Mental Health and Wellbeing Support in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

8. Post Incident Support Procedure

109. SFRS operational firefighters attend many and varied incident types. Inevitably, given the nature of the Fire and Rescue Services’ work, some of these incidents may be potentially psychologically traumatising for the SFRS staff involved in any operational response. Most people who experience these traumatic events will cope given the support of colleagues, friends and family, without recourse to professional psychological intervention. Some people however may require specialist support, and the SFRS has put in place its Post Incident Support Procedure (PISP) to ensure that these individuals can be identified as soon as possible. During the course of our fieldwork, we attended the 2022 Emergency Services Mental Health Symposium⁸. This event brought together the largest gathering of UK emergency service organisations to date, to highlight and support the mental health of their various workforces. It was clear to us at this event when hearing about services offered by other UK emergency services, that the SFRS PISP is an excellent process designed to allow personnel to capture and log traumatic operational experiences and to access psychological first aid via professional counselling services should that need be identified. These counselling services are provided by The Rivers Centre, which is NHS Lothian’s specialist service for people affected by psychological trauma. The Rivers Centre is a contracted partner to the SFRS.

Good Practice 15: The SFRS Post Incident Support Procedure compares favourably with psychological support processes and procedures that are available via other UK Fire and Rescue Services.

110. From observations made during our fieldwork, The Rivers Centre is a trusted brand for both the SFRS Health and Wellbeing team as well as for the firefighter group of the Service. We encountered several individuals, and their Watch and work colleagues, who had utilised the services of the Rivers Centre. The comments that we received back were almost uniformly positive, with the majority of these referring to the Rivers Centre in very positive terms.

111. An SFRS Incident Commander (IC) is responsible for initiating the PISP depending on the type of incident that is attended. The range of PISP incidents may include:

• Incidents involving single or multiple fatalities.
• Incidents that involve major trauma to casualties.
• Serious injury or significant near miss events involving SFRS personnel.
• Emergency Medical Response incidents.
• Any traumatic incident, which in the opinion of the IC, may cause psychological distress to SFRS personnel.

112. The IC will declare that an incident requires a PISP response via a message to Operations Control (OC), who will collate a list of the appliances and individuals who attended the incident. The OC also informs the SFRS Health and Wellbeing (H&W) team that a PISP has been initiated. On return to station following the incident, the IC of each appliance that attended collates the names and details of all the personnel on the responding appliance. The names of any FDO and SFRS support staff who attended the incident should also be included within an overall collation of everyone in attendance. The details of all of these individuals should then be passed to H&W within 24 hours.

113. Three weeks after any PISP initiated incident is the point in time where the majority of those who attended it will have successfully dealt with it from a psychological trauma point without professional care interventions being required. At this point post incident the H&W team, having logged the full details of everyone who attended the incident, will issue the SFRS ‘Promoting Resilience and Keeping Staff Well Information Pack’ questionnaire to those involved with an ‘invitation’ to complete and return it in a pre- paid envelope to The Rivers Centre. Psychologists within The Rivers Centre will screen the questionnaire responses, and make initial telephone contact with the returnees as required based upon their professional assessment. This initial call may then be followed up by scheduled meetings between Rivers Centre psychologists and SFRS personnel as they begin to deal with psychological trauma that may have experienced. All details of contact between the Rivers Centre and SFRS personnel remains confidential, but the numbers of contacts are recorded and tracked with the Service only being informed of these totals.

114. The PISP is a key foundation component of the SFRS approach to keeping its personnel safe from psychological harm that they may experience at operational incidents. The response to fieldwork interview questions put to SFRS personnel who have used the Rivers Centre services was almost universally positive. The Rivers Centre is a service which is held in high regard by those who have used it, and this positive message has passed on through to the majority of SFRS staff. The use of the Rivers Centre as a service provider by the SFRS is undoubtedly positive and should be viewed as such. However, we found issues relating to the general awareness of PISP within the groups it is aimed at. This lack of awareness included the perceived personal value of the PISP by operational personnel, its underutilisation (not to be confused with the administration of PISP by the OCs, which is effective) by the OC team and a failure to include, in a systematic way, FDOs and Fire Investigation within the collation process for it.

115. From SFRS data, the return rate for PISP questionnaires is 14.6% (January to December 2022, 446 returns from 3060 issued) across the Service. This compares with return rates for other clients who engage the services of The Rivers Centre of circa 25%. Of the questionnaires returned, 24.7% elicit a check in call from the Rivers Centre team with 53.6% of these leading to firefighters accessing support. Statistically, 1.9% of the total questionnaires that are issued lead to firefighters accessing professional care up to and including psychological support for traumatic mental health injury. This is however against a backdrop of relatively low levels of awareness of PISP and knowledge of its value to firefighters as individuals. Of the total returned questionnaires for incidents attended by the SFRS in 2022 that led to the PISP being initiated, 13.2% of respondents went on to access professional care via the Rivers Centre. We believe this number is significant and demonstrates the need to ensure as full a return as can be achieved for PISP questionnaires that are issued.

116. At present the SFRS is engaged in discussions with The Rivers Centre team to ascertain why the return rate is as low as has been reported. The Service and The Rivers Centre also have an ongoing collaboration which will allow firefighters who have not returned three consecutive PISP questionnaires to be identified and to receive a welfare call from the H&W team with onward signposting to the Rivers Centre for those individuals.

PISP, the Operational Firefighter and their Trauma CV

117. Our fieldwork found that a significant proportion of the operational firefighters within stations had little or, in some instances, no awareness of the PISP or its value to both SFRS personnel and/or the Service itself. This lack of awareness was concerning as was a lack of confidence in the system for a significant number of those that we spoke to. The lack of confidence appeared to primarily be predicated on aspects of confidentiality and perceived stigma associated with the process i.e., firefighters were concerned about how they could be viewed by their peer group if they utilised the service.

118. When we queried this further, it appeared that no centrally driven awareness information or training on the PISP could be recalled by a significant number of interviewees. During our interviews with Watch based personnel, we queried the level of PISP notifications that had been received by individuals. This varied, from none, to four in one month. What was concerning in this instance was that none of the four PISP questionnaires had been completed by a firefighter who was in their early years of service. The term that the inspection team used to describe this level of exposure to potentially psychologically damaging experiences, and more importantly for them the opportunity to record it, was a personal ‘Trauma CV’. Again, it appears that a lack of awareness as to the value of PISP to individual firefighters may have contributed to this approach by significant numbers of personnel. We believe there is also value to the Service in reengaging the operational firefighter group regarding PISP as it will in time have a positive downward impact upon long-term absence which has psychological trauma as its second top causation.

119. It was noteworthy that the percentage of returns received for PISP questionnaires following incidents, was confirmed by the H&W team as being relatively low at 14.6% (January to December 2022). As part of our fieldwork, we asked WCs if they had ad hoc local arrangements to try to ensure that their teams returned PISP questionnaires when they had been forwarded following operational incidents. Responses to this included:

• No arrangements were in place and the WC may not wish to convey the impression that PISP was compulsory.
• A range of suggestions that would help ensure that firefighters could have confidence that the process was confidential e.g., not having them print pro formas off in station, access to IT in a private setting and not having to ask the WC for envelopes to return completed questionnaires.
• One WC used a system whereby every member of the Watch would be handed the questionnaire and a returns envelope with an ask that a return was provide whether it be complete or blank. In this way everyone handed back an envelope and none of the reported perceived stigma of PISP could be attached to its return.

Recommendation 16: The SFRS should consider a range of options to ensure that PISP questionnaires are returned following operational incidents, these should include options for mandatory returns.

120. As we understand it, the launch of the PISP was during the restricted contact environment that the SFRS operated in during the Covid Pandemic. Awareness videos for PISP were developed as an alternative to face-to-face engagement with the operational firefighters who were to be asked to utilise it. It is possible that this lack of face-to-face engagement has contributed to a lack of awareness of the personal and corporate value of PISP for station personnel.

Recommendation 17: The SFRS should consider the most effective means of raising awareness of the PISP with a focus on the personal value for those within the operational roles of the Service. Following its consideration, awareness raising of PISP should be planned and delivered across the Service. The awareness raising approaches used should be up to and including face to face engagement with subject matter experts, uniformed personnel and possibly with those who would be prepared to share lived experience of PISP.

121. There was also a lack of understanding amongst personnel as to how completed PISP questionnaires would be used by the Rivers Centre, with a perception that the SFRS would be fully informed as to the identity of anyone who returned them and undertook any therapy offered as a result. Additionally, there was little understanding regarding the time delay between an incident having PISP initiated, and the questionnaires being forwarded to those who attended the operational incident. Personnel need to understand “what is in it for me” as they are already asked to complete a lot of paperwork which some perceive as unnecessary. Closing this awareness gap would add value and have clear benefits for the individual, as they may seek help following exposure to psychological trauma, as well as for the SFRS as issues would potentially be intercepted before crisis point for operational staff, which often leads to extended time away from work with the inevitable associated human and financial implications.

122. This perception regarding confidentiality and lack of awareness of PISP was widespread amongst operational firefighters and serves to undermine the effectiveness of a critical element of the SFRS mental health offer for its staff. Where PISP was considered in our opinion to be most effective, was within Stations and Watches where either a Watch Commander has led on awareness raising or a previous member of staff had used the Rivers Centre services and then effectively become an advocate for it.

123. The critical role of the WC as an advocate for mental health and wellbeing on the Watch has been set out earlier within this report. We came across, in terms of the mental health management of Watches, several exemplar WCs during this inspection. They had taken on this role for a variety of reasons including empathy for their Watch personnel who may have been exposed to psychological trauma within the workplace or in their domestic arrangements, or through the need to deal with a range of psychologically traumatic events in their own lives. These individuals are to be commended for their work in this regard, but it is worthy of note that much of the necessary learning and development undertaken to deal with these events was self-directed and driven by necessity. When they needed to understand what services were in place via the Service they could do so, but the perception was that their level of awareness was not due to prior effective communications and engagement by the SFRS.

Good Practice 16: The support that SFRS staff receive via the Health and Wellbeing Team and The Rivers Centre is commendable. Both are considered to be trusted brands by staff groups who have used their services. Staff who have not personally used these services have become aware of them and comment positively about them.

124. During our interviews, many staff members of SFRS were very open in discussing issues which have impacted their mental health and the ways in which they have dealt with them. Much of the help they received was via the SFRS H&W team and the Rivers Centre, and they commended it either privately to the inspection team or openly to their colleagues in interview session. There were several instances of people who had suffered mental health trauma, and who had sought help for it. They were very open about their experiences to the interview team and to their colleagues who were in attendance. These very personal accounts were equally revelatory, emotionally moving and impactful.

Case Study: The Value of PISP

While we treat all comments received in interview under condition of anonymity, there were several SFRS personnel who delivered extremely powerful recollections of their mental health journeys and who offered them up as examples to be shared. One such example was from Firefighter A, who could be described as a very respected figure within the Watch, someone that the rest of the team looked to during operational incidents and who always led by example being at the location where the need for SFRS services was most acute.

Firefighter A shared their journey in dealing with severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an interview with their Watch. No one on the Watch knew of the mental health challenges that A had been dealing with up to that point. They were viewed by the Watch as being tough, capable, resilient and someone you could rely on at an operational incident. Firefighter A revealed during interview that they had suffered with diagnosed severe PTSD, and that they had been in the care of the River Centre following the completion of a PISP questionnaire. They had experienced classic symptoms of PTSD and had been urged by their family to seek help.

Firefighter A had many misgivings about PISP, including confidentiality (they emailed the questionnaire to a family member rather than be seen to print it off in station) and the perception of stigma for seeking help and appearing weak for doing so. Until the point that they used PISP they disclosed that they had little understanding of it and had not received any meaningful input or awareness raising regarding its value to individual firefighters and the Organisation. However, they recognised the acute need for professional psychological help with their mental health trauma. This trauma went back many years and was not confined to a single life experience or a single, notable operational incident. Firefighter A described it as “the box in my head where I stored experiences away was full, and I couldn’t file anything else in it.” They also added that without the interventions of Rivers Centre, via the PISP process and the help of H&W, that they “would not be here today”.

These comments were extremely impactful, and Firefighter A was very open and candid about the full range of experiences that they had endured, but ultimately resolved enough to allow them to function again. Firefighter A also added that help and information for their family before the crisis point was reached would have been very helpful in allowing them to understand the potential for psychological harm to occur because of the operational role, and what to do about it in terms of seeking help via the Service. They were not aware of a variety of family focused resources that could be accessed via the SFRS, The Fire Fighter Charity or The Family Support Trust. This is an area which is covered elsewhere in this report.

PISP and the Operations Control Team

125. As part of our fieldwork, we visited the three OCs within the SFRS and interviewed a number of FDOs, WCs and OC Firefighters in their Watch groups at each of them. The primary role of these individuals is to respond to emergency calls, manage the requests for resources to the incident ground, manage and relay appropriate communications relating to incidents and use their judgement and the information provided to them to ensure that an appropriate response is mobilised to deal with incidents.

126. The three OCs play a critical and integrated role in the safe management of operational incidents within the SFRS. The OC Firefighter is very often the first point of contact with an operational incident, and the wider OC team perform critical roles within the Service Incident Command System. Where their role is different from their operational station colleagues, is that they see the entirety of incidents across the area that their OC covers and not on a more limited station basis. They often do not have the opportunity to fully rationalise the safe conclusion of incidents and can be left in a position where they may replay the unresolved incident back to themselves or amongst colleagues. This has potential to cause psychological trauma to those who work within the OCs.

127. The use of PISP, in line with the SFRS Procedure, is similar for OC Firefighters and operational firefighters, but there are several crucial differences regarding its initiation and management. The use of PISP for the OC team is intended to ensure that those who may need psychological support following a traumatic fire call can receive it. Again, like operational firefighters, there are scenarios set out as guidance for OC managers to consider when PISP should be implemented:

• Calls requiring Fire Survival Guidance (FSG).
• Calls involving persons trapped.
• Calls involving particularly difficult callers.
• Any other traumatic incident which, in the opinion of the Officer in Charge (OIC), who would normally be a WC, expose OC Firefighters to this form of stress.
• Serious injury or significant near miss event involving SFRS employees.

128. Should an OC Firefighter be exposed to a potentially traumatic call, the WC should take actions including:

• On completion of the call, the OC Firefighter ‘must’ unplug from their headphones apparatus and can stay in the room if fit to do so, or they may leave the room.
• They should have a ten to fifteen minute timeout in a suitable room, where the OIC will check on their welfare.
• The OIC should check on their emotional welfare and ascertain if they are able to return to the Control call handling room. If the OC Firefighter declares themselves fit, and with the OIC’s agreement, they can return to the Control room and resume their call processing duties.
• If the OC Firefighter is not deemed fit to return to the Control room, the period away from it can be extended.
• Every instance of these discussions should be recorded on an SFRS Record of Contact Form.
• The OC Firefighter ‘should be reminded of the services available through the PISP’.

129. As can be seen from the above abridged list taken from the SFRS PISP Policy, unlike operational firefighters, there is no automatic referral for OC Firefighters following their dealing with a traumatic call that corresponds to the current Policy parameters for initiating it. We believe this is a small but crucial difference in the application of PISP to the two firefighters roles i.e., those who are operational at incidents and those who support them in the OC.

130. The difference in the application of PISP within the OC was exemplified by an example that we came across during an interview. An OC Firefighter had managed a traumatic call, during which FSG was delivered to the occupants of a house which was on fire. The FSG element of the call came to an end and the occupants were safely removed from the premises by operational firefighters who attended the locus. At this point, the OC Firefighter disclosed that they were ‘visibly upset’ and could relate to the persons that were involved in the call. They were asked by the OIC if they wished to leave the control room, but the offer was declined, and they resumed their duties after a short period. PISP was not initiated for this call, and no details of it would have been passed to The Rivers Centre following completion of a questionnaire.

131. From our field work we understand that this example is not untypical, and that the PISP initiations for the OC team leave them underrepresented in this regard. The reasons for this are varied but include not wanting to leave the Control Room and their colleagues during busy periods, possible strict adherence to the PISP Policy which does not have an automatic initiation for OC personnel (OICs are only required to remind personnel about the service) and, regarding exposure to traumatic incidents, a working culture across the OCs of ‘it’s just part of the job, we just get on with it’. The example described was not a deviation from the process of PISP for the OC personnel and its use is not intended as a criticism of individuals, but we do believe that it is an example which demonstrates the difference with the more systematic approach that is utilised for operational firefighters.

132. One of the lines of enquiry for this inspection was to query whether there was a culture change underway within the SFRS regarding mental health and how personnel viewed that transformative journey. In general, the OC team agreed that a change in culture was underway, and that mental health was more openly discussed and was not viewed with the same level of stigma that it may have been in years gone by. A popular refrain was to compare the culture from 10 or 20 years ago to what is now experienced, and this was largely viewed as a positive change. However, as we reflected on the FSG operational incident set out above and uncovered the relatively lower level of PISP initiations for the OC team, we examined this more closely. We asked the OC personnel, after considering how PISP is operated in the OC and the ‘just get on with it’ approach to work and not wanting to let their colleagues down, if they did consider that the culture had changed. There was general agreement that change had come about in terms of openness to metal health discussion and the pursuit of it being positive, but in practice it had not moved on from how it had been in the past. This is a challenge for the SFRS.

133. The OC team is commendably committed to providing the best service that it can. They spoke of several challenges to them performing their roles. While all staff groups were committed to their roles, the role of the WC on the OC Watch was critical in the maintenance and pursuit of a positive mental health culture. Some individuals are performing this role, like their operational colleagues, to exemplar level, and this is commendable. The recommendation that we have made earlier within this report, that the SFRS should invest time and resource into the WC cadre to make them ‘mental health advocates’, is as applicable to the OC as it is their operational colleagues.

134. One aspect of PISP use within the OC environment that is worthy of further consideration by the SFRS is cumulative exposure to traumatic operational incidents. While the OC team would not generally be at the locus of an incident they are very much involved with its successful resolution. It is also worth noting, as we have stated earlier, that the OC team are exposed to all of the incidents that operational crews attend on a station and watch basis. We are not convinced that an effective process that tracks the cumulative exposure to traumatic incidents of OC personnel is in place within the SFRS.

135. An important aspect of the OC work is transcribing the call log from incidents. Inevitably many of these incidents are of a serious nature and the telephone calls and radio messages were described as ‘horrendous’. We were informed it can be harrowing for OC staff to be repeatedly exposed as they compile a written note of them. In this regard, this type of ongoing exposure and the experience of revisiting traumatic fire calls, is similar to that which their SFRS colleagues in the Fire Investigation Unit are exposed to.

Recommendation 18: The SFRS should initiate a review of PISP elements that relate to the OC. The procedure should be fully explained to OC managers and staff via a bespoke communications plan for the OCs. The Service should consider how PISP can be more systematic and less open to personal interpretation in its implementation within the OC personnel group.

PISP and SFRS Flexible Duty Officers

136. As we set out earlier in this report, FDOs play a critical role in monitoring the wellbeing and offering and/or accessing mental health support for SFRS staff. With the PISP we found the FDO group to be in a unique position in that they are the initiators of the process, but that they are not always included within the group that are notified of the process and forwarded the relevant questionnaire for completion. Indeed, FDOs informed us that the OC would contact them to ask if they wished to be included or omitted from the PISP for incidents. There were also instances when FDOs informed us that they would contact the OC and ask not to be included within a PISP response due to their perceived limited role at an incident. In this regard, we consider that the FDO role in terms of accessing PISP, puts them in a grey zone where they are not fully included within it. We should also note that like OC colleagues, FDOs may be required to respond to incidents across a wide geographical area which could see them attending multiple operational incidents.

137. Hill et al (2023) point out that the FDO cadre tend to have longer length of service, and that they may have begun that service when the culture of stigma in relation to mental health and wellbeing was significantly more prevalent than is now the contemporary norm. Having a background in this ‘hyper masculine environment’ (Hill et al, 2023) may make some within the FDO group less inclined to admit a need for help for mental health or wellbeing issues and less likely to seek help. Any potential for gaps with the application of the PISP regarding FDOs should be carefully considered by the SFRS.

Recommendation 19: The inclusion of FDOs within the PISP should be more systematic with set criteria for them to be opted out only as a necessity. The aim should be to include FDOs within the support procedure following operational incidents, and for this to be tracked as appropriate.

PISP and Fire Investigation

138. The SFRS Fire Investigation (FI) Team are located geographically within the West, East and North SDAs. They have primary responsibility for FI work within their own SDA but will support each other dependent upon incident profile and the resulting workload at any time. The team is managed by two FDOs comprising of one Group Commander and One Station Commander who are based in an office within Livingston Fire Station. The FDOs are due to move with the East FI unit to the SFRS Newbridge facility. The FI team members are Watch Commanders and work different duty patterns dependent upon their location:

139. The current FI structure is in place following a recent SFRS restructure that recognised the operational activity and the business need for the units on a geographical basis. This is most clearly demonstrated by the West FI team operating within the Watch Duty System. FI is an experience driven role; it takes time measured in years for any new entrant to complete the necessary technical training and develop the required competence to become effective in the role. They are a valuable SFRS resource and should be encouraged to stay in post within the normal parameters of career satisfaction and operational requirement. This however should be underpinned by the tacit assurance that their mental health and wellbeing is properly considered and looked after by the SFRS.

This has been recognised since the inception of FI within the legacy Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service. As part of our fieldwork, we interviewed a retired FI FDO to gain an understanding of the approaches that were written into policy at the point of the functions inception to help and assist with the maintenance of positive mental health for the team. These included close liaison between the team and the FDO, an accurate understanding of ongoing workloads to ensure their effective management and regular mandatory sessions with trained counsellors who could assess any work-related mental health stresses that the team may be experiencing.

140. The FI team are in a unique position in that they attend all SFRS incidents that result in fire fatalities. Individual firefighters can expect to have intermittent exposure to fire fatalities at incidents, this is not the case for FI who attend all such incidents. The access to mental health Counsellors and management approach used in Strathclyde was borne out of the understanding that care for the FI team should be to an elevated level given the multiple traumatic incidents that they could potentially be exposed to. We believe this or a similar approach is appropriate for the FI teams that operate within the SFRS.

141. The unique potential for the FI team to attend multiple concurrent incidents that involve fire fatalities is recognised within the SFRS PISP Procedure. Section 8 of that document sets out specific arrangements for the monitoring of FI team members wellbeing and their exposure to potentially traumatic events. On a quarterly basis they should be issued with an individual ‘Promoting Resilience and Keeping Staff Well Information Pack’, to their home address, and “invited to complete” it before returning it to the Rivers Centre. Section 6.6 of the PISP Procedure also states that the SFRS will track cumulative exposure to incidents which may have the potential to cause mental health Trauma. The cumulative exposure process should be particularly relevant to the FI team.

142. The last recorded information pack that interviewed FI team members can recall was from October 2022, before that they did not have a record of any contact in this regard. The SFRS Health and Wellbeing team have recently introduced an IT based system which is designed to manage cumulative exposure, and the inspection team have been informed that the FI team will be a significant focus for this work. At the time of writing the H&W Team took over responsibility for the issuing of a bespoke monthly questionnaire for FI personnel commencing on 1 August 2023, this is welcomed.

143. The SFRS is committed to promoting a healthy working environment for its employees. Most individuals who are exposed to psychologically traumatic events will, with the support of peer colleagues and their families, cope with this exposure without recourse to professional interventions. The Service however also recognises that some individuals may require additional professional and specialist psychological support to resolve traumatic events and experiences. These experiences can be from individual incidents or on a cumulative basis. The PISP procedure is a key foundation to ensuring that SFRS personnel can access the professional help that they may need in these circumstances. Given the unique role undertaken by the FI team and their ongoing and regular exposure to all fire fatality incidents that the SFRS attends, this is particularly relevant.

144. We were informed that the FI team is not regularly included in PISP initiations for incidents that they attend. They have also not been regularly requested (one pack was noted as having been sent to the FI team in October 2022) to complete the SFRS Promoting Resilience and Keeping Staff Well Information Pack, nor contacted by any party to ascertain if there are any concerns regarding cumulative exposure to psychologically traumatic events.

145. The FI teams we spoke with have a regular and ongoing multiple incidents case load involving fire fatalities, each of which requires the compilation of a detailed technical report. A major difference that was reported to us during interviews, and which differed from the experience of an operational incident for responding firefighters and FDOs, was that the incident does not close for FI with a Stop message and a return to station i.e. “In FI the incident doesn’t stop on return to the station, you are drawn into a fatal casualty’s life, their story, contact with the family. It means you often cannot let go in the way that you maybe could when working on a Watch in a station. There is no obvious end to it”. The FI team must revisit the incident scene, go through photographic evidence of the scene, audio calls that will have been recorded by the OC during the incident. In effect the incident, as the FI team told us, goes on sometimes for many months.

146. We were told by a member of the FI team of one instance where an SFRS FDO came to listen to a traumatic FSG call and they were informed that “you will need to listen to without me, I can’t listen to it anymore”. It was clear that the incident and the FSG call has had an impact upon this individual. We were also told that no PISP was issued for this incident to the FI team.

147. During our fieldwork, we were informed that previous members of the FI team had left the unit and the Service due to unresolved mental health trauma that they had suffered. When these individuals left the team, those who remained informed us that they advised the SFRS that there was little to no mental health interventions for those FI team members who remained, and that in their opinion “this was a risk for the Service”. This communications from the FI team did not result in an increase in mental health surveillance or intervention, which continues to this time.

148. The FI team said that they felt isolated in dealing with their ongoing workload. Ongoing investigation works is collated within their secure office space, where it is visually displayed on a whiteboard. In years gone by, the Senior Officers, who are FI practitioners, would come to the office to go through case work and offer professional advice. A team member amplified this point by informing us that, “In my years in post, I have dealt with scores of fatalities”, and that the FI team are not regularly asked how they may feel when dealing with these, from a mental health and wellbeing perspective. On querying any debrief that the FI team may be included in post incident, we were told that this does not happen with any regularity. One team member could also only recall being asked for operational information as a contribution to a formal incident debrief process on a single occasion.

Recommendation 20: We note the new monthly contact from the Health and Wellbeing team to their FI colleagues. Given the relatively low levels of PISP returns within the SFRS, and the potential impact upon the mental health of the FI team, the SFRS should consider making the completed return of FI questionnaires mandatory for the role. It also appears that the FI team has had limited contact with professional support regarding the many traumatic incidents that they have attended over recent years. The SFRS should consider this, and how they may assess the potential impact of historical incidents on FI team members’ mental health to date.