluate overall response times
including call processing, turnout and travel times is important to standard development.
Additionally, studies should be conducted with standard data collection tools for regional
fire departments. Continual analysis of the data should occur annually with the goal of
constant improvement toward the benchmarks standard.
2) Clearly define written standards for response times for the Excelsior Fire District.
Engage the EXFD Board, EXFD Operating Committee and EXFD members to clearly
articulate the desired organizational goals to develop a standard for overall response
times including call processing, turnout, and travel times for the EXFD in order to
improve and better manage the overall response times process. Using the themes
identified in this study, a reasonable response standard would be one based on historical
performance that reflects reliable performance. The response time standard for EXFD
should include a call processing time of <90 seconds 99% of the time, in accordance with
NFPA 1221, a turnout time of 2 - 3 minutes 90% of the time, and a travel time of <6
minutes 90% of the time in accordance with NFPA 1720 (2010). The standard should
indicate that an effective response force of EXFD personnel and apparatus, including use
of automatic aid, should be on the scene within 9 minutes 80% of the time. Once a
clearly defined standard is in place a plan should be developed to have the organization
performing at the baseline within one year. A series of performance reports should be
produced on a quarterly basis that shows call processing, turnout and travels times for An Analysis of 49
each station, along with the expectation that fire officers will have discussions with the
members or outside agencies at least quarterly to identify areas of improvement. Direct
interviews and/or questionnaires should be conducted periodically to obtain feedback on
the effectiveness of the standard in place and continue to check perceptions and identify
obstacles to performance.
3) Develop education efforts for call processing times with the PSAP. The PSAP associated
with EXFD is not under the direct management of EXFD. Developing a long term
education effort for the PSAP to identify obstacles to call processing and provide
recommendations for improvement is critical to reducing overall response times. Because
the PSAP provides dispatch services to multiple law enforcement agencies and multiple
fire departments, partnering with the regional fire departments to provide quality
improvement education and ongoing feedback for call processing times is important for
successful improvements to overall response times. This may best be accomplished by
utilizing the existing work groups through the Hennepin County Fire Chief’s Association.
4) Develop education efforts for turnout times for EXFD members. Conduct a thorough
review of all existing policies, procedures, and protocols related to the turnout time
process. Work with the EXFD training staff to develop a short term and long term
educational plan. The plan should focus on minimizing obstacles for turnout times and
enhancing geographical awareness in order to improve and better manage the overall
response time process. More research needs to be conducted on the behavioral aspects of
turnout time, specifically in the paid-on-call environment. Such research needs to look for
insight on perception and performance, motivational differences, and life obstacles. An Analysis of 50
5) Develop educational efforts for travel times for EXFD apparatus. Conduct a thorough
review of all existing policies, procedures, and protocols related to the travel time
process. Response strategies should be further evaluated to identify any procedural
change opportunities. Work with the EXFD training staff to develop a short term and
long term educational plan. The plan should focus on minimizing obstacles for travel
times, enhancing geographical awareness, enhancing the use of technology and
enhancing map reading skills in order to improve and better manage the travel time
process.
6) Conduct a detailed analysis of a Duty Crew model for EXFD. Conduct a thorough review
of the data presented in this study and determine, behavioral, technical and financial
factors related to a duty crew model of operations. Identify strengths and weaknesses to
this different types of duty crew models and identify specific impacts on call processing,
turnout, and travels times.
An Analysis of 51
REFERENCES
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (2008). Firehouse Software (Version 7.5.59) [Computer
Software]. Des Moines, IA: Author.
Averill, J. D., Moore-Merrill, L., Barowy, A., Santos, R., Peacock, R., Notarianni., K., et al &
(Eds.). (April 2010). Report on residential fireground field experiments (NIST Technical
Note 1661). Retrieved on July 28, 2010 from http://iafc.org/associations/4685/files/
deptAdmin_NISTdeploymentReport.pdf
Barr, R.C., & Caputo, A.P. (2003). Planning fire station locations. In G.O. Tokle (Ed.) Fire
protection handbook (19th ed.,Vol1, sec 7, chap. 21, pp311-318). Quincy, MA:
Author.
Castillo, C. (2002). Complying with NFPA 1710: An analysis of Miami-Dade Fire Rescue
Department’s response times. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.
Coleman, J. (2004, July 1). Turnout time. Fire Engineering. Retrieved on July 31, 2010 from
http://www.fireengineering.com/display_article/210856/25/none/none/Depar/
TURNOUT-TIME
Coleman, R.J. (2006, July 1). No time-outs in tactics, responses. Fire Chief. Retrieved on July
31, 2010 from http://firechief.com/suppression/tactics/
firefighting_no_timeouts_tactics/index.html
Coleman, R.J. (2005, October). Take Full advantage of Fire’s Diamond Time. Fire Chief.
Retrieved on July 31, 2010 from http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_full_advantage An Analysis of 52
_fires/
Commission on Fire Accreditation International. (2008). CFAI standards of cover (5th ed.).
Chantilly, VA: Center for Public Safety Excellence.
Dedman, B. (2005). Deadly delays: the decline of fire response. Boston Globe.
Retrieved February 11, 2010, from http://www.boston.com/news/special/fires/fatal.html
Dell’Orfano, M.E. (2009). Turnout time analysis for South Metro Fire Rescue Authority.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.
Excelsior Fire District. (July 2005). Excelsior Fire District Board Minutes, July 2005. (Available
from the Excelsior Fire District, 24100 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331.
Excelsior Fire District. (March 2010). Excelsior Fire District 2009 Year in Review. (Available
from the Excelsior Fire District, 24100 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331.
Excelsior Fire District. (March 2010). Excelsior Fire District Box Alarm Assignments. (Available
from the Excelsior Fire District, 24100 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331.
Fleming, R. (2006). Quality Management. In W.F. Jenaway, Managing volunteer and
combination emergency service organizations: tips for the fire department, CEO (pp.
215-232). York, PA: VFIS.
Fuery, Barry, T., (2007). It’s only a matter of time. 9-1-1 Magazine, 20(5), 46.
Fuery, Barry, T. (2009). Dispatch times: regulations vs. reality: too much emphasis on speed and
not enough on safety? Firehouse, 34(9), 117.
Gates, D. G., (2007). Emergency service call processing time, Emmitsburg, MD: National
Fire Academy.
Goldfeder, W. (2006). Real response times: are you considering all the factors that affect your
department’s response time?. Fire-Rescue Magazine, 24(6), 120-122. An Analysis of 53
Heifetz, R.A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of
leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hennepin County Fire Chiefs Association. (2003) Joint cooperative agreement for use of
fire personnel and equipment. Hennepin County, MN: Author.
Ivancevich, J.M., & Matteson, M.T. (1999). Motivation. In Organizational behavior and
management (5th ed., chap. 4). Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Kitterman, D.L. (2008). The importance of efficient turnout times. Emmitsburg, MD: National
Fire Academy.
MacCharles, L. (2008). NFPA 1710: Can Calgary make it work? Emmitsburg, MD: National
Fire Academy.
Marinucci, R. A. (2009). Response time. Fire Engineering, 162(2), 26-27.
Metcalf, W.R. (2002). An evaluation of response time performance for the North Lake Tahoe
Fire Protection District and comparison to national standards. Emmitsburg, MD:
National Fire Academy.
Moeller, B. J. (2009). Issues in emergency services: big questions to ask the chief. Public
Management, 91(1), 12-15.
Moeller, B.J. (2005, August). Apples to Apples. Fire Chief. Retrieved on February 9, 2010 from
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_apples_apples080105
National Fire Protection Association. (2009). NFPA 1221: Standard for the installation,
maintenance, and use of emergency services communications systems (2010 ed.). Quincy,
MA: Author.
National Fire Protection Association. (2009). NFPA 1710: Standard for the organization and
deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special An Analysis of 54
operations to the public by career fire departments (2010 ed.). Quincy, MA: Author
National Fire Protection Association. (2009). NFPA 1720: Standard for the organization and
deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special
operations to the public by volunteer fire departments (2010 ed.). Quincy, MA: Author
Respiratory Protection, 29C.F.R. pt. 1910.134. (2000).
Soptich, L.A. (2005). A qualitative look at turnout times in emergency responses. Emmitsburg,
MD: National Fire Academy.
Stauber, J. (2003). Is the NFPA 1710 standard one-minute turnout time goal for career fire
departments reasonable and achievable? Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.
Taigman, M. (2008, August). It’s all about time: the mistake we make in the crazy business is to
think that the small-time components are what matter most. EMS Magazine. Retrieved
on February 9, 2010 from http://www.emsresponder.com/print/EMS-Magazine/Its-
About-time/1$8068
U.S. Fire Administration. (2007). Fire department fire run profile (Topical Fire Research Series
Vol. 7, Issue 3). Retrieved on May 15, 2010 from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/
pdf/tfrs/v7i3.pdf
Weninger, S.A. (2004). An evaluation of emergency response turnout times. Emmitsburg, MD:
National Fire Academy.
West, G.R. (2008). Exploring the feasibility of meeting NFPA 1710 response time standards at
Northwest Fire/Rescue District. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.
An Analysis of 55
Appendix A
Main Categories and Factors Affecting Turnout Times from Literature
Data Transferring Systems Facilities Reaction Process
Dispatcher delays, busy Overall station design Activity prior to call Manual entering info Proximity to apparatus Proximity to apparatus Printer speed Number of apparatus Workload Transfer from dispatch Printer location Type/Amount of PPE Dispatch message length Direction of door swing Seatbelts Dispatch message clarity Distance to apparatus Type of call Dispatch accuracy Slow bay doors Time of day Printer, tones timing Turnout gear location Cross-staffing units Bad data Donning PPE Pager Activation Time Training Write down address Area familiarization Radio delay for enroute Age Check wall maps Physical capability Check map books Preparation Confirm call location Poor sound quality Motivation Perception Data capturing problems Outdats maps Attitudes Awareness of time lapse Uer Error Slow Personnel Perceived impact of Poor alerting systems Incentives technical factors Call severity Age Physical capability Defined standards/goals Reasonable standards Awareness of goals
An Analysis of 56
Appendix B
CAD Resources Fire Resources
Month Indentified CAD Fire Page
JANUARY 0:01:10 0:01:45 0:02:45
FEBRUARY 0:01:03 0:01:42 0:02:31
MARCH 0:01:09 0:01:37 0:02:28
APRIL 0:01:02 0:01:39 0:02:41
MAY 0:01:02 0:01:34 0:02:28
JUNE 0:01:00 0:01:33 0:02:31
JULY 0:01:00 0:01:41 0:02:29
AUGUST 0:01:14 0:01:46 0:02:48
SEPTEMBER 0:01:02 0:01:30 0:02:26
OCTOBER 0:00:59 0:01:35 0:02:29
NOVEMBER 0:01:18 0:01:39 0:02:48
DECEMBER 0:01:08 0:01:44 0:02:37
CAD Resources Fire Resources
Phone Contact Indentified CAD Fire Page
AVERAGE 0:01:06 0:01:39 0:02:35
An Analysis of 57
CAD
Resources EMS
Indentified - Notified - Fire Resources Fire Page -
Time From Time From CAD - Time Time From
Phone Phone From Phone Phone Fire Page - Time from Fire
Contact Contact Contact Contact Resources CAD
0-59 0:01:01 0:01:12 0:01:25 0:02:11 0:00:46
100-159 0:01:14 0:01:22 0:01:43 0:02:47 0:01:04
200-259 0:00:57 0:01:42 0:01:49 0:02:45 0:00:56
300-359 0:00:43 0:01:07 0:01:15 0:02:04 0:00:49
400-459 0:00:58 0:01:50 0:01:23 0:02:21 0:00:58
500-559 0:01:07 0:01:41 0:01:32 0:02:21 0:00:49
600-659 0:00:51 0:01:11 0:01:13 0:02:05 0:00:52
700-759 0:01:11 0:01:32 0:01:50 0:02:39 0:00:49
800-859 0:01:11 0:01:50 0:01:49 0:02:46 0:00:57
900-959 0:01:04 0:01:30 0:01:40 0:02:34 0:00:54
1000-1059 0:01:04 0:01:48 0:01:40 0:02:36 0:00:57
1100-1159 0:01:08 0:01:40 0:01:41 0:02:38 0:00:57
1200-1259 0:01:00 0:01:47 0:01:31 0:02:28 0:00:58
1300-1359 0:01:00 0:01:35 0:01:36 0:02:32 0:00:56
1400-1459 0:01:10 0:01:55 0:01:48 0:02:38 0:00:51 An Analysis of 58
1500-1559 0:01:06 0:01:52 0:01:30 0:02:29 0:00:58
1600-1659 0:01:02 0:01:33 0:01:45 0:02:37 0:00:51
1700-1759 0:01:11 0:01:24 0:01:42 0:02:41 0:00:59
1800-1859 0:00:58 0:01:29 0:01:39 0:02:41 0:01:02
1900-1959 0:01:00 0:01:26 0:01:42 0:02:40 0:00:57
2000-2059 0:01:05 0:01:36 0:01:40 0:02:40 0:00:58
2100-2159 0:01:37 0:01:28 0:01:57 0:02:51 0:00:54
2200-2259 0:01:01 0:01:38 0:01:30 0:02:22 0:00:52
2300-2359 0:01:03 0:01:53 0:01:38 0:02:30 0:00:52
EMS
CAD Resources Notified - Fire Resources Fire Page -
Indentified - Time From CAD - Time Time From
Time From Phone From Phone Phone Fire Page - Time from Fire
Phone Contact Contact Contact Contact Resources CAD
Suppression 0:00:58 0:01:33 0:01:14 0:02:13 0:00:58
Fire Alarms 0:01:02 0:02:25 0:01:19 0:02:17 0:00:58
Rescue 0:01:07 0:01:33 0:01:53 0:02:45 0:00:52
Special 0:01:21 0:03:25 0:02:01 0:03:04 0:01:01
An Analysis of 59
Overall Turnout Average for 2009 0:02:50
Overall Travel Average for 2009 0:04:05
Combined Overall Average for 2009 0:06:55
Turnout Average for Station 1 0:02:47
Travel Average for Station 1 0:03:48
Combined Average for Station 1 0:06:35
Turnout Average for Station 2 0:02:48
Travel Average for Station 2 0:04:43
Combined Average for Station 2 0:07:31
Turnout Time Travel time from
from Fire Page 1st Unit Enroute Combined Time
Suppression 0:01:43 0:05:10 0:06:53
Fire Alarms 0:01:46 0:04:15 0:06:01
Rescue 0:03:40 0:03:13 0:06:53
Special 0:02:07 0:07:08 0:09:15
An Analysis of 60
Appendix C
Response Times Survey
The following questions will provide a basis for analyzing response times including call processing time, turnout time, and first on scene time for similar fire service agencies surrounding the Excelsior Fire District. The responses you provide will be used in an Applied Research Project for the Executive Fire Officer program at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Please feel free to contact me directly at 952-960-1650 or [email protected] if you have any questions.
1. What is the name of your fire department?
2. What is the population of the area you serve?
3. How many members do you have on your department?
4. How many stations do you have?
5. Does your agency currently have defined response standards? a. If yes please provide the standard or a description of the standard.
6. Does your agency track call processing time? (Call processing time is defined as the time the 911 call is placed until the time the agency is notified.) b. If yes, please provide your average call processing times for 2009.
7. Does your agency track turnout time? (Turnout time is defined as the time it takes to get an apparatus “in-service” from the time you are notified of the call.) c. If yes, please provide your average turnout time for 2009.
d. If yes and you have multiple stations, please provide any differences in turnout times for the different stations.
8. Does your agency track first on scene times? (First on scene time is defined as the first arrival on an agency apparatus.) e. If yes, does your agency track arrival of any first arriving apparatus or first arriving suppression apparatus?
f. If yes, please provide your agency average first on scene time for 2009.
g. If yes and you have multiple stations, please provide any differences in response times for the different stations.
An Analysis of 61
Appendix D
Response Times Survey Results
1. Number of Surveys Distributed 33 2. Number of surveys returned 17 3. What is the name of your fire department? a. Robbinsdale Fire Department b. West Metro Fire-Rescue District c. Brooklyn Park Fire Department d. Hopkins Fire Department e. Brooklyn Center Fire Department f. Plymouth Fire Department g. Bloomington Fire Department h. Hennepin EMS i. Long Lake Fire Department j. Mound Fire Department k. Maple Grove Fire Department l. Minnetonka Fire Department m. Excelsior Fire District n. Edina Fire Department o. Salvation Army Emergency Disaster Services p. Eden Prairie Fire Department q. Minneapolis Fire Department
4. What is the population of the area you serve? a. 15,000 b. 43,761 c. 78,500 d. 18,500 e. 30,000 f. 72,000 g. 85,000 h. Approx 500,000 i. 11,000 j. 16,049 k. 61,500 l. 52,000 m. 16,000 n. 47,425 o. Multiple counties p. 65,000 q. 386,000
5. How many members do you have on your department? a. 28 An Analysis of 62
b. 6 FT and 66 paid-on-call c. 65 d. 35 e. 36 f. 5 FT and 70 paid-on-call g. 133 h. 151 i. 47 j. 42 k. 10 FT and 88 paid-on-call l. 85 m. 45 n. 31 FT and 15 paid-on-call o. 3 FT and approximately 40 volunteer p. 9 FT and 95 paid-on-call q. 420 FT
6. How many stations do you have? a. 1 b. 3 c. 4 d. 1 e. 2 f. 3 g. 6 h. 9 facilities i. 2 j. 1 k. 5 l. 5 m. 2 n. 2 o. 3 p. 4 q. 19
7. Does your agency currently have defined response standards? If yes please provide the standard or a description of the standard. a. The standard describes which appratus should respond depending on the type of call. All other trucks will continue unless otherwise told. b. Yes - SOG's define response protocols based on event types. c. We do not have a standard but we track and publish response time statistics. d. You have to live within 12 min. of the station with normal driving conditions. e. No – duty crew handles 70% of calls.When calls are toned out, any/all vehicles respond. An Analysis of 63
f. Response time: overall response time from dispatch to the arrival of the first suppression piece (fire truck). g. We track % of the time that response to emergency events if five minutes or less from dispatch and % of timer that at least 15 firefighters arrive at structure fires in 9 minutes or less from dispatch. h. Yes in accordance with Hennepin County Ordinance 9 – EMS a. 90% of all Code 3 (lights and siren) responses in less than 10:59 b. 95% of all Code 3 (lights and siren) responses in less than 12:59 c. 98% of all Code 3 (lights and siren) responses in less than 17:59 d. 90% of all Code 2 (non lights and siren) responses in less than 20:59 e. 95% of all Code 2 (non lights and siren) responses in less than 25:59 f. 98% of all Code 2 (non lights and siren) responses in less than 30:59 i. No j. None k. No l. No m. Yes – first truck on scene in less than 8 minutes n. Yes – fire emergencies in less than 8 minutes 90% of the time and EMS in less than 6 minutes 90% of the time. o. No – provide rehab services p. No q. First rig on scene in 5 minutes or less
8. Does your agency track call processing time? (Call processing time is defined as the time the 911 call is placed until the time the agency is notified.) If yes, please provide your average call processing times for 2009. a. No b. No – HCSO does not provide that specific data in the stock event history, additionally there are no automated time stamps, only manual entries. c. No d. No e. The average dispatch to alarm (page time) for 2009 is 2:41 (The accuracy of our reporting in FH is very questionable so I am sure this is high). f. No g. Jan-Dec 2009 was 59 seconds h. Approximately 19.1 seconds i. No j. None k. No l. No m. No n. Yes – less than 1 minute o. N/A p. Less than 60 seconds q. Not that I am aware of
An Analysis of 64
9. Does your agency track turnout time? (Turnout time is defined as the time it takes to get an apparatus “in-service” from the time you are notified of the call.) If yes, please provide your average turnout time for 2009. If yes and you have multiple stations, please provide any differences in turnout times for the different stations. a. It is simply tracked via NFIRS b. 3:40 for the organization. Station #1=4:24, station #2=3:89 and station 3=3:91 c. Yes, 2009 in service 00:44. This is a blended response time for all three staffed stations. YTF in service time in 00:34 d. Yes – 2 minutes e. The average enroute time is 02:44. (This took a lot of time to sort the data into Excel to gather this number and the accuracy of our reporting in FH is very questionable). f. 2009 avg= 1:10 (staffed station) a. 2009 avg=7:34 (non-staffed station) b. Station #1=8:31 c. Station #2=7:26 d. Station#3=7:28 g. No h. We do not track specific unit/station turn around. Individual staff are measured and must maintain an average turnaround of less than 2 minutes. i. No j. Do not track turn out time at this time, only call time to on scene time k. No l. Yes – 1.5 minutes m. Yes – 4 minutes, tracked department as a whole n. Yes – less than 11 minute, 30 second avg. for both stations o. Average of 90 minutes in Mpls/St. Paul and immediate surrounding suburbs p. Not till 2010 q. Average turnout time is approximately 1 minute
10. Does your agency track first on scene times? (First on scene time is defined as the first arrival on an agency apparatus.) If yes, does your agency track arrival of any first arriving apparatus or first arriving suppression apparatus? If yes, please provide your agency average first on scene time for 2009. If yes and you have multiple stations, please provide any differences in response times for the different stations. a. First arriving apparatus 5:29 avg. b. Yes – first arriving unit a. 5:43 for organization- station #1=5:45, Station #2=5:18, Station #3=5:25 c. Yes, we track 1st arrival but we do not separate out first arriving suppression unit. Avg. on scene for 2009 – 04:02. Our YTD is 04:26 d. Yes – tracked by first vehicle on the scene (duty chief or first rig) e. Our average response time (alarm time to page) is 06:33 f. 2009 avg = 6:41 (staffed station) An Analysis of 65
a. 2009 avg. = 11:32 (non-staffed station) b. Station #1=11:39, station #2=11:41, Station #3=12:51 g. Yes Jan – Dec 2009 a. Dispatch to on scene with chiefs=4:24 b. Call taken to on scene with chiefs=5:41 c. Dispatch to on scene without chiefs=5:34 d. Call taken to on scene without chiefs=6:52 h. Not specifically. This is measured under the response time standards i. Yes – our avg. time for all calls is 5:52. We do not break it out per station j. First arriving apparatus is tracked for all types of calls including medical response. Agency response times varies in each of the five different cities we serve. We track response times by call types as well, so many variables. k. Response time is entered in Fire House. For rescue and fire incidents, we use the first arriving engine. For the rest of the incident types, we use the first arriving unit, does not matter what the type is. a. For 2009 all incidents, average response time was 07:41. There were 880 incidents in 2009. b. Station #1=7:05 (239 incidents), Station #2=6:26 (164 incidents), Station #3=8:26 (155 incidents), Station #4=7:52 (195 incidents), Station #5=9:10 (127 incidents). c. Our stations are located on busy streets, firefighters responding from home are often faced with making left turns from residential streets on to streets with heavy traffic in order to get to the station, so there is a longer travel time from home to station. We had to locate the stations on available land, so we are targeting our recruiting efforts to the area immediately around the station to improve response times in the future. l. Yes – 6:26 min for all m. Yes – 6 min, track department as a whole n. Yes – first suppression of EMS if an EMS call a. Station #1=4 minutes b. Station #2=3 minutes o. N/A p. Not till 2010 q. We track first arriving apparatus. Our average time for 2009 was 3:30.
An Analysis of 66
Appendix E
Turnout Times Survey
The following questions will provide a basis for analyzing turnout times for the Excelsior Fire District. As part of my Executive Fire Officer program, I am conducting research on the Excelsior Fire District Response Times including call processing times, turnout times and “first on scene” times. Your responses to these questions will be very beneficial to that effort, as well as provide future guidance and direction to the organization. Your answers to the questionnaire are anonymous and will be used in an Applied Research Project for the Executive Fire Officer program at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Thank you for taking the time and the effort to complete this survey and thanks for providing the honest feedback.
Please feel free to contact me directly at 952-960-1650 or [email protected] if you have any questions.
Definitions – a.) Call processing time - call processing time is defined as the time the 911 call is received in the 911 center until the time the agency is notified. b.) Turnout time- turnout time is defined as the time it takes to get an apparatus “in-service” from the time you are notified of the call. c.) First on scene times - first on scene time is defined as the first arrival on an agency apparatus.
For Survey Processing only - please circle the assigned station Station 1 Station 2
1. How familiar are your with the current response standard for the Excelsior Fire District? 1. Not familiar at all 2. Somewhat familiar 3. Very familiar
2. How aware are you of your turnout time for your station response? 1. Not familiar at all 2. Somewhat familiar 3. Very familiar
3. How would you rate your turnout time performance? 1. Inadequate 2. Somewhat adequate 3. Adequate
4. To what extent does the current dispatch notification and information affect your turnout time (e.g., pager reception, dispatcher information)? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time An Analysis of 67
5. To what extent does the current technology utilized by dispatch, the apparatus, and in the stations affect your turnout time (e.g., MDC, radios, maps)? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
6. To what extent does your familiarity of the response area affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
7. To what extent does the proximity of your home to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
8. To what extent does the proximity of your work place to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
9. To what extent does the time of day affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
10. To what extent does the transportation infrastructure affect your turnout time (e.g., roads, traffic control devices, congestion)? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time
11. To what extent does the type of call (e.g., alarm, EMS, fire, other) affect your turnout time? 1. No Influence 2. Moderate influence 3. Large influence
12. To what extent does being assigned to a specific station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2. Moderate increase in time 3. Decreased time An Analysis of 68
13. To what extent do the expectations of others affect your turnout time performance? 1. No Influence 2. Moderate influence 3. Large influence
14. To what extent does personal satisfaction motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 2. Moderate motivation 3. Large motivation
15. To what extent does competition between individuals and/or fire stations motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 2. Moderate motivation 3. Large motivation
16. To what extent does public perception motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 2. Moderate motivation 3. Large motivation
17. How would you rate the Excelsior Fire Districts training and awareness programs related to the preparation of turnout time? 1. Inadequate 2. Moderately adequate 3. Adequate
18. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to turnout times? 1. Unimportant 2. Moderately important 3. Important
19. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to call processing times? 1. Unimportant 2. Moderately important 3. Important
20. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to response times (first on scene)? 1. Unimportant 2. Moderately important 3. Important
An Analysis of 69
21. In your opinion, how important is call processing, turnout, and response time to the Excelsior Fire District? 1. Unimportant 2. Moderately important 3. Very important
22. What are the obstacles to the success of your turnout time performance?
23. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce turnout times? 1. 2. 3.
24. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce call processing times? 1. 2. 3.
25. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce response (first on scene) times? 1. 2. 3.
An Analysis of 70
Appendix F
Turnout Survey Results
Number of Surveys Distributed 45 Number of Surveys Returned 15 Station Affiliation Station #1 10 Station #2 5
1. How familiar are your with the current response standard for the Excelsior Fire District? 1. Not familiar at all 0 2. Somewhat familiar 6 3. Very familiar 9
2. How aware are you of your turnout time for your station response? 1. Not familiar at all 0 2. Somewhat familiar 9 3. Very familiar 6
3. How would you rate your turnout time performance? 1. Inadequate 0 2. Somewhat adequate 9 3. Adequate 6
4. To what extent does the current dispatch notification and information affect your turnout time (e.g., pager reception, dispatcher information)? 1. Increased times 2 2. Moderate increase in time 9 3. Decreased time 4
5. To what extent does the current technology utilized by dispatch, the apparatus, and in the stations affect your turnout time (e.g., MDC, radios, maps)? 1. Increased times 2 2. Moderate increase in time 6 3. Decreased time 6
6. To what extent does your familiarity of the response area affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 0 2. Moderate increase in time 6 3. Decreased time 9
7. To what extent does the proximity of your home to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 5 2. Moderate increase in time 4 An Analysis of 71
3. Decreased time 6
8. To what extent does the proximity of your work place to your assigned fire station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 9 2. Moderate increase in time 2 3. Decreased time 2
9. To what extent does the time of day affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 4 2. Moderate increase in time 7 3. Decreased time 4
10. To what extent does the transportation infrastructure affect your turnout time (e.g., roads, traffic control devices, congestion)? 1. Increased times 4 2. Moderate increase in time 9 3. Decreased time 2
11. To what extent does the type of call (e.g., alarm, EMS, fire, other) affect your turnout time? 1. No Influence 4 2. Moderate influence 9 3. Large influence 2
12. To what extent does being assigned to a specific station affect your turnout time? 1. Increased times 2 2. Moderate increase in time 6 3. Decreased time 7
13. To what extent do the expectations of others affect your turnout time performance? 1. No Influence 6 2. Moderate influence 6 3. Large influence 3
14. To what extent does personal satisfaction motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 1 2. Moderate motivation 6 3. Large motivation 8
15. To what extent does competition between individuals and/or fire stations motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 8 2. Moderate motivation 6 3. Large motivation 1 An Analysis of 72
16. To what extent does public perception motivate your turnout time performance? 1. No motivation 1 2. Moderate motivation 10 3. Large motivation 4
17. How would you rate the Excelsior Fire Districts training and awareness programs related to the preparation of turnout time? 1. Inadequate 2 2. Moderately adequate 8 3. Adequate 5
18. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to turnout times? 1. Unimportant 0 2. Moderately important 8 3. Important 7
19. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to call processing times? 1. Unimportant 0 2. Moderately important 5 3. Important 10
20. How would you rate the importance that the Excelsior Fire District has given to response times (first on scene)? 1. Unimportant 0 2. Moderately important 6 3. Important 9
21. In your opinion, how important is call processing, turnout, and response time to the Excelsior Fire District? 1. Unimportant 0 2. Moderately important 3 3. Very important 12
22. What are the obstacles to the success of your turnout time performance? Time of day, attitude, station location, weather conditions – (snow, ice, cold), traffic volume on Cty road 19 and Smithtown intersection, work, local traffic, what I am doing at work, work nights so wake up during the day, life obstacles – (busy not as prepared as I once was), safety of me responding, pedestrians, laws – (only 1 road that has a speed limit above 35 mph), more responders closer to stations
23. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce turnout times? An Analysis of 73
Work to improve dispatch, better communications with duty officer, better “in station” communications, make it a top priority, officers set example, reduce processing times, less data entry - just get the call out, short of giving member lights and siren – (not!) not sure, not much can be done – other than encourage residents living closer to the station to join (2), duty crews, set up goals and rewards, chief should visit with certain members – motivate one, educate readiness at home (car keys, jackets, right clothes laid out) (2), have a bold monthly and ytd chart, attitude – (my job is to get the truck out the door), attitude – (am I giving my best), take a look at station responses – are “outliers” responding to the best station, try to discourage “rolling over” for nighttime calls, consider going with less people on the first truck and having second or third trucks full, maybe on drill nights assign newer firefighter so they keep interested in getting on trucks, some kind of slot incentive – (different times of day), keep “stay in” people, publish avg. turnout times at the stations, make personal pride regarding times part of the culture, text paging is a big improvement, leave when pager trips – (don’t listen to the type of call first).
24. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce call processing times? Work with dispatch, work with other fire departments to make a top priority, less data entry – (just air the call), I think/feel that at this time all possible measures to reduce call processing times is being done or moving forward (e.g. dedicated fire dispatcher), fire only dispatcher, notify fire fast, hold Hennepin county dispatch accountable – (monitor medicals, police notified and fire notified ), chief to relay problems to dispatch sergeant, compliment dispatcher when they do a great job, keep radio traffic to a minimum while on call- be clear and to the point, that’s a dispatch problem, we have already started text and email notifications, improvements since adding recent “fire dispatcher”, human error, print out like Mound fire uses, use cell phone technology, technology to be able to tell who is coming, own dispatch center, continue to request dedicated dispatch resources, work with dispatch to streamline CAD information, communicate with dispatch.
25. What are the top 3 things the Excelsior Fire District should do to reduce response (first on scene) times? Work to improve dispatch, better communications with duty officer, better “in station” communications, reduce processing times, reduce turnout time, make response a top priority, nothing to do – (we have maps, computers, knowledge of the area, etc.), duty crew (3), recruits live close to stations (2), engineers know the area, have planned routes for time of day, middle section of the service are should be “all calls” all of the time, get the truck out the door sooner, peoples attitude has to give it their best to try to get trucks in service, if the call does not require a full crew- leave without a full crew-there are more trucks and if things get worse that others can help, train on geography (2), drive fast enough to get there safely, 2 duty officers – 1st has command and the other goes to the station to help get ht truck out, 2 duty officers (2), get people more centrally located, increase the member knowledge of the service area, increase member familiarity of mapping An Analysis of 74 tools, know exactly where we are going, consider time of day, continue the duty officer program.