Inspection of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service West Service Delivery Area

The following tables are intended to provide an overview of what was found in each LSO area. Due to our sampling methodology these summaries cannot represent every aspect of performance in an area and are based on our own direct observations or what we were told.

Theme: Prevention and Protection

Highs

• The LFRPs in the WSDA have assessed a good range of risks and threats and were of a good quality. The plans give a description of the area, highlighting the various risks which may exist and where relevant, the actions of the SFRS and its partners to mitigate those risks.
• Each LSO area has a LPDP, which outlines the work of the LALO, CAT and frontline firefighters that aligns with Service priorities and their local requirements.
• Staff in the WSDA were heavily involved with established methods such as HFSV, PDIR visits, Vulnerable People referral pathways, seasonal TAP and that these were used extensively.
• Staff were generally involved with traditional engagement activity such as Bonfire Night Initiatives, Schools, Fetes, Nurseries, Gala Days etc. It was clear that much of this historic activity had been curtailed during the COVID period, that recovery was still underway, and to some extent hadn’t been reinvigorated locally.
• Each LSO area has a LEDP, which outlines the work of the Local Managers, FSEOs and AOs that aligns with these Service priorities and their local requirements.
• Prevention and Protection teams to be well staffed with varying degrees of competence, knowledge and experience.
• OI information held was being provided and reviewed to ensure its accuracy. Procedures for collecting and reviewing information on OI were a mixture of proactive and reactive processes which ranged from informal drive by to formal liaison and communication with Council Planning officers.
• The Service is currently developing and rolling out a new OI system, with new hardware, that will enhance and replace the current systems. We see this as an improvement but are unsure as to the timescales for this and as such, current processes and hardware remain extant.
• Evidence that BCMPs have been developed for each workplace within the WSDA and that these have been reviewed within a reasonable timeframe. The standard of these plans was very consistent and thorough.
• Some good examples of promoting biodiversity and conservation with community gardens, including apiaries, at community fire stations.

Lows

• The postponement of the LFRPs is causing a degree of frustration at the local level and confusion as to how planning for routine workload should be conducted. There is a level of confusion amongst staff regarding the processes of planning as opposed to reporting, with the latter being relied upon heavily. There was limited evidence of Station Plans and their ongoing development and review. There was evidence of a seven week planner but this had fallen into disuse due to it not being refreshed in recent time. Very little evidence that suggested targets and objectives borne from the LFRPs and organisational strategy formed part of the appraisal process as there was little appreciation of the link.
• CSET risk scoring is not seen to accurately reflect a person’s actual risk, leading to deserving cases not being assessed accurately. Staff report that the CSET is not recording activity correctly, it is not intuitive to use and felt it should be adapted to run on a portable tablet device. PDIRs should be carried out dynamically and so would also benefit from a tablet-based resource.
• CAT staff were disappointed that their access to TFoC, opportunities for CPD and formal development to a recognised qualification were extremely limited or non-existent.
• There was uncertainty regarding the removal of the Chief Officer’s Fund and the LSO’s ability to deliver discretionary spend on prevention resources such as safe letter boxes and fire retardant bedding thereafter. This was a source of concern to frontline crews who felt they couldn’t intervene effectively when a risk to a vulnerable person had been identified.
• No evidence of either informal or formal feedback from the FIT to prevention teams in the WSDA that had been used to develop activity.
• Prevention staff do not feel particularly supported by the Prevention and Protection Directorate. Community engagement education packages are said to be not readily available, causing a sense of real frustration. There is frustration that there would seem to be no ‘go to’ person in the P&P function.
• General feeling that a lot of the capacity has been consumed by unplanned workload such as STL licensing, ACCM concerns and/or non mandatory and reactive workload such as complaints and enquiries.
• In respect of the STL issue, many staff were particularly frustrated by the lack of guidance and direction from the National Prevention and Protection Function.
• Recruitment and retention of staff is an ongoing challenge. There is a lack of experience with enforcement staff within some of the current management structure.
• The programme of nationally derived fire safety audits was said to struggle to go beyond identified framework premises.
• Continuing problems with the enforcement PPED, means that personnel are maintaining their own records to cover system inadequacies. It is reported as losing data and doesn’t maintain a full history of the premises. There is a strong feeling that this presents a risk.
• No evidence of a risk based approach to High Rise Building inspections in place and consequently, these visits continue to be a significant burden for certain operational crews and for some enforcement staff at a time of reduced resources.
• Not convinced that the OI system employed throughout the WSDA was infallible and that all relevant OI had been collected and reviewed.
• There is a lack of faith in the demountable OI tablet capabilities resulting in its infrequent use. The device was underused by firefighters mainly due to the problems associated in using it, which we also highlighted in our 2019 report. Continued ongoing issues with the automatic up-dating of the tablet device and the ability to create new OI records. This would seem to be a national problem and one that the Service has been trying to resolve.
• The Service confirmed that SSOP’s are no longer being developed and informed us that the Operations Function are currently developing a new document strategy, which will include operating procedures supported by manuals. We are also aware that the Service has developed enhanced incident response plans and OI for some specific hazards. However, we are still unsure whether all hazards within the WSDA that may require specific operating procedures outwith generic guidance have them in place.

Theme: Response

Highs

• Due to the operational changes brought about by SSRP, HRA Strategy and the rationalisation of Water Rescue in September 2023, we found that Wholetime Operational crews were generally established to or around the TOM. Although there were still instances of appliance withdrawal and appliances being staffed to four, we found that the picture had in the main improved and there was reduced negative feedback regarding this particular issue.
• Awareness and understanding of SOPs as well as other operational guidance, where they could be accessed either within the workplace or on the incident ground. Most staff seemed very comfortable with the format and content as an aid to strong incident command, whilst others found them a bit cumbersome.
• Service published the SAMPP, which sets out how the SFRS aim to achieve a modern and fit for purpose property estate that supports the effective delivery of services across the whole organisation. Fire stations were found to be generally well kept, clean and tidy. Fire stations in the WSDA have had refurbishment work undertaken to provide enhanced fire safety, windows replaced, doors replaced, more suitable dignified facilities for staff, solar panels installed and improved heating systems etc.
• Service published the SAMPF, which sets out how the SFRS aims to design and implement an efficient, reliable, resilient and fit for purpose fleet solution for services across the whole organisation. Appliances allocated to the area are of a varying age and are generally being kept in good condition.
• Service published the SAMPE, which sets out how the SFRS aims to set out how the Service will manage, maintain and develop equipment assets.
• Aware that there are plans to replace the current radios with a new digital format. At the time of our fieldwork the project had been running for several years and we were unsighted on its development. At the time of writing, we understand that a contract for new radios has been awarded. We see this as an extremely positive improvement, but the Service is unsure as to the timescales for project completion and as such, concerns regarding current processes and hardware remain extant.
• Generally satisfied with some of the level and quality of operational equipment supplied. Appliance ladders and PRE were of particular note and received a lot of positive feedback.
• Very good feedback regarding the standard of Structural PPE. In the main, we found the kit to be well maintained and clean, although there were instances of soiled gear and poor record keeping.
• We are aware that at a recent TSAB the Service indicated that there may be a capital investment with a view to increasing the amount of spare PPE stock, which should ease these operational issues.
• Strong evidence that the Service is taking part in joint exercising and on many occasions, the Service within the WSDA was leading the partnership approach on behalf of the Local Authority. The Service within the WSDA has a very positive reputation in this respect and is a trusted and active partner. Some evidence of station personnel developing and conducting exercises offsite. Where these exercises had been delivered, they were well received by station personnel who seemed enthused by the innovative and diverse training.
• JOC staff were able to provide evidence of occasional FDO engagement sessions and having positive relationships with ‘go to’ station personnel for help and advice.
• The changes to the UFAS policy have been well received and staff are engaged with and understand the rationale and benefits. At the time of our fieldwork, the use of the additional capacity to the Service hadn’t been fully realised and as such, it was difficult to gauge the impact on performance.
• With regard to the modernisation strategies, staff and internal and external partners were also somewhat sympathetic to the financial position of the Service and empathised with the need to change.
• A positive aspect reported regarding the changes, was the staff management and movement process. Staff reported that this was handled well by the LSO management teams in the WSDA, with peoples’ personal circumstances and welfare heavily influencing transfers. The WSDA received no grievances throughout the process. Transfers weighted on personal need as opposed to operational need has inevitably resulted in increased DD of drivers and those personnel with specialist training.

Lows

• Reduced crewing level frustrated operational firefighters as it could lead to increased detached duties, PPE transport issues, consistent and regular appliance withdrawal, overtime fatigue, difficulty in getting time off in lieu etc. DD had increased following the September changes and that this was mainly caused by the displacement of staff and consequently local skills shortages in fire appliance driving and specialism. Frustration and concerns raised by staff were the inability to train and complete SVQ development with their own Watch, inability to get time off as well as general welfare issues surrounding the constant additional travel and impact on home life.
• There were many instances of Watches only having one or two appliance drivers and the same person constantly driving a fire appliance. We were routinely provided evidence of individual drivers spending long periods of time, months or years, without regularly running in the position as a BA Operator.
• Staff were particularly frustrated by the consultation and implementation change process of SOPs and other operational guidance documents. Change could often happen whilst they were on leave and that refamiliarising themselves quickly could be difficult, considering the changes were often not highlighted and that there was a need sometimes to reread the whole procedure.
• Fire stations throughout WSDA identified as not having minimum toilet facilities, dedicated drying facilities, rest or canteen facilities, dedicated locker rooms, sufficient showering facilities, dedicated water supply, dignified facilities and appropriate contaminant control measures. Staff reported that the use of the national property maintenance contract and perceived centralisation of decisions and budget control made the process inefficient and ineffective. In most case where upgrade work had been carried out staff were very appreciative of the effort but frustrated by the standard of work completed.
• Concern to staff was the poor condition of many spare appliances and the lack of equipment provided on them. Staff reported that the use of a predominantly centralised fleet maintenance system and perceived centralisation of decisions and budget control made the process more inefficient and ineffective. Examples of issues included the use of local staff capacity to move appliances to a central point, increased cost of fuel for appliance movements, increase road risk as well as extended periods without vehicles due to logistics and travel. Consistently given that staff were concerned regarding the age and condition of National Resilience assets and equipment such as the DIM vehicle and MD units.
• Staff reported that the use of a predominantly centralised equipment maintenance system and perceived centralisation of decisions and budget control made the process more inefficient and ineffective. Examples of issues included the limited stock of spare equipment, use of local staff capacity to move equipment to a central point, increased cost of fuel for vehicle movements, increase road risk as well as extended periods without equipment due to logistics and extended travel.
• Service should standardise the recording of equipment testing with a national electronic system as soon as possible.
• Consistent finding in our past inspection reports is the poor opinion that firefighters have of the fire- ground radios and the number of radios available. This continues to be the case pending the go live of new digital radios.
• Source of frustration to staff that given the rise in forced entry incidents, bespoke equipment to assist this type of incident such as a power drill, reciprocating saw and door opener hadn’t been provided, after repeated requests.
• Nearly all fire stations reported that the national laundry contract and processes were very frustrating and potentially inhibited a positive contaminants culture. There were numerous examples of PPE taking lengthy periods to be returned from cleaning, PPE not being picked up and PPE simply disappearing with no notification as to why. This would seem to have led to a culture where firefighters are reluctant to send PPE away for cleaning more regularly than the minimum.
• Issues identified with the national laundry contract seems to have been exacerbated by the limitations of spare PPE stock within the Service. We were provided with numerous examples of personnel having difficulty identifying and accessing spare PPE following incidents. These issues were compounded by the perceived lack of a resilient and robust 24/7 process for the National Equipment Function to support operations out of hours.
• Unhappy with the quality of the non-operational uniform now and there was a feeling that the standard had reduced considerably year on year. Examples included, reduced quality of material, inconsistent sizing, poor fitting and not being fit for purpose.
• Some limitations to this offsite exercising seemed to be based on the lack of confidence of Supervisory Managers to complete the planning, risk assessment and authorisation processes. It is unclear whether this is from lack of development and/or the bureaucracy involved.
• Although based within and serving the WSDA, there didn’t appear to be very strong operational management or operational preparedness links to JOC.
• With the introduction of the revised UFAS policy On-Call staff have real concerns regarding the balance of income, which has dropped, versus the commitment of hours to the role. There were instances of staff seriously considering their tenure within the Service due to this issue.
• With regard to modernisation changes staff as well as internal and external partners reported that they felt the speed of the announcement was not appropriate, and that transparency, engagement, communication and consultation was very poor. They were also sceptical regarding the analysis process and critical of prior communication from the management teams, LSO and Senior Leadership Team (SLT), which has led to a sense of mistrust of senior management. Consequent engagement has gone someway to repairing this loss of trust but, in some respects, it has only reinforced it. Staff at all levels reported emotions and criticism routinely linked with the challenges of change process.

Theme: Partnership

Highs

• Strong evidence that the Service is complying with its statutory duty and LSO management teams are playing an active part in each LA CPP strategic group as well as contributing capacity and resources to sub meetings and initiatives. The Service should be commended on the time and effort that is being invested in these relationships and the capacity and resources being used to deliver improvements to the community. The style and content of scrutiny committee performance papers was valued and liked.
• Strong evidence that the WSDA and LSO management teams are very active within Regional and Local resilience partnerships and are considered a valued member of that community. This activity is supported and enhanced well, by the involvement of a national cadre of CCOs.
• Co-location is a key deliverable of the SESNCS and the JASG and the WSDA is an active participant.
• We found evidence that the CAR had been considered at incidents and that resources had been requested, although this was limited.

Lows

• It is worth noting that from our observation and feedback given, we judged that the Service’s current investment in partnership work may not be balanced with the investment of capacity required for other Service priorities. This is compounded by the fact that it is challenging to measure the return on investment from participation and attendance at many of the meetings and investment of resources to many of the initiatives. At a time when there is a focus on capacity within the Service, we would highlight the need to evaluate and evidence investment in partnership work against the consequential added value and outcomes.
• Some partners we spoke to were keen to explore further asset sharing opportunities where appropriate and the Service should welcome this.
• OC staff had a working knowledge of the CAR and were able to confirm that it is infrequently used.

Theme: People

Highs

• Many staff in the WSDA were carrying out their role to a good standard and we found a predominance of self direction and starting, which should be commended.
• Personnel across the WSDA generally reported a feeling of being supported by their immediate managers and LSO management teams. We were very aware that the LSO management teams were very proactive with middle managers frequently attending stations and the need to improve engagement at a strategic level.
• Staff within the WSDA were very engaged with improving performance and delivering a good service to the community.
• Nationally the Service aspires to have a workforce which is representative of the people and communities of Scotland. The Service has a published Positive Action Strategy 19-22, which we were informed was being refreshed during a previous inspection. Its aim is to promote the SFRS as an Employer of Choice to Scotland’s diverse communities, to attract, recruit and retain people from under-represented groups.
• Strong evidence to suggest that absence within workplaces is managed as per the Policy and Procedures.
• Strong evidence to suggest that Station Health and Safety Audits are in the main being conducted throughout the WSDA and that issues identified, and areas of improvement recorded.
• Training Safety and Assurance Function have been developing a new Training Function Vision and Strategy 23-28. Their vision is to provide “clarity and resources to ensure we work safely, collaboratively and progressively to deliver excellence in operational training”. The intention is to provide a Skills Maintenance Framework, Training Delivery Framework and Training Assets Framework to reset and improve the performance of training throughout the SFRS. There has been a decision to move all WSDA local training staff into the NIP, which will hopefully help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of training.
• Training in the main is driven by on station Supervisory managers supported by local training staff who are scheduled to attend regularly. This training is also supported at On-Call stations with the On-Call Support Watch Commanders. Staff routinely praised local training staff and standards, they were very supportive and engaged with training delivered locally.
• The Service is actively working to increase numbers of SVQ assessors and verifiers.
• It is understood that the content of the trainee course is continually reviewed following feedback and that it has been altered accordingly in the past. However, from the considerable feedback from supervisory officers regarding this issue, and in some cases feedback from trainees, it would seem that the course is not the finished product.
• We can observe that Wholetime staff in the WSDA are generally maintaining core skills at or around the 90% mark, albeit they are generally below the 95% national standard.
• We can observe that Wholetime and On-Call staff in the WSDA are generally having specialist skills refreshed at a National Training Centre to a varying standard with some notable successes in SRT and MD.
• Staff were generally aware of the Operational Assurance Recording and Reporting System (OARRS), with many reporting that they had used the system for Station Audits, Incident reviews or Incident/Event debriefs. Strong evidence to suggest that pre incident Station Audits are in the main being conducted throughout the WSDA and that areas of improvement and good practice are being recorded. Staff were very conversant with the Hot Debrief process and gave a lot of good evidence surrounding the positive use and learning from them being conducted at Level 1 incidents. We found some evidence of involvement with Level 4 and above, structured incident debriefs as well as for thematic events such as severe weather.

Lows

• We found very limited evidence of Service directed development, outwith the Training for Competence and refresher process. This position was reinforced by observation and feedback regarding; poor knowledge and application of policy, process and procedure; lack of confidence in the application of operational assurance process; lack of confidence in the risk assessment process, limited understanding of planning and performance process; limited knowledge of strategic values and mission and poor level of instructor knowledge. This was further aggravated by the high turnover of staff and consequential issues detailed previously.
• Lack of confidence in the Appraisal process to produce any tangible results from development requested and the subsequent scepticism of worth in the process. In addition, we also noted that the use of mentoring was very limited as it was not formally promoted and many staff found high turnover in their line manager or that their line manager or colleague had been in post for a shorter period than them.
• An issue raised at many stations and with partners was the frequent turnover of flexi-duty officers and that consistency was very hard to achieve with differing approaches and priorities on a regular basis. This was a source of frustration as personnel felt that projects or issues concerning staff and stations were rarely seen through to a conclusion. Engagement with more senior managers was understandably less frequent, but this was not always viewed as a problem. That said, staff generally felt the visibility and engagement of management outwith the local team was very poor.
• Genuine use of the Appraisal system was sporadic with it being used more commonly within the Wholetime than the On-Call staff. There was a general feeling of apathy towards the system, and it was very much seen as a ‘tick box’ exercise. Many staff did not see the benefit of the appraisal system, that good versus bad performance was rarely recognised and requests for development rarely materialised. There was also a very poor understanding of the system’s part in good governance.
• Staff in the WSDA we spoke to were frustrated with the Service’s structure and governance. Staff thought that they were not empowered enough and lacked autonomy to really improve the organisation. This was normally connected with the concern that the Service seemed to be too centralised now, the perception was that Functions generally worked in silos to their own agenda and that everything was a priority within the Service. Managers reported that they felt they had poor credibility in stations as they could not really affect change or make decisions that were not entirely aligned to Functional process. Lastly, staff reported that they were disappointed that the Service had lost the agility developed during the response to COVID.
• The WSDA, like other parts of the organisation, continues to find that employing the correct balance of employee to represent the community challenging. An issue frequently raised or observed at stations was the lack of or limitation of dignified facilities. This was predominantly observed at On-Call stations as they tended to be smaller and more compact. There is no evidence to suggest that the Positive Action Strategy has been reviewed.
• Quality of absence management could be improved by the development of supervisory managers, which is ongoing as detailed previously. In addition, staff reported that systems for monitoring trigger levels were not automatic and required manual intervention and analysis. This seemed to be an inhibitor to efficient and effective use of the processes for station personnel.
• We did find, that although all conducted recently, there were many versions of the Station Health and Safety Audit proforma in use with examples of v1.0 to v6.0 being used. The Service should ensure for consistency that the correct version be used.
• There is a degree of concern in the WSDA regarding the removal of local training teams, given their positive influence. Staff are sceptical the changes will realise local performance improvement, and many see this as a continued move to centralisation and subsequent loss of local control.
• Many staff were very critical of training delivered at the NTC. This tended to be focused on frustration and disappointment regarding access to courses, reduced access to the facility, perceived underuse of the facility and standard of training when there. Staff also reported they felt there was an over reliance on digital learning with not enough delivery of practical training.
• We encountered trainees who had completed their development plans but finding it difficult to be signed off as being competent firefighters, due to a lack of SVQ Assessors and Verifiers nationally to approve these plans. Firefighters in development commented on being disadvantaged by the change in SVQ/Apprenticeship guidance part way through their 3-year development period, resulting in having to “start again” as well as adding undue stress to them and their colleagues. It was reported that this drop in completion rates continued to affect the ability to reach competence and the consequential negative financial impact.
• Feedback from supervisory managers that trainees arriving on station didn’t have the correct skill set. Examples given were lack of consistency from instructors, too much emphasis on community safety with not enough emphasis on basic skills such as casualty care, RTC and BA.
• We can observe that Wholetime are generally having core skills refreshed at a National Training Centre to a varying standard. The percentage of staff who have had refresher training in Compartment Fire and Tactical Ventilation are well below the national standard.
• There are significant dips in this number for Heavy Rescue and USAR refresher training. We have been advised of continuing national difficulties relating to training in USAR, borne out in the statistics above and our previous report of the ESDA.
• Experience within the WSDA demonstrated that there was still a lack of drivers and that many drivers were spending extended periods on that one skill. As detailed previously, some drivers noted that they had rarely worked in a non-driving role for lengthy periods on end.
• Poor internet connection, and restricted access to and perceived poor quality of computers, particularly in On-Call fire stations. These are of particular relevance given the blended approach and emphasis on digital learning. Staff also provided feedback that it was particularly difficult accessing training equipment and that the ability to be placed on Training/Strategic reserve had almost disappeared.
• 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.
• On some occasions we found that staff were unaware of their Station Audit outcome and that the information wasn’t being routinely shared or debriefed. This was a bit disappointing, given the fact that they had been completed and the opportunity to improve was being missed.
• We found no evidence of during incident monitoring but felt that this was mainly due to the national nature of the ICS as opposed to it being a local management issue.
• The predominance at Level 1 incidents seemed to be Hot Debrief with little structured debriefing thereafter. We found limited evidence of commanders conducting any face to face debriefs and almost universally, the predominance was to use the OA13 electronic system. It is not clear why this is the case, but some reasons given by staff were, the convenience of the electronic system, the capacity needed to conduct a face to face process and a lack of development and resulting confidence in debrief skills. Staff reported that involvement with an OA13 process rarely produced tangible learning.