|
|||||||||||
On June 19, 2007 the Edmonds City Council approved the Fire Department Substitute House Bill 1756 Compliance Plan as part of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND Substitute House Bill 1756 passed the 2005 Washington Legislature, 92-2 in the House, and 36-10 in the Senate. SHB 1756 is derived from and a modified version of National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 Standards for the Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments. Edmonds has not adopted NFPA 1710; however, it does remain a national standard against which emergency service delivery may be measured. COMPLIANCE Edmonds is a “code” city with a career Fire Department that provides fire protection services in a specified geographical area. Beginning in 2007, the City is required to comply with SHB 1756 using policies and objectives adopted by the Council in 2006. INTENT Substitute House Bill 1756 states, “The arrival of first responders with automatic external defibrillator capability before the onset of brain death, and the arrival of adequate fire suppression resources before flashover is a critical event during the mitigation of an emergency, and is in the public’s best interest.” SHB 1756 requires the Fire Department to extract response data and evaluate levels of service (LOS), service deployment methods, and performance measures that apply to response time objectives for certain major emergency services, and provide an annual report based on the evaluation to the City Council and the public. The report is intended to describe how effectively the Department is meeting each Council-adopted “response time objective,” and “explain the predictable consequences of any deficiencies” in meeting the response time objectives, and “address steps necessary to achieve compliance” with adopted objectives. Central to compliance, evaluating the data, and producing a report is Council adoption of policy statements and measurable service delivery objectives by resolution. METHODOLOGY To facilitate compliance, Fire Staff recommended to and were directed by the Public Safety Committee on September 12, 2006 to follow the implementation matrix developed by the Washington Fire Chiefs (WFC) and the Washington State Council of Firefighters (WSCFF) described below, and to submit the plan for review to an advisory group. The implementation matrix, not the compliance plan itself, is divided into the following required sections:
Section I. Policy Statements
Section II. Adopted Standards Section III. Standards of Response Comparison (Standards of Cover) Section IV. Miscellaneous Items Section I of the matrix requires the Council to formally adopt in written statement or policy form the:
The most substantive parts of 1756 matrix are addressed in Sections II and III, which require measuring service delivery objectives in the context of the following response types:
Response standards have been developed for the services above with the exception of Wildland Firefighting and Aircraft Rescue Firefighting, neither of which the Fire Department provides. The response data used in the compliance plan is extracted from emergency response information entered into the Fire Department records management system by Department personnel using WebFIRS software. RISK MANAGEMENT The City is not required to adopt response standards that do not apply to the geographical area of the City, nor does SHB 1756 require adoption of unrealistic or unattainable time objectives. Chapter 35.103 RCW states that the code “does not, and is not intended to, in any way modify or limit the authority of cities and towns to set levels of service.” WORK GROUP AND REFERENCES The 1756 Fire Department work group consists of:
The advisory group consists of:
References include:
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT Adoption of the SHB 1756 Compliance Plan has the additional benefit of facilitating the delivery of two City of Edmonds Strategic Plan objectives adopted by the City Council on June 27, 2006. By adopting response standards and levels of service and staffing levels that comply with state statutes, and integrating them into the City Strategic Plan, two objectives under II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives are met: B. Establish Fire Levels of service and staffing that provide for proactive responses and C. Fire levels of service and staffing become part of the Strategic Plan. PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION On November 28, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133 adopting the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Washington Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756 as the Edmonds Fire Department emergency resource deployment and response time objectives. SHB 1756 requires the evaluation of the Council-adopted levels of service, deployment delivery methods, and response time objectives on an annual basis. The evaluations are based on data relating to the levels of service, deployment, and the achievement of each response time objective established by Council. The reporting format below is the one that will be used in subsequent years to report annual compliance with Council-adopted standards to the City Council and the public. As required by SHB 1756, the 2006 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
SECTION 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1133
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is legally established as a fire department through Ordinance No. 254 approved by the City of Edmonds City Council on October 16, 1912 to provide for the prevention of and protection from fire in the city and whose emergency services now include fire suppression, emergency medical services at the basic life support-defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and disaster preparedness and response; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a mission statement and goals and objectives to guide the organization in providing emergency services that include fire suppression, emergency medical services at the basic life support-defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and disaster preparedness and response; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a basic organizational structure which includes elected officials, Chief Fire Officers, Fire Officers, Firefighters, Firefighter/Paramedics and Firefighter/EMTs; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a certain number of members now and in the future who perform the tasks required to accomplish the response objectives; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is required by state law to establish turnout and response time goals for the emergency services is provides; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has evaluated the elements identified in SHB 1756 and included those provisions deemed appropriate in the Department’s emergency service delivery; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has developed written response coverage objectives required to comply with applicable provisions of SHB 1756; and, WHEREAS, the response coverage document is in furtherance of the City of Edmonds duty to the public at large and does not create a specific duty to any individual in the event of an emergency response; and WHEREAS, each emergency response occurs under a unique set of circumstances and competing emergency needs may impact response in any specific situation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds obligation to respond to emergency incidents consistent with the Fire Department emergency resource deployment and response time objectives may be impacted by circumstances and competing emergency needs, the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees shall have no duty to respond according to any specific response standard, and shall incur no liability whatsoever for failing to do so; therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of Edmonds hereby adopts the response coverage document attached as Exhibit A as the Edmonds Fire Department’s official policy for determining emergency medical, fire and rescue resource deployment; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The adopted response coverage document officially
defines the Edmonds Fire Department’s written policies and procedures that establish the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of the department; and, RESOLVED this 28th day of November, 2006. APPROVED: Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 11/28//06 SECTION 2 POLICY STATEMENTS The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establishes the 1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Resolution No. 1133. __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in Resolution __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 4. The expected number of Fire Department employees for 2006 and 2007-2008 is 54 __X___meets requirement_____does not meet 5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in __X___meets requirement_____does not meet
SECTION 3 Standards of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER) To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of “brain death” or “flashover” occur, the Fire Departments is required to establish response time objectives, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis against the established objectives. The comparison begins in 2007 with a comparison of the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of response. This section provides that comparison. 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did not meet the turn out time objective 90% of the time; 90% of the Fire Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:48 minutes/seconds. 2A. Response time off the first-arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire suppression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:15 minutes/seconds of response time. 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 15 firefighters. 2C. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 9 minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 18 firefighters. 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher level capability to an emergency medical incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with appropriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical incidents had the first-arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the scene within 5:16 minutes/seconds of response time. 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an advanced life support unit with appropriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical incidents had the Advance Life Support (two Paramedics) unit arrive at the scene within 6:49 minutes/seconds of response time. 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90% of the time. 90% of hazardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel arrive at the scene within 6:15 minutes/seconds of response time. 5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: No calls to report. 5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of technical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel arrive at the scene within 6:15 minutes/seconds of response time. 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of technical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel arrive at the scene within 6:00 minutes/seconds of response time. 6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of marine rescue or firefighting incidents had trained and equipped Marine Rescue and firefighting personnel arrive at the scene within 6:00 minutes/seconds of response time. SECTION 4 COUNCIL-ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET Substitute House Bill 1756, passed by the Washington Legislature in 2005, has been codified in Chapter 35A.92 RCW. Section 4 reporting is required by RCW 35A.92.040. RCW 35A.92.040(2)(a) requires the annual report to define the geographic areas covered by the report and the circumstances in which the requirements of the standards are not being met. The geographic area from which the response data for the report is drawn consists of the city/jurisdiction reporting category which is the legally adopted municipal boundaries of the City of Edmonds (8.93 square miles), and the Town of Woodway (1.12 square miles), and the unincorporated area known as Esperance (450 acres or .7 square miles). Edmonds has provided contract life safety and fire protection services to Woodway since at least 1984 and to Esperance since 1996. SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council-adopted standards are not met, the predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance. Of the eleven individual response time performance standards identified by the Fire Department and approved by Council for evaluation, the four that were not met are addressed below. The response data was collected in 2006. Addressing the issue of time stamping by SNOCOM dispatchers used to compile data is addressed later in the Corrective Actions section of the report but bears notation at this time. The current method of time stamping is both approximate and conservative as time delays in recording occur when dispatchers are busy, and do not enter times in a timely manner resulting in inaccurate response data. For these reasons, actual time responses are not longer and in many cases shorter. Due to the very small time deviation in three of the four standards reported on below, what deviation there is may be attributable to recording delays by dispatchers. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET The Council-adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met are as follows: 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents Established: 2:45 Minutes/Seconds 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident Established: 7:45 Minutes/Seconds 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher level capability to an emergency medical incident Established: 5:15 Minutes/Seconds 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident. Established: 6:45 Minutes/Seconds PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCES Predictable consequences for the deficient standards above include the potential for greater deterioration in the patient/victim’s medical condition, death, and increased property loss. Although response times are measurable as a risk factor, other inherent and varied risk factors that are less measurable also play a large role in outcomes, for example, time lapse between the onset of the emergency, discovery, and reporting; dispatch center processing; distance traveled; weather and road conditions; access; out-of-service / unavailable status of emergency units due to training, mechanical, or other emergencies; patients medical history and lifestyle; presence of bystanders able to assist; emergency devices that allow bystanders to assist; built-in fire detection and protection equipment; type of construction; and square footage. The list of variables that directly and indirectly influence the outcome of a specific emergency incident are not only numerous but come in various gradations and degrees. Despite the various factors that affect outcomes that are outside the control of emergency responders, response times are one factor in the medical chain-of-survival and structure fire time-temperature curve that governments can affect. Predictable consequences for the above standards are difficult to predict because the time difference is very small. Also, when working with a 90th percentile, only 10 percent of the emergency calls fail to meet the time standards. Deviations in time above the standard for all but one of the above standards were between one and four seconds. For the latter group, consequences are nearly impossible to predict and could be considered nebulous. At best, a mild increase in property loss could occur on fire-related responses, and a delay in treatment for medically-related incidents may occur. The greatest difference in time involves Section 2.B., the standard that requires assembling 15 Firefighters on a residential fire incident. In 2006, this totaled nine incidents. The Fire Department responded to a total of 59 residential structure fires in 2006, but only nine required assembly of 15 Firefighters. The remaining 50 incidents were handled by fewer Firefighters or the fire was extinguished prior to arrival. As noted earlier, 15 Firefighters on an emergency incident is minimally sufficient to perform the necessary rescue and firefighting tasks. A fire call is a dynamic event and tasks and actions do not wait for all responding personnel to assemble, organize, and deploy. Rather, tasks are delegated as appropriate to the incident and available resources. The greatest predictable consequence for this standard is an increase in property dollar loss caused by delay in hose stream application and the ability to ventilate heated gases and fire from the building. Although a dollar amount is impossible to calculate, as many variables play in to predicting dollar loss, it is predictable that an increase in dollar loss will occur. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The following is a list of actions currently being implemented by the Fire Department to improve overall response times:
NOTE: A training location with enough room for a co-located Fire Station would create a win-win for Firefighter field training and be the most advantageous response location, the latter among the most important factors affecting emergency response times. Four of the six corrective actions identified above have or are on their way to being accomplished at minimal cost. The new classroom training site at Station 17, though better than Station 20, is not optimal. Corrective actions five and six come at considerable expense, with the regular budget, EMS levy, and alternative revenue streams the logical funding sources. The Fire Department will continue the effort to reduce response times through the City budget, technology, regional partnerships, and/or other opportunities that present themselves. |
