Could a New Canadian Response Model Work in the U.S.?

Albert Einstein once said, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” This quote has been used repeatedly as a counterargument to many facets of our profession. Yet seldom do you hear anyone echo this sentiment when discussing the topic of budget constraints and our current response model. In fact, a more applicable quote–also from Einstein–might be, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex … It takes a touch of genius–and a lot of courage–to move in the opposite direction.”

I say this not to cast blame, but rather to question the obvious. If the majority of our responses (70% or greater in most organizations) are EMS calls, why do we continue to use a traditional “fire-based” response model? Or to put it more directly, why do we continue to build a system focused solely on meeting the rising response needs, as opposed to a multi-faceted system that focuses on reducing the number of responses, right-sizing our response in accordance with the type of call and prioritizing resource deployment based on demand?

It doesn’t take the intelligence of Albert Einstein to see that we need to break the mold. How many departments do you know with a budget surplus to hire (or recruit) more firefighters, build more fire stations or purchase new equipment? Not many. And what are the three most challenging issues facing your department? The most likely answers: budget cuts, staffing and a rising call volume.

Traditionally, American fire departments attempt to replicate the operations, deployment and equipment of the closest metro city. But what if we looked beyond our immediate neighbors? What if we sought to radically change our approach to better reflect the demands of “our” community or response district by implementing a localized, integrated risk management response model?

Admittedly, I hadn’t given much thought to integrated risk management (IRM) until a recent conversation with a friend of mine who currently serves as the fire chief for Nanimo Fire Rescue (NFR) in Canada. In 2005, NFR commissioned a Standard of Response Coverage Study. Upon completion of the study, the city council endorsed specific response-time targets and a long-term plan for more stations and the hiring of additional firefighters.

In 2012, now faced with fiscal constraints, the department was asked to update the plan to reflect changes in demands for service, risks to the community and performance trends. To its credit, NFR challenged the underlying assumptions of the previous plan and chose to explore new service delivery ideas to enhance public health and safety outcomes and improve efficiency.

The new IRM plan–based on incident statistics, workload demands, department performance data and fire service best practices–uses evidence to assess all types of fire, health and safety risk in the community. It manages risks through targeted, community-based risk-reduction strategies and flexible approaches to incident response. It organizes the department’s crews into Risk Management Zones to best meet the need for service, as determined by evidence. Most importantly, it measures the service outcomes and adjusts accordingly.

Example: The majority of EMS calls under the new model would be handled by two members on a rescue truck or an alternative response vehicle. This doesn’t mean that all calls are handled by two people, but merely that the department will only send as many crews and apparatus as needed, based on the identified risk/needs.

While many may balk at such a radical change, I challenge you to consider the effectiveness of your current response plan. Are you meeting your response time goals? Are you “right sizing” your deployment based on call demands or simply sending the same resources to every incident? More importantly, have you made efforts to reduce the number of responses?

Our service demands have changed and the financial support available in most communities continues to be diminished, but in many departments, we consciously choose to apply the same response model and expect a different outcome.

The mission of every fire department is to save lives and protect property. The charge of any governing body overseeing a fire department is to demand that we do it in the most efficient manner possible using the resources provided. Is the answer to our problems beyond our borders? Every department is different, but I believe without question, IRM and the creative ideas being considered by our neighbors to the north can provide us with some much-needed direction. missing image file