London Fire Brigade: Cause of concern revisit letter

Letter information

From:
Lee Freeman KMP
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary
His Majesty’s Inspector Fire & Rescue Services

To:
Andy Roe
Commissioner, London Fire Brigade

Cc:
Baroness Fiona Twycross
Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience

Sent on:
29 September 2023

Background

As you are aware, we inspected London Fire Brigade between November 2021 and January 2022. During the inspection, we identified two causes of concern that we shared with you.

In January 2023, we carried out a revisit to review progress against the following recommendations for the cause of concern related to prevention.

We published the findings of this revisit on 24 February 2023.

We found that the brigade had made good progress in developing a system to assess individual risk and to prioritise HFSV response. The brigade had also prioritised reduction of the HFSV backlog that we identified during the initial inspection.

However, at that time, the brigade hadn’t fully implemented the system to assess individual risks and prioritise HFSVs. It also hadn’t fully implemented its prevention strategy.

While it was clear that the brigade had made significant progress, until changes to the HFSV process became fully operational across the whole brigade, the original cause of concern remained.

On 29 and 30 August 2023, we conducted a further revisit to review progress against the cause of concern related to prevention.

During this revisit, we reviewed documents and data. We interviewed staff responsible for implementing the action plan, including you as commissioner. We also interviewed prevention staff and firefighters based at several locations.

On 6 September 2023, we gave you our initial findings.

This letter provides an update on our findings.

Governance

We were pleased to find appropriate and robust governance arrangements in place to monitor progress of the action plan. An HFSV task force group regularly reports on action plan progress to the organisational performance and risk board.

We consider these arrangements to be sufficient.

Action plan

The brigade has an action plan that comprehensively covers the cause of concern related to prevention. The plan identifies senior responsible officers and who is responsible for specific actions and provides clear deadlines. The plan also includes updates on the progress of actions and against each cause of concern recommendation.

The brigade’s liaison officer regularly updates our service liaison lead on the progress of the HFSV action plan.

Progress against the cause of concern

Develop a prevention strategy that clearly details how it will implement its prevention activity

We found that the brigade’s prevention strategy had been approved through its governance process and was in place. The prevention strategy clearly defines the scope of the brigade’s prevention work and includes key performance indicators for HFSVs. It also links with the brigade’s community risk management plan and borough risk management plans.

Develop an effective system that assesses levels of risk among those people it has already identified as being at greatest risk from fire

The new approach to HFSVs has been implemented effectively across the brigade, including the out-of-hours triage of HFSV referrals by control staff. We saw data to support this assessment, which detailed the number of HFSV referral triages completed.

The new HFSV system has been promoted within the brigade and to the public using an effective and comprehensive communication plan. The brigade has evaluated this plan to further understand which methods of communication are most effective for publicising HFSV messages.

The brigade’s ‘protect what you love’ campaign encourages the public to access the online HFSV checker. During this revisit, we saw evidence of operational crews distributing information to the public to further raise awareness of the online HFSV checker.

The brigade has maintained consistent HFSV communications to its staff. We found staff had access to both HFSV guidance and online training material. We saw data showing that 90.32 percent of operational staff had reviewed online HFSV briefings. Staff we met had a good understanding of the HFSV process.

We found that criteria used to identify individuals as very high, high, medium or low risk were effective. Prevention staff we interviewed said that the automated triage system was working well and that they were confident in its use.

You told us that improvements had been made to the online HFSV checker. We found that area prevention teams encouraged people who access the checker to book an HFSV if they need one.

Make sure it prioritises HFSVs for those people it has identified as being at greatest risk from fire

We were pleased to find that fire control staff were triaging HFSV referrals received out of hours. Operational crews are being mobilised by control staff to very high-risk HFSVs; we reviewed data showing that this had occurred 44 times.

We were encouraged to see that the brigade now has a range of HFSV key performance indicators and that its commitment to HFSV response times based on individual risk was being met.

Data we saw indicated that the brigade was now achieving the four-hour response timescale for very high-risk HFSV referrals 100 percent of the time. It also showed that the brigade was meeting the seven-day response timescale for high-risk referrals 95.09 percent of the time and the one-month response timescale for medium-risk referrals 99.14 percent of the time. The brigade directs low-risk individuals to complete the online HFSV checker.

The brigade is now using resources more flexibly to manage HFSVs. Prevention staff informed us that area teams are working together better. For example, when an area team received 150 HFSV referrals in one day, other area team staff helped to support the completion of those HFSVs.

As part of this revisit, we reviewed a selection of completed HFSV files and noted that these files had been managed well. Individual vulnerabilities had been identified and actioned. We also reviewed files waiting to be allocated for completion of an HFSV and found that prevention staff had managed them effectively and recorded appropriate actions.

We found area prevention staff were conducting quality assurance checks on HFSVs. You informed us that further work is continuing on the development of a quality assurance framework. You acknowledged the need for a quality assurance process for stations that undertake HFSVs, which is being developed.

The brigade recognises that it needs to do more to make sure any inconsistencies between risk levels assessed by crews and the initial triaged risk can be recorded and reported back to area prevention teams. You told us that an IT solution is being developed to help with this work.

The brigade has made significant progress in providing operational crews with a way to record HFSVs electronically instead of using a paper-based system. We were pleased to observe that crews can record HFSVs electronically using the mobile data terminals kept on appliances. The system has been piloted, and a wider brigade roll out was evident at the time of this revisit.

Develop a plan that addresses the HFSV backlog in a way that is both timely and prioritised on the basis of risk

During our first revisit, we found significant work had been undertaken to clear the HFSV backlog we identified during our initial inspection of the brigade. During this revisit, we were encouraged to find low numbers of HFSVs waiting for completion.

The HFSV files waiting for completion that we reviewed were well managed by prevention staff. Action taken by prevention staff and any reasons for the HFSV being unallocated were clearly recorded.

We found that if prevention staff were unable to contact very-high-risk or high-risk individuals for an HFSV, a ‘direct allocation’ process to the nearest fire station was in place.

During our first revisit, you told us that sometimes HFSVs were completed but not recorded on the paper-based system. During this revisit, we were informed that the introduction of the electronic HFSV application for crews will address this issue. HFSVs will be completed electronically and automatically uploaded to the brigade’s HFSV database. We look forward to seeing how effective this is.

Conclusion

We note the brigade’s continued commitment and efforts to implement its prevention strategy and its system to assess individual risk and prioritise HFSVs across the brigade.

We were pleased to find that the prevention strategy had been completed, with clear links to the community risk management plan and borough risk management plans.

We recognise the progress the brigade has made in improving the online HFSV checker and in communicating the HFSV process to its staff and the public. Its risk-based approach to HFSVs has been implemented across the brigade. Staff we met had a clear understanding of the HFSV process and how it targets those most at risk.

We were encouraged to find that the brigade is now meeting its HFSV commitments, including the target response times to complete HFSVs based on risk. The HFSV files we inspected were well managed. The brigade has a clear process to make sure that HFSVs waiting for completion are monitored by area prevention staff.

Significant progress has been made on the introduction of electronic recording of HFSVs completed by crews.

We will continue to monitor progress of the HFSV process through our ongoing work with the brigade. We will also further assess the effectiveness of HFSVs as part of our next inspection of the brigade, which is due to take place in summer 2024.

As a result of the significant progress the brigade has made and the assurance that these changes are now widely accepted and can be maintained, the cause of concern for prevention is now closed.

Back to publication

London Fire Brigade: Cause of concern revisit letter