Change to classification of incidents
Whilst we currently differentiate between calls to life threatening and non-life threatening incidents, we do not adapt the way we mobilise resources based upon this. Currently, for the majority of incidents, we immediately mobilise resources to an incident regardless of whether it is life threatening or not. This does not easily allow for our control room colleagues to be able to prioritise according to risk. Whilst an incident might be non-life threatening, it may still be an emergency, so it is important that we get there quickly. Consequently, we would like to move to a situation where it is clear what incidents require an immediate response as opposed to those where our immediate attendance is not necessary. This allows us to then direct the resources we have available to us at the time in the most appropriate way based on risk.
The first question asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposal to move from the current classification of incidents as ‘life threatening / non-life threatening’ to ‘emergency / non-emergency’. Emergency calls would be those classed as requiring a blue light, immediate, response. For example, building fires, road traffic crashes or inland water rescue. Non-emergency calls would be those classed as not requiring a blue light, immediate, response. For example, persons locked out, fuel leaking from a vehicle or assisting ambulance.
Of the responses received, 63.5% of respondents stated ‘yes’, which indicates a strong level of agreement with this proposal (see Graph 1).
A total of 9.7% of respondents disagreed with the proposal, while 26.9% chose not to provide a direct yes/no answer but instead leave free text comments. This question generated a considerable degree of interest and there were over 450 such comments received. These were broadly split between those who thought the reclassification was a sensible proposal and those who disagreed. The main reasons cited for disagreeing can be grouped into three areas: firstly, concerns that members of the public might, through a lack of understanding, unwittingly describe something that is an emergency as a non-emergency; secondly, that the reclassification would put additional pressure on emergency call handlers by having to decide what is an emergency or non-emergency; and the third was a view that every event KFRS receives a call for or attends should always be treated as an emergency or life-threatening.