By RICHARD MARINUCCI
Response time is an important issue for fire departments. We are in a business where, on occasion, seconds count. Response time is often used as a measurement tool for fire departments, as if a quick response translated into quality service. Yet it is accepted that there are certain benchmarks that are important, especially when the incident involves a significant medical emergency.
Fire departments generally measure their response time based on their drive time, not the entire reaction to a 911 call. Many departments promote their response time in the three- to-six-minute range. But the entire reaction is more than that. Consider the processing time in the dispatch center, 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. Also consider the time needed to get to a patient’s side or be in a position to apply water. My guess is that the entire time, regardless of the “advertised” number, is more than what is promoted.
What does this have to do with problem solving? An issue that occasionally arises is when a complaint is submitted questioning why it took so long for the fire truck or rescue to arrive after the 911 call was made. The person making the call starts his “clock” immediately and does not deduct the time it takes to process the call and turn out. Therefore, the caller’s numbers will not match your response timeboth what you may have advertised and what you may show on your report. Regardless of how you tell the caller that your response time was three minutes, he knows it took longer than that after he hung up the phone.
This brings us to the following problem: Your boss calls you into his office. He shows you an e-mail that a council member received. It alleges that your EMS response time was excessivein the 20-minute rangeto a call for an injured little league football player. The complainant wrote a lengthy e-mail directly to your council member stating not only his perception of the total response but also his “embarrassment” that his hometown would have such shoddy service. Further, the injured player was ultimately diagnosed with a broken leg that required surgery to properly set the break. Your boss has asked that you investigate and report back to him so he can report back to the council member. The complaint arrived one month after the incident.
On the surface, this appears to be easy. All that needs to happen is to look at the report. In this case, the response time shows four minutes. Unfortunately, you cannot stop here, as this will not resolve the issue satisfactorily. You will need to dig further to get more information. Regardless of what the report says, the individuals will be skeptical and may even accuse you of a cover-up. Further, the council member may be looking to appease a residentand voteradding to your challenge. If you report a four-minute response without more details, your information will be discounted. You need all the facts, and you need to respond quickly. Even though you did not receive the information immediately after the incident, any delay in response can be interpreted as an effort to “cover up” the real facts.
Besides the report, you need to further investigate. Talk to the crew that responded. Ask if there was anything unusual. On occasion, multiple alarms occur at the same time, which can spread limited resources. The crew may not have been responding from quarters, or the first-due company may have been out of service on another call. The next-due company may have been coming from a much farther distance. Often the report will not reflect this. The only way to find out is to ask those involved. The delay in getting this information may hinder your investigation. If your organization responds to a large volume of calls, a month later may result in recall issues. This is not unusual, as an uneventful incident may not trigger a detailed memory of the facts. Regardless, anything you learn will be helpful.
Dispatch tapes are essential. If you do not control your dispatch center, you need to contact whoever is in charge to get the information. Even though the incident was a month ago, dispatch should keep the tapes. It is just a bit more challenging to go back. But with modern technology, it should not be too difficult. The tape will help to verify what you have and can also be crucial in “proving” what you have in writing. It can also reveal information that does not match what you have on your report. In this case, you will have a more complicated scenario. Either way, you will report the facts as you have gathered them.
More than likely, this was an unremarkable event to your crews and dispatch center. Had there been anything extreme, hopefully, they would have made you aware at the time. Often crews will not provide great detail, as the incident did not stick out in their minds. The more the incident was perceived as routine, the less the recall will be. This is nothing against the responders. It is just the way things are remembered.
Your next responsibility is to prepare a report with the facts and a plausible explanation. Remember that the complainant has a different view of your response time because his clock started at the time of the call and did not stop until your crews were patient-side. You must acknowledge this in your explanation. Report the most reliable factseven if they are not in your favor. Most of the time, they will come from the dispatch tape. Unfortunately, fire department reporting is not exact for different reasons. Technology in the dispatch center may not make for exact reporting. In the fire department, some members may not be as careful in their documentation, especially if the incident was not remarkable in their mind. On occasion, you may find the firefighters did not hustle on the incident. This will also need to be addressed if your investigation reveals this.
The report you draft will also include an offer to meet with the complainant and council member. Make sure your explanation is understood and received. Dissatisfied citizens and council members will tell many others. You do not need bad publicity. Even if your response was not up to your standards, accepting responsibility and reporting the facts accurately will help alleviate any negative information.
Departments that respond to a large volume of calls cannot expect to be perfect every time, but the public expects outstanding service to their individual calls. On occasion, there will be missteps. That is not to say that every complaint has merit. However, a thorough investigation and rapid reply will go a long way to minimize the impact of complaints.
Understand your response model and its limitations. Know what you advertise, and be prepared to explain the circumstances when you don’t meet those expectations. Tell it like it is, and make improvements should an issue be revealed.
RICHARD MARINUCCIis chief of the Northville Township (MI) Fire Department. Previously, he was chief of the Farmington Hills (MI) Fire Department. He was president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs in 1997-98 and chair of the Commission on Chief Fire Officer Designation. In 1999, he served as senior advisor to Director James Lee Witt of FEMA and acting chief operating officer of the United States Fire Administration for seven months as part of a loan program between the City of Farmington Hills and FEMA. He received the Outstanding Public Service Award from the director for his efforts. Marinucci has three B.S. degrees: in secondary education from Western Michigan University, in fire science from Madonna College, and in fire administration from the University of Cincinnati. He was the first graduate of the Open Learning Fire Service Program at the University of Cincinnati (summa cum laude) and was named a Distinguished Alumnus in 1995.
