Inspection of Operational Assurance in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

1. This is the report of a thematic inspection by His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate (HMFSI) into Operational Assurance (OA) provision within the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS). The commissioning of this inspection was born in part from our experience within the West Service Delivery Area (WSDA). During that inspection we found many positive OA practices but also a degree of adverse response from some Service personnel interviewed. Our report stated that we found ‘a degree of apathy and disappointment towards the OA system with many staff reporting that they almost never got any feedback from being part of a process and when learning did get communicated it had taken far too long to be disseminated…it is concerning that the face to face debrief process and subsequent positive learning aspects, seem to be diminishing within the WSDA’⁽¹⁾. Consequently, we felt it appropriate to examine the SFRS OA process in its entirety and how it is being delivered across the whole of the organisation.

2. OA is often referred to or synonymous with the terms, Operational Learning (OL), intraoperability National Operational Learning (NOL) and/or interoperability Joint Operational Learning (JOL). The terms detailed above are normally intricately linked to the ‘People’ concepts of Organisational Learning (ORL) and Learning Organisation (LO). ORL could be described as the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organisation, whilst LO is an organisation that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. ‘OL and LO were used interchangeably, before being later separated into two streams. OL focuses on the processes, while LO is about the organisation that is continuously changing its behaviour…. it can be said that organisational improvement and development fundamentally revolve around the general idea of ORL’⁽²⁾. As such, OA within the SFRS is a function of ORL process that attempts to ensure the Service does not simply repeat existing operational practices but also learns from them.

3. The Service’s long term vision details that ‘as a confident, modern, efficient, outward looking, learning organisation, our mission remains clear’⁽³⁾. The Service also details in its Strategy 2022 – 2025⁽⁴⁾ that People are an aspect of its operating environment and that it ‘will continue to place a strong focus on meeting people’s needs as we change how we work. This includes ensuring that our people continue to receive the appropriate equipment and the training they need to carry out their crucial role’. In addition, the OA Policy ‘supports the concept of a LO and supports the SFRS commitment to the continuous improvement of operational response and Health & Safety performance standards within the context of operational activity’⁽⁵⁾. It is clear from these statements that the Service aspires to be a LO and that it believes there are corresponding ORL processes in place to do this. Our inspection was clearly focussed on OA in that operational context, as it is an essential element of the ORL process encapsulating some of the most risk critical facets of its service delivery.

4. In an emergency service context OA could easily be described as the actions that are taken, to give confidence that policies, procedures, training, equipment etc. all come together to deliver a safe and effective emergency response. OA and the associated terms such as OL, NOL and JOL, are primarily focussed on learning from operational incidents as well as associated training and exercising. As such, the HMFSI focus for this thematic inspection was mainly based on Training Safety and Assurance (TSA) policy and procedures, Operations (Ops) policy and procedures, connections to OL, NOL and JOL as well as the expected link to the LO. However, and inevitably, there is a need to understand whether the Service is effective at ORL as that would provide comfort that it is able to encourage the use of positive practices and safeguard from repeating errors.

5. The SFRS definition of OA is ‘a safety management system, underpinned by the key ‘Safe Person Principles’ (Health, Safety and Welfare Framework for the Operational Environment), which aims to support the delivery of a safe, effective and efficient operational response using planned and systematic processes to minimise organisational risk’⁽⁶⁾. It is detailed that this system should assure the effectiveness of the SFRS arrangements for the implementation of the guidance contained within generic hazard and risk statements, Standard Operational Procedures (SOP), Incident Command Systems (ICS), operational training and the maintenance of operational competence. To achieve this, the Service details that it has robust OA processes, such as pre-incident audits, during-incident monitoring and post-incident reviews, which should support the concept and ethos of a LO focussed on continuous improvement (CI).

6. The concepts, systems and processes detailed above were lightly assessed during the HMFSI Service Delivery Area (SDA) inspections of the East, West, and latterly North, areas. As well as areas of good practice, common themes also emerged which gave rise to potential concern and consequently this thematic inspection was commissioned. As such, our approach was to assess the SFRS’s OA Policy, which provides a framework for the provision of OA and sets out the SFRS position in relation to the information gathering and assurance of operational activities. The inspection was to also consider the application and operation of this policy and related processes, procedures and systems. During the course of this inspection and taking particular account of our stated purpose, we focussed on the following general areas:

• organisational strategy, policy, procedures and processes for OA that are in place within the SFRS;
• scrutiny, governance, and the structures in place to ensure appropriate oversight of OA;
• responsibilities for ensuring OA and the discharge of legal obligations;
• audit, monitoring and measuring performance of OA to ensure internal compliance and continuous improvement;
• review and analysis of SFRS data which should support audit and monitoring;
• consideration of ORL, including NOL and JOL; and
• staff development and LO processes, which support the application, understanding and implementation of OA.