Emergency cover review released: the hurriedly published review is a study of the implications of applying a risk assessment methodology to resource allocation in fire cover. This report could dramatically alter the Fire Service of the future - Fire Cover Review - Sir George Bain's report

Dismissed by the Bain Review team as "fundamentally flawed" on the advice of an ODPM briefing, the Emergency Fire Cover Review was published by the ODPM in reaction to the leak of a draft copy to a news group.

Commenting on the release of the draft review an ODPM spokesperson told FIRE that the review was "really still in consultation stage" and that it had been "prematurely published". The spokesperson rued the fact that the report had been "overtaken by events" and went on to say that the review focuses only on fire cover and did not take into account special services incidents.

The report of the CFBAC Fire Cover Review Task Group outlines the development and trials of a new methodology for determining Fire Service emergency cover. The report states that the new approach `has huge potential', in particular it claims to provide:

* A cornerstone of an integrated approach to fire risk management;

* An evidence based method for assessing and responding to actual risk, taking into account the effect of fire safety measures;

* A logical and flexible method for response planning, which assesses the actual resources required at a given incident, taking. into account firefighter safety;

* A tool for assessing the impact of key decisions in relation to the provision of Fire Service emergency cover; and

* An auditable process where the consequences of decisions can be quantified and, performance measured.

The report is based on a new risk based approach known as Fire Service Emergency Cover (FSEC), relating it to trials in 11 brigades and making a number of recommendations for progress. The new approach to fire cover was tested using a software model to assess the work of the pathfinder brigades.

The review was borne from the 1995 In the Line of Fire Audit Commission report that recommended a radical change in the planning and provision of fire cover. It recommended that new standards should be developed taking into account risk to life and existing fire safety initiatives, with the categorisation of risk based on empirical evidence.

While the existing standards of fire cover could be described as being defined by specifying the responses required to address the risks presented by different property types, the Fire Service Emergency Cover methodology can be described by the table below.

The first stage in applying the methodology is to assess the risk and response requirements. This is done through detailed assessment of risks to life and property, taking into account the impact of fire safety measures and the definition of the response requirements. The risks are primarily assessed by reference to historical records of incidents, where possible. The response requirements are determined from the worst case planning scenario (WCPS) which identifies the tasks, equipment and resources needed to complete them when dealing with an incident.

There are several resource allocation strategies that can be applied, however, they may offer differing results in terms of costs and savings. The FSEC used the Health and Safety Executive's Tolerability of Risk (ToR) framework for the pathfinder trials. Nevertheless, the report recommends further investigation into the application of a cost benefit approach as an alternative resource allocation strategy.

The cost benefit resource allocation strategy would entail `cover being provided only where the predicted value of safety savings equalled, or surpassed, the cost of achieving them.' However, the report recognised that the use of a cost benefit approach would be likely to give less geographical cover in areas of low population density than under the present standards of fire cover.

Moreover, the figures used in analysis of the cost benefit strategy are taken from the Pathfinder brigades which used retained stations extensively during the trials. However, the report recognises that `there are limits to the number of calls that can be dealt with by retained stations before employers tend to become reluctant to allow their employees to act as retained firefighters'.

While the resource allocation strategy is central to the FSEC methodology, how the risk is assessed, and how the response is resourced will also affect the operating costs and safety performances. The ODPM Fire Research Division was keen to stress that the FSEC is not a prescriptive procedure, but a general process, with options in all three phases of its implementation.

While there are many variables in applying the FSEC the Fire Research Division noted that the use of worst case planning scenarios (WCPSs) in the Pathfinder trials may have contributed to the high predicted costs of the FSEC. The reason cited for this is that the WCPSs specify much higher crewing levels than those currently used for comparable incidents. The Fire Research Division has not dismissed out of hand the use of the higher WCPS crewing levels, as they have yet to be analysed further to assess their validity.

The conclusion of the Fire Research Division is that: `Only when a better appreciation of the range of what the FSEC methodology can provide has been gained would it be sensible to decide the precise characteristics of the scheme to be implemented.'

It appears that, despite initial concerns about the validity of the review centred around its focus on fire without special services, the research will continue. As the processes are refined and the research progresses, it is almost certain that fire cover will be determined using a risk based approach. However, it is still unclear where the funding for taking forward the research will come from.

COPYRIGHT 2003 DMG World Media Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group