Inspection of Operational Assurance in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

194. The Service details that it is a learning organisation and there is a clear link between this aspiration and its OA process as an ORL tool. Its OA management is mature and has been developed in line with UK national statute and UKFRS guidance. OA is embedded within the organisation, it understands that ORL is about process improvement and that learning is achieved when change is implemented. The Service plays an active part in inter- and intra-agency learning locally, regionally and nationally. There is a functional strategy which incorporates actions for OA improvement over a five-year period and demonstrated a desire to evolve.

195. A bespoke OA policy has been developed and reviewed, which incorporates a model and governance process based on industry standards. The governance structure suffers from being overly bureaucratic, with some staff awareness of communication lines being limited. The Service has recognised some of these issues and made improvement with a simplified clearing house called the OLG, and workplace tasking cards. However, limitations to the OARRS, as well as OAD responsibilities and its capacity, inhibit data analysis and output development, as well as engagement with the wider organisation.

196. There is a structured data review, analysis and scrutiny process linked to OA. There are large volumes of OA-related data being generated, some of which is related to H&S KPIs which are an indication of safety improvement that could be attributed to OA. On the other hand, there was limited specific OA data to provide meaningful metrics and indicators, including the dedicated KPI, to demonstrate the actual performance of OA. Consequently, we found that the Service was unable to demonstrate or articulate effective measurement of OA performance.

197. There is a structured system for monitoring and auditing improvement within both Service-wide and local OA governance structure. We believe this could be improved to provide better oversight. Scrutiny is provided utilising the existing structures of the TSAB, SLT, Sub Committees and the Board, which is a robust system. However, the concern regarding the provision of good measurement of performance must inhibit the ability of these bodies to scrutinise effectively. The Service completed an effective benchmark assessment of OA with several recommendations identified and discharged. This self-assessment process is a notable example of proactive continuous improvement and those involved should be commended for it.

198. Pre-incident OA process encompassing station audits, thematic audits and training provides a structure for good operational preparedness. The station audit process is mature and well established within the local areas with the parameters of the audit reviewed on a regular basis. There are areas where the communication of improvements and reporting could be improved but also areas where innovative changes were piloted, which we believed had the potential to enhance the process further. It was disappointing to note that OC had been omitted from the development of the station audit process, and we believe that this should be remedied in order that their workplaces are supported in the same way as a CFS.

199. The thematic audit process is a particularly valuable tool and provides extremely useful analysis and recommendations for improvement in a particular aspect of operations when conducted. It was therefore disappointing to observe that the frequency of this process does not always meet the aspirational target set, and the opportunity to identify improvement proactively is thus limited. There were aspects of OA being included within training and development material, which provided a measure of increased awareness for staff. However, in general we found that there was a lack of OA training and development of most staff groupings, with some having none. This resulted in a general sliding scale of awareness of the process, from strategic management down, with the ensuing negative impact on OA as an ORL tool.

200. During-incident OA encompassing AM, mentoring and the OAO role provides a structure for identifying improvement whilst incidents are developing. AM is a particularly good system, as it allows FDOs to assess operational standards as well as prepare for potential mobilisation to an incident. There are aspects that could be reviewed, but in general it is a positive feature of OA. Similarly, FDOs attendance at incident grounds to provide OA or mentoring is a particularly good facet of the system, which could also be reviewed to make improvements. The OAO role has the potential to be an especially useful attribute of OA and the identification of improvement. There are negative aspects related to the deployment, which are definitely inhibiting that potential, and as such, the role should be reviewed to ensure support for ORL and IC can be maximised. Once again, it was disappointing to note that OC had not been fully integrated into this aspect of the system and as such there must be a detriment to ORL.

201. The post-incident OA process, encompassing hot and structured debriefing, provides a good structure for identifying improvements after an incident. Hot debriefing is a good informal debriefing tool that is evolving to provide additional mental health support for staff as well as identifying learning. There are aspects of hot debriefing that could be improved, with over reliance on the system for smaller incidents and subsequently not sharing learning outside a small community being the main ones.

202. The application of structured debriefs and subsequent reporting for L1 incidents is limited and is therefore not producing tangible outputs for the Service. Structured debriefs for L2 and L3 incidents are being conducted to a degree but the overreliance of the OARRS automated consolidation tool is also limiting tangible outputs for the Service. Whereas, structured debriefs for L4+ incidents are routinely conducted to a high standard with learning identified and fed into the governance system. There are potential improvements identified, but overall, this aspect of the debriefing process was positive. Structured debriefing of training and exercising was extremely limited with only some examples provided by the Service but little from staff. As such, the OA system is predominantly learning reactively and as such, proactive learning could be improved.

203. From an outcome perspective, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the Service is learning from incidents and that there are continuous improvements in training, equipment and procedure. However, there are many other issues repeatedly reported, that seem an ongoing frustration to staff. We observed that the system is structured to identify and make improvement from incidents that are more significant to the Service due to their nature, risk or genesis. Change and improvement within the Service would appear biased towards high-impact, low-frequency incidents and not those that are more frequent and low-impact. It is therefore understandable and symptomatic that many OA-related frustrations from staff predominantly tend to emanate from these smaller more frequent incident types.

204. The communication methods published for OA were highly praised with minor complaints regarding frequency and time to develop them being too long. Overall, they were universally popular with the learning tools such as the FLU and CS of particular note. Conversely, two-way engagement with staff was limited. This had a striking effect on the lack of OA awareness of processes and successes, as well as people feeling disenfranchised from inadequate feedback to close the loop. The lack of an engagement tool to help illustrate the successes of the Service and OA system is a real gap in provision as it would support the OAD.

205. In general, the OL culture within the Service is healthy with the majority of staff engaged to a greater or lesser degree in the OA process. Most staff believed that it is a good system, and that if used properly would make their job safer. We identified a number of cultural issues affecting the OA system, such as underreporting, misreporting, resignation and unclear managerial priorities. However, the Service’s perceived inability to lock in change from previous learning and embed it into the systems of the organisation seemed to be the biggest issue with many staff. It seemed appropriate to us that the Service would benefit from the development of a register of ORL that could be referenced for future management decision making processes.