Thread: 1 minute dispatch
11-21-2005, 09:18 PM #21
Originally Posted by GADeputy
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
our med director has given us credit for a lot of saves due to fast response..
and before people start saying its not safe to go emergency traffic unless its absolutely needed... that is what EVOC is for so i dont want to hear it.J.E. Guzman
NC Emergency Medical Dispatcher
NENA Emergency Medical Dispatcher
NENA Emergency Telecommunicator
11-22-2005, 11:23 AM #22
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
our dispatch is for fire police ems and utilities and even the dog catcher. they take the call and then call on the phone and man it is slow we only have 2 stations and the call rings both at the same time but i would much rather have a station tone . the way it is now we have an old oooggggaaaa!!!horn that goes off for the dedicated emergency line from the pd. that realy sucks at 3 in the morning and then you dont know if your goin or the other station so u sit up and get dressed before the officer that gets the phone waves you off.our chief has promised us tones before long and the older guys dont want it they say they wont get to ask enough questions and i say ask enroute.
11-23-2005, 12:10 PM #23
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
Communications Center Supervisor
Meeting the NFPA 60 second guideline was easier in years past as it related to the Entry time to Dispatch time. This, to most I've talked to, meant that once a call taker had enough information to enter the call correctly, the disptcher had 60 seconds to get the tones into the station(s). Pretty easy and we met that goal 90%+ of the time.
In recent years, NFPA changed the language of the guideline to read from Initiate time to Dispatch time. This means that it's from the time that the call is answered (picked up) to the tone out time. They changed the language, but left the 60 second parameter the same. This change has made it difficult for us to meet our high percentage compliance goals.
Our department provides tiered dispatch (fire and medical), EMD, as well as providing responses to Haz Mat and other incidents that require differing response configurations. The disaptchers are responsible for ensuring that the most appropriate response is dispatched, therefore in trying to meet that requirement are tending to take a bit more time triaging the calls prior to entering them.
In addition, we've tended to train that BLS calls for service are lower priority, and therefore the dispatchers can take more time (because they're not life threatening) to triage the situation.
Currently we're meeting the 60 second guideline on about half of the overall calls. We're in the process of implementing the reporting portion of a newer RMS system so we're waiting for more accurate reports.
I'm in favor of pushing the 60 second guideline for the "emergency" calls, and allowing a lower percentage for the non-emergency calls.
Examples of "9-1-1, what's your address....nature of your emergency..." and getting a reply of "my fathers having a heart attack, he's on the floor and not breathing" are easy. Those go out quickly because the information received dictates the highest level of EMS service. However, when you receive a reply of "I'm not sure what's wrong...and no I'm not with the patient, he's next door and asked me to call...." are more time consuming to triage. Also, we're in an area that's very diverse in it's demographics and foreign language speakers are common; as is the use of a language translation service. This definitely impacts our ability to meet the 60 second goal.
I think the guideline is a good thing to shoot for, but realistically - depending on the services you provide to the public - there needs to be emphasis placed on meeting that goal where it counts a very high percentage of time, versus an overall goal; and contributing factors (such as use of language line, uncooperative callers, clueless callers, etc) need to be accounted for in your statistical analysis.
APCO also supports a goal of 60 seonds. In addition, I've queried the Commission on Fire Accreditation Intl (CFAI) who, in their Fire & Emergency Services - Self Assessment Manual (sixth edition) mention a 50 second timeframe for Initiate to Dispatch timeframes. They could not give me an answer where that time came from or how it was determined.
All in all, 60 seconds is a good goal, but it's merely that - a goal. As another "poster" mentioned, if it's pushed too hard as a requirement - the dispatchers will become clock watchers, and accurate triage and response configuations could be negatively impacted. In my view, just "getting someone rolling" shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to get the right resources rolling as quickly as possible to ensure that the responding crews have the equipment they need to mitigate the situation as quickly as possible.
11-26-2005, 02:59 PM #24
Please identify your source
Would you please tell me where you got the 60 second guidline from? I was looking through NFPA 1221 which no one seems to mention, and I could not find any requiremnt on from the time between call and tones.
11-27-2005, 05:34 PM #25
1 minute is not unacceptable. For a majority of medical/fire calls me make a skeleton incident, save it and dispatch it or have our partner dispatch it. Then we can go back to the caller and get more detailed information. The 1 minute time frame is a goal, and everyone understands that there are those calls that no matter what you do take a while to get dispatched. There are the callers who don't know where they are, the callers that want to tell you their life story before telling why they are calling that day, and various other reasons it will take longer. On the other side of the spectrum there are the easy calls that take less than 20 seconds to create, save and send to the pagers.
Last edited by ramseycl; 11-27-2005 at 05:36 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By captstanm1 in forum FloridaReplies: 0Last Post: 05-30-2005, 03:34 PM
By ffexpCP in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 0Last Post: 06-12-2004, 02:57 PM
By dlyons in forum Meet and GreetReplies: 0Last Post: 02-20-2003, 10:09 AM
By wtfd92 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 23Last Post: 06-27-2001, 08:41 PM