Kent Fire and Rescue Service
Supporting the CRMP - organisational enabling plans

• Continue to embed new Fire Standards as these are published. 
• Continue to internally and externally peer review our responses to the fire standards compliance statements. 
• Establish and embed a review process and criteria to ensure continuing compliance with Fire Standards. 
• Increase service wide awareness of fire standards. 
• Continue efforts to compress timeframes for investigations. 
• Ensure that all Organisational Learning from investigations is captured on the Action Tracker, and that Learning arising from investigations can be attributed.
• Complete work to define Customer Liaison role at incidents.
• Update post incident customer survey to reflect definition of customer liaison role.
• Continue to scrutinise existing learning from significant incidents and inquiry reports (Manchester Arena) 
• Review any similar future publications (including Grenfell phase two) to identify and secure learning.
• Explore options to assure or review decision making at Operational Incidents.
• Continue to define ‘what good looks like’ in increasing areas of the organisation (training, recruitment, prevention, day to day activity…) 
• Continue to embed new requirements of operational and organisational learning as they appear in either their own, or as part of Fire Standards on a variety of other subjects. 
• Continue to imbed the concept of NFCC’s Organisational Learning into KFRS.
• Evolve the Learning element of the Learning and Assurance KFRS Policy.
• Oversee the implementation of the new Home Office IRS system and its integration with the current KFRS platform.
• Reduce the IRS entries subsequently amended following quality assurance processes.
• Increase the successful attendance and reduce the no responses to structured debriefs − this stands at 60% successful attendance in 2023 compared with 64% in 2022.
• Research and potentially Implement a dashboard following the successful introduction of the appropriate platform to make real time statistics available to users and strategic leads relating to Operational Learning.
• Continued reduction of occurrences where a Recall to Incident has taken place.
• Continue to develop the relationship and working practices with KFRS Projects team, improving the commitment to internal customer care. Utilising queries and questions from Operational Learning activities to help shape or evolve the scope of projects based on users wants and needs.
• Seek to reduce the average number of days between an event taking place and its respective debrief.
• Continue to draw our customer insights and access to services issues at debriefs to share with community insights team and other teams.
• Evaluation and assessing the current delivery of Operational Learning under the Learning Organisations maturity levels, with a desire to achieve Level 4 − the highest level.
• Seek to further formalise collaboration and sharing learning opportunities with Kent Police, assisting them in developing an evaluation board like that of KFRS where learning for KFRS can also be discussed and progressed.
• Continue to embed new requirements of assuring incidents and events as they appear in either their own, or as part of Fire Standards on a variety of other subjects.
• Evolve the Assurance element of the Learning and Assurance KFRS Policy.
• Assuring Exercising organised by the Exercise Planning Group.
• Further formalise the reporting of outcomes from Response Assurance Groups activities to KFRS strategic leads.
• Identify and define ‘what good looks like’ in all areas of the organisation (training, recruitment, prevention, day to day activity…). 
• Embed the Response Assurance function as a recognised role for all officers, alongside the specialist roles in the response assurance team.

Quantifiable but non monetisable benefits in improving our capability to meet customer needs:

• The success of our own internal or peer review to the fire standards compliance statements.
• Continued engagement in learning wider than solely incidents and exercises, with both further debriefs and feedback carried out in a variety of arenas, including prevention, Building Safety, and people, along with learning from such processes as procurement or CRMP itself. Demonstrating this will be the learning activities themselves along with submissions to and from Organisational learning evidenced.
• Ensure that data is captured and shared to record investigation timeframes. 
• Track investigation durations (from commission to report completion).
• Track actions arising from various investigation types (and report on these).
• Track completion rates of this survey, and contents (responses).
• Remaining actions from Manchester Arena Inquiry completed and closed – report through CIRB. 
• Actions arising from Grenfell phase 2 (and any other reports) tracked to completion, monitored and reported.
• Capture data on decision making, interpret and develop recommendations to share learning and deliver improvements. Communicate and embed these definitions. 
• Assure against these definitions in relation to ‘what good looks like’. 
• Assess culture and behaviours against these definitions.
• A KFRS Learning and Assurance Policy fully implemented, current with the sector specific best practice and guidance, and a true and accurate reflection of the team’s role that will add clarity and stand up to scrutiny from customers, colleagues, and fellow collaborative organisations in addition to Internal Audit and Inspection processes.
• Successful transition and submission to the new system, whilst still using the KFRS platform to enhance data collection for use in projects and programmes such as VERP and CRMP.
• A consistent reduction from the 2023 totals of 13% of incidents requiring changes being made to individual records.
• Working around the intricacies of the duty system and continuing to promote the safe space that debriefs and learning activities provide, reducing the occurrences where colleagues choose not to attend or respond to debrief invitations, and working with stations predominately as 33 of the 38 no responses are from Crews, with 10 FF (30%) and 22 ICSL1 (67%).
• The successful introduction of a reporting function where data and statistics are made available to action owners, managers and heads of section, improving participation in learning activities. This also addresses any areas of improvement more efficiently, which will be highlighted in annual collation and reporting to CMB.
• Reduction in the number of recalls to incidents that have taken place, with evidence from incident commanders of both comprehensive handovers using IIMARCH and the use of scheduled further visits to customers’ homes and businesses, demonstrating the ongoing commitment to customer care and a further demonstration of ‘what good looks like’.
• Continued evidence of actions arising from Operational Learning activity shaping the scope of projects, demonstrating the approach that whilst not every action or observation can be implemented immediately, there is a direct route to influence future investment and specification of new equipment, processes, and programmes of work.
• The Average days from event to debrief forms part of the annual report to CMB providing a statistical overview for Operational Learning. This allows CMB to direct focused improvements to our capability.
• Successful evaluation of the delivery, resulting in sufficient evidence being available to successfully demonstrate that Learning Organisation Level 4 – has been achieved.
• Evidence of a standing member of a Kent Police Joint Operational Learning Board, with a recognised and formalised mechanism to feed in and receive learning from both organisations, improving collaboration and evolving service delivery.
• The success of our own internal or peer review to the fire standards compliance statements. 
• A wider spread of evidence of assurance activities over not just the incidents but exercises where assurance activities have been requested or previously commissioned, widening the evidence base and therefore potential learning outcomes.
• Continued evidence of formalised reporting to CMB, with Response Assurance updates factored into the CMB schedule of reporting at timely intervals following the delivery of activities.
• Evidence that the Integrated Learning and Assurance Model (ILAM) provides corporate responsibility, awareness, review, and ownership of any KFRS trends, themes and areas of concern arising from the delivery of Operational Response & Resilience across KFRS. Following that awareness, if any undesired trends and concerns become apparent and further evidence is required, a measure of success will be Response Assurance being commissioned to undertake further assurance activities.
• Embed this definition into the respective qualifying response assurance activities when assuring incidents, exercises, and stations, providing a real-world assessment of whether we are meeting the needs of our customers and excelling in our delivery against well-defined criteria.
• A consistent and well trained and prepared group of Response Assurance Officers, either as the core team, or associates, who can effectively deal with assurance incidents in a consistent manner and remain well thought of and beneficial to all those in attendance at incidents, events, and exercises.
• KFRS recognises the importance of ensuring that enough officers are trained in each specialism to ensure that the capability can be met and no one individual is overburdened. The success of this action will be the Response Assurance Officer recognised as a specialism and included in the Specialist Qualifications Index of the officer framework.