Consultation report - reporting response times

Overview

Executive summary

Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue (LFR) proposed to change the way they measure and report incident response performance. This was only about how LFR report attendance, not an operational change to how they attend incidents.

• 173 people responded to the response time reporting survey
• 150 people agreed the proposed reporting was easier to understand. The other respondents disagreed
• 125 people agreed performance was as expected. A smaller majority, but almost three quarters of respondents still represents a clear majority

Concerns about the change related to averages masking actual times, poor performance or even positive response times.

The main impact on people with protected or SHERMAN characteristics was identified as rurality and remoteness in relation to response times. The impact on those with mobility issues is greater because response times are longer. This does not relate specifically to the change in reporting, but the issue of a large, sparsely populated county.

The information was included in an update to scrutiny committee and using the new reporting approach will be implemented. On 21 March 2023, ACFO Stacey reported that average response times were below nine minutes, against the new measurement target of 11 minutes.

Introduction

Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue proposed to change the way they measure incident response performance, known as attendance times, to match how the Government reports it. It was important to emphasise that this was only about how LFR report attendance, not an operational change to how they attend incidents. The new proposed standard was:

• The first appliance will attend dwelling fires across the county in an average of 11 minutes
• The first appliance will attend other incidents across the county in an average of 15 minutes

The benefits of changing how we report the statistics:

• in-line with national reporting and comparable with previous years’ data
• easier to compare performance with other similar areas
• easier to understand

The difficulties of changing how we report:

• we currently use maps as part of our reporting, which are visual and some people might think they’re clearer than just using average figures
• people might think our response or targets will also change, but they won’t

Stakeholders

Primary stakeholders were the public and particularly those identified as being at greater risk of fire. Secondary stakeholders included councillors, staff and partner organisations who can help identify and share the opportunity to respond.

Methodology

• A news item was drafted and posted on LCC’s website
• Social media messages were drafted and scheduled to be posted across Twitter and Facebook
• A newsletter item was sent direct to database members interested in fire and rescue
• An article was included in the January town and parish council newsletter
• A project page was created on Let’s talk Lincolnshire. This included a short survey asking for views, reasons for those views and any potential impact because of identified characteristics. The survey was available in alternative formats upon request
• Responses were reviewed at fortnightly intervals throughout the six-week consultation period and corrective action discussed

Findings and conclusions

Findings

There were 621 page visitors. Of that number, 308 people clicked for further information and 173 of them completed 174 surveys. This is a 28% visitor to respondent conversion rate, which given the nature of the topic, is positive. Most respondents came from social media (70) or used an email link they had received directly (67). This reflects the way the survey was promoted.

Comments or reasons were sought from those who disagreed. Reasons related mostly to using averages. They were seen to conceal poor performance and don’t identify the best performance so provide less informative or valuable data. They were also seen as potentially unfair in a rural county where times or averages aren’t comparable with predominantly urban or smaller areas.

Sentiment analysis to establish general feeling across 115 performance expectations comments showed a balanced view, although marginally more were negative (31%) than positive (26%).

When using mention analysis as a means of identifying the common themes, there is a similar split in opinion, but no particularly strong feelings. The top six themes, with the main sentiment were:

• Using the new reporting standard is clearer (21). Comments were 71% positive
• Consider remote and rural access issues and times (18) Comments were 33% mixed
• Reporting response times would be or was clearer (17). Comments were 59% negative
• The amended reporting is seen as reducing standards (15). Comments were 87% negative
• Speed of attendance is vital (11). Comments were 46% negative
• The new standard of averages is acceptable (10). Comments were 53% positive

Respondents were asked to identify any concerns and benefits they had based on protected characteristics or issues affecting their household, for example, disability or rurality.

Respondents (312 potential impacts or households identifying they fit into this category) are shown in this chart:

Note respondents could tick all that applied so some will be the same household.  They identified a potential impact of the change in reporting and 49 comments were provided: 

• The greatest number of people identifying a negative impact was 26 (15%) relating to living in a rural area. This category had greatest negative disparity (9) between negative and positive.
• The greatest number of people identifying a positive impact was 18 (13%) in relation to age.
• Marriage or civil partnership had the greatest positive difference (11) between positive and negative.

Conclusions and next steps

It can be concluded that the majority agreement and simplicity of the proposed reporting helps the general understanding and reflects how other areas report, which enables comparison. It is important to note that detailed data is still collected and analysed for internal purposes.

The findings of this engagement were reported to communities scrutiny, and they agreed that the new approach should be implemented. At the meeting on 21 March 2023 average response times were reported as being below the 11-minute target.

Questions from elected members related to whether poor parking had contributed to any delays in reaching fires. The Assistant Chief Fire Officer was not aware of recent parking related delays, but advised committee that they:

• target leaflet drops if problems are identified, and
• post proactive, preventative messages on social media