Monday, April 28, 2008
Administrative Center
Third Floor – Room 3220
10:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chief Edward Kondracki, Chief Scott Alo, Chief Don Dominick, Vicki Burke, Bruce Ranis, Dr. Eric Voter, Sheriff Steve Helgeson, Steve O’Malley
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Chief Randy Roeck
MEMBERS ABSENT: Interim Chief Tim Hauser, Chief Gregg Cleveland
OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Loeffler, Patti McDonah, Assistant Chief Randy Loken,
Al Blencoe, Robert Muth, Tim Merrell, Ann Willford, Matt
Zavadsky, Jim Klock, Quentin Lamers, Tom Carpenter, Keith
Butler, Cory Lynch.
CALL TO ORDER:
Committee Chair Chief Kondracki called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION by Helgeson/Alo to approve meeting minutes of January 28, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT – Jay Loeffler
Jay included a hand out of the Statistic Comparisons and the Public Safety Communications Monthly Report.
Jay made known the following facts regarding the 911 Center.
· Celebrated 40th year for 911 this year and received National recognition. The Dispatch Center is also in its 25th year.
· First quarter calls substantially down due to the spike of calls from 2007 storms.
· 911 calls up 6% in first quarter.
· Law Enforcement calls down, Emergency Medical calls up 12%, Fire calls are up 5% with calls outside the City of La Crosse being up 11%.
· Two new team members; Erika Brindisi, a former dispatcher with the Los Vegas Metro Police Dept. and Alfred Leona, a former dispatcher with the St. Paul Police Dept.
· E-911 Wireless Grant has come through with another $267,000 putting the total received $400,000. This is money already paid out which the state reimburses at various levels.
· Meeting with Senator Dan Kapanke on issues of support getting further legislation on incoming money for 911 and dispatch centers.
Keith Butler – Power Point update on Emergency Services.
Have two major funding sources.
1. EPCRA – (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act) Managed by the State of Wisconsin and involves the hold or transporter use of hazardous substances.
2. Emergency Management Performance Grant – which is managed through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is managed by the state on behalf of the Federal Agency.
Keith continued to highlight the various projects and plans his department engaged in.
· Mass Casualty Team – Very active in the Fire Rehab. The provider of the service, Salvation Army, going through transition and replaced by a new group.
· Obtained a 5th trailer, which will be used as an operational trailer, through donations and fund raisers.
· State Program – Sit on the Technical Planning Group looking at a new Trunk VHF Radio System. Currently in the RFP stages.
· Emergency Support Functions (ESF) – Sit on a panel to review converting the emergency operations plan for the county as well as the municipalities to match the states new plan.
· Invited to sit on a Pandemic Influenza Coalition to develop a plan for how the community as a whole responds to an Influenza Pandemic.
· Citizen Corp Council - Has long been part of the program and still actively engaged.
· Updating Website - Can be found on County View.
· Emergency Operations Center – Found in the basement of the Administration building.
· Media Security and Reliability Council – Provides mutual aid for the broadcaster in the same manner as the Fire, Law Enforcement and EMS have now.
· Taking a look at exercising the 18 Municipal Emergency Operations Plans.
· Radio Over Internet System (RoIP) – La Crosse is an initial partner in the system and did the engineering study. The system is up and running and interconnects 22 dispatch centers including 3 regional State Patrol dispatch centers. There is a direct “intercom to intercom” using the state BadgerNet System.
· Resource Typing – A project in 2008 which is typing all inventory as Type I, Type II, cubic yardage, capability, etc. for the Fire Dept., Highway Dept., Ambulances and equipment. This will provide emergency managers and the State with the information they need to request and receive the resources they need during an emergency or disaster.
· Incident Command System Compliance – Have filed two reports with the State which have gone on to FEMA about the readiness and level of Incident Command in La Crosse County and it has not been a very favorable report. There is a lot of reluctance still on agencies, particularly Law Enforcement, to engage ICS on a routine basis. There needs to be more unified command approach.
· Mitigation Grant – Provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration.
· Skywarn – Are meeting and training with them and are a great deal more engaged.
· County Wide Strategic Hazardous Material Plan – Working with the La Crosse Fire Dept. who holds the bulk of the hazardous materials response capability for La Crosse County. Also working with the Public Health Dept. with their Bioterrorism.
· Radio Plans – By the year 2013 Mandatory Narrowbanding which will mean replacement of significant infrastructure in La Crosse County.
AL BLENCOE – UPDATE ON TECHNOLOGY COORDINATION
Gave an overview of Technology Projects and Committees Involvement.
· VisionAir – State Users Meeting. La Crosse Co. has taken a leadership role with the State users group and holds 3 to 4 meetings a year for training and idea sharing.
· Traffic Records Coordinating Committee – is a committee that helps steer the funds that come through highway safety and department of transportation that is used for data collection.
· Trying to get Public Safety Agencies and all departments of Government to be aware of Pictomety.
· Mobil Links – Improved Mapping in the mobile environment.
· Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping Issues and Statistical Analysis – receiving more tools and need to keep updated for the future understanding of using resources and present to others.
· VisionMobile – The La Crosse Fire Dept. planning on implementing and Onalaska Fire Dept. has asked for pricing.
Introduction – Chief Kondracki introduced the City’s new Safety Coordinator – Tim Merrell.
Jay continued with the report he was asked to provide on Standards provided by Chief Cleveland. Jay met with some of the fire service Chiefs and was provided with a more detailed documentation.
The dispatch center is asked to answer 911 calls within 15 seconds, asked to do call processing within 30 seconds and once the information is obtained, to make the dispatch process of notifying the first dept. or agencies and being out within 30 seconds. The entire process is 75 seconds from the time the call is initiated, (first ring) to the time responders are actually getting the information.
Call Answering Time Benchmarks are proposed from the first appearance of the call at the PSC telephone switch and the time the call is answered.
National Fire Protections Association (NFPA) Standards – 15 seconds 95 % of the time, 40 seconds 99% of the time.
National Emergency Number Association – (NENA) – 10 seconds 90% of the time, which is described as the busy hour, and 20 second 95%.
Statistics gathered from the past 6 months for the dispatch center were – 10 seconds 94.4%, 20 seconds or less 99.2% and 40 seconds 99.9% of the time. Since November 1, 2008 there have been over 12,000 911 calls with only 12 of those taking longer than 40 seconds. Example of calls taking longer than 40 seconds would be a major event with multiple calls. Obviously there are only enough people to answer these 911 calls and they cannot hang up on them until they determine it is a non-emergency. In most cases accidents in a heavily viewed area with a lot of traffic are going to generate multiple cellular 911 calls. It is not unusual to get 10 calls on an accident with injuries in a visible location. Those are the times the stats may go below 40 seconds. We are unable to gather statistics of 15 seconds because of software limitations but are confident that between the 94.4% at 10 seconds and the 99.2% at 20 seconds gives a good indication we are compliant with 95% at 15 seconds.
Day shift handles 39% of 911 calls and are answered within 10 second 92% of the time.
Second shift handles 42% of 911 calls and answer within 10 seconds 96% of the time.
Third shift handles the smallest amount of calls but within 10 seconds 100% of the time.
Typically when 3rd shift gets a 911 call there will be a call for service. On day shift there may not necessarily be a call for service because people don’t have the true concept of 911 calls versus non-emergency calls. Basically the dispatcher has to put the call on hold and then go to the 911 call which is the justification for a lower percentage within 10 seconds.
The next level of Bench Marking is in the Call Processing Time, which is basically the time elapsed from the time the call is answered until the time there is enough information for a “well informed dispatch”. Dispatch Processing Time is once you have enough information for a dispatch until the time the first unit has been notified. Then the total processing time includes both those times together.
NFPA Standards – within 60 seconds 95% of the time and within 90 seconds 99% of the time.
NENA - Does not have a standard. A former Association President said it’s time we started doing it right and not just fast.
Jay said he hoped to get the point across today that these standards may not be as realistic as they are portrayed to be and would give the following examples with explanation.
Our CAD system does not have the capability of getting fractal times so reports will show average times but cannot get what percentage of the time it actually is unless each call is manually taken and put into a spread sheet. This was done for the month of April on first responder calls which was very time consuming but will give an indication of where we are.
The range was from 15 seconds to 14 minutes 35 seconds. Out of the 281 calls for the 3 weeks in April, 132 calls were within 60 seconds or less 47% of the time, 167 calls were 75 seconds or less 59% and 202 out of 281 calls being within 90 seconds or less.
Jay advised, as an Administrator he would be concerned with the times of 3 minutes or more to be dispatched so manually went in and looked at those12 calls individually. The call with 14 minutes 35 seconds processing time was originally a call Life Line requested ambulance only. The ambulance was dispatched giving them the information, which is the procedure for invalid assist. The ambulance responded to the scene and decided they needed assistance because the person was trapped in a wheelchair and needed response from the Fire Dept. . They were paged out, making the total time from the original call going to Tri-State to the time the Fire Dept. got on scene; 14 minutes 35 seconds. The original call is re-opened so the data doesn’t have to be keyed in again making this beyond the control of the dispatch center.
The 12 calls of 3 minutes or more had some type of justification along these lines. In some cases the police arrived at the scene and decided it was part of a domestic or it was determined a hand injury so now they called for first responders. Those calls shouldn’t be considered part of these statistics to give a true indication. If those 12 calls were taken off it knocked the time down to 68 seconds which brings it down substantially but still not within the guidelines the NFPA is promoting.
Jay also wanted to point out that all these times are based on the key strokes by the dispatchers performing multiple tasks typically on multiple events happening. For the most part when the dispatcher is actually entering this information they are entering it after the fact. An officer may say I’ve arrived at the scene, etc. the dispatcher who is on the phone is going to have to let that person know they are going to go to the radio to acknowledge the officer and then are going to have to hit the button which time stamps. Even in a perfect scenario there is still a couple second delay, or longer, depending on the task the dispatcher is performing.
Jay said he would have to manually go to the recordings to get a true indication, which would be very time consuming because everything done crosses multiple technologies from the CAD system to the phone systems.
Jay gave another example in February, before EMD, of a call taken for a child not breathing in the Town of Shelby at 2024.54. The CAD report indicated a 2 minute 34 second dispatching process time which caused alert. If you listen to the recording you can actually hear the dispatcher saying they are on the phone with a child not breathing. Another dispatcher steps up, who isn’t the fire dispatcher, but would send out the Fire Department or First Responders in this case, and actually does that from a different location. The actual time from the recording showed a 45 second dispatch time, which was well within standards even though CAD doesn’t indicate it. The dispatcher responsible for doing the CAD and everything else was dealing with a frantic father who had a child not breathing and needed to stay with the call, so the priority of recording the incident became secondary to actually dealing with the child. Hopefully this has given an indication that CAD times are not always going to be the true reflection of what happens.
Jay then played an actual call which indicates15 seconds for combined call and dispatch processing time. Recording played……the time the dispatcher was prepared to send the call, after verifying the location, was 26 seconds into the call and the total call was 59 seconds. It was done as quickly as possible but still took 59 seconds to get to the point of getting the call out. This is difficult because in this case, the dispatcher assigned to dispatch the time and to dispatch the call is also the call taker.
Jay played another example of a call which CAD indicated 2 minutes 29 seconds for the combined call and dispatch processing time. The call processing time was 55 seconds, which on this call, couldn’t have been handled any differently. This shows that the 30 second call processing time is very difficult to get.
Steve O’Malley pointed out it seemed to takes more time to get the information needed out of the client than it does to dispatch the call. Jay said the caller is the real variable with these things because you may be dealing with a child or someone elderly or a person who is traumatized. The information can be very difficult to get within 30 seconds without getting to the point of badgering the person.
Jay played another call demonstrating an example of the person going back to the start of the call and going through the whole process again every time the dispatcher asked a question, which is very common.
Jay pointed out that by all means there can be improvements made, however, a 60 second total processing time, and specifically a 30 second call processing time, is unrealistic. The priority for dispatch is accuracy. Speed is important but accuracy is vital and the variable on all calls is the caller. There are uncontrollable factors such as:
· Technology on cellular phone calls – wireless 9-1-1 calls average 22 seconds longer than landline calls.
· Cellular phone calls not at an established address.
· Cellular Technology – call blanking. The same time the call comes in the data is also going out causing a couple second delay and loss of information.
· Type of incidents – hundreds of different types of calls and all treated differently so you can’t put one standard on all calls.
· Physical location of the caller and victim – identifying where the caller and victim are located.
· Call source variables – young children, elderly, someone in unfamiliar surroundings, angry, frantic or intoxicated.
A study by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) says, “pushing a dispatcher into making quick decisions instead of doing it right is going to make them take shortcuts”.
From the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch (NAED) says, “A 60 second time standard can be a recipe for disaster. It is more important to do it right the first time than it is to do it a few seconds faster”.
It was reported in the news last week that San Francisco’s standard for EMS calls is 2 minutes and they are only meeting it 57% of the time.
Minnesota – No standards should be set for call processing time. This is largely dependent on the nature of the call. Setting mandatory standards in this area could actually be counterproductive.
Jay played an example of a call the second day of EMD in which the dispatcher was getting close to one minute of getting the call to EMD and cut corners by not verifying the address. It was discussed with the dispatcher, but these are the concerns of putting these kinds of pressures on.
The National Academy of Emergency Dispatch says, “the average address and phone number verification time is 26 seconds, best case scenario.” They also said, “36% of their cases studied took more than 30 seconds just to obtain the address and phone number and the average time for asking what’s the problem was took 15.52 seconds”. From their studies, it is taking more than 41 seconds just to get to that point.
Jay gave an example of a scripted 911 call which took 32 seconds just to read. This does not include verifying of the address or other verifications the dispatcher will need to do.
Assistant Chief Loken said they are not insensitive to the validness of the situations and understand there are things these dispatchers cannot control. We’ve heard examples of those. There are some legitimate concerns and Chief Loken said they would like to keep talking with Jay on what is possible and bring something back. He said the board was presented with a draft a couple months ago but suggests they be asked to come back with another proposal for the next meeting and it’s up to this board if it chooses to adopt it or not.. After talking with Jay there were some concerns that any report or benchmarking would have to be taken into consideration of the types of calls. Chief Loken said he knew that Jay expressed that it is hard to time some calls. All these things should be taken into consideration and they be directed to go back and work with Jay.
Chief Kondracki asked Chief Loken what kind of report it is they would like to see. Chief Loken said it’s something they should work out with Jay as to what the times are they can process the calls. He said he thinks a process can be worked out as to what calls are looked at. Police wouldn’t, but fire and EMS would be. For example call processing times broken down into three numbers. That is the type of report they are looking for.
Jay said he would like to go over a report on how we do compare. A study done by a Fire Chief, shows La Crosse 9-1-1 Dispatch compares favorably, but just not meeting a standard. Neither are the 17 other agencies studied. There were more than a million calls for service from these agencies, specifically 43,000 fire calls. La Crosse was actually ahead of the standards these 17 departments are doing. The point of the study is that everyone determines differently what a call processing time is. Of these 17 agencies, six determine their call processing times in the manner we have. The other nine begin their call processing time after the location, nature of the call and phone number have been obtained. Even with those involved, we are still favorably comparable to all these other agencies.
Chief Kondracki said Jay’s report was extremely well done and an educational process for the entire board. He said if Chief Loken is asking what our standards would be based on what we know and he thinks it’s reasonable. Clearly bench marking is important and if these figures varied dramatically six months from now, we might say what happened and why aren’t we doing what we did before. He asked if Jay would be comfortable indicating what standards we could come up with at the next meeting. Jay was in agreement but pointed out that it is very difficult to put a call processing standard down. Benchmarking is one thing and standards are completely different.
Vicki Burke said she is confused as to why we would use Fire Department standards for Emergency Services. Chief Loken said the NFPA Standard 1221 refers to EMS and Fire as they define any alarm to those numbers. There are other standards and benchmarking processes but this happens to be what their proposal referred to.
Vicki said she has been involved in calling in an emergency for a fire and also for something health related and they are two different things. If you say; I have a fire and give a specific address, it is a very simple call to make. When it was a health call there were other questions asked as to what was occurring at that time, so there seem to be two types of calls.
Steve O’Malley said, to follow up on that, his concerns, when talking about a proposal by fire or EMS on standards, are that the vast majority of calls are law enforcement. He’s concerned with the comments by the professional associations who aren’t fire and police, such as ICMA, of which he is a member, talking about the concept of not pursuing standards but doing things right. Steve said he would be very concerned if we set some line in the sand we have to meet that impacts the majority of our calls and doesn’t want us to prioritize which child is the most important, law enforcement, fire or EMS. We serve everybody and while we keep learning about this and always try to do better to refine things, he would be very concerned we would pursue one standard that may have an impact inevitably on others while not getting the calls right. Steve said he encourages the departments to keep working together and exploring what the issues are, but as one member of this board he would be very concerned about setting what that standard is because he doesn’t want to miss the importance of other calls that are happening at the same time while trying to pursue the standard advocated by another.
Chief Kondracki said he agreed and would like to put this on the next agenda for a report from the working with Jay so we can address that very issue.
Chief Dominick said he doesn’t feel we can have continual improvement until we know where we’re at and what we’re doing is finding out where we are. He said he doesn’t necessarily feel it’s putting response times under a microscope but for planning purposes, technology, personnel or whatever these things are starting to come up and we should be focusing on a strategic plan for planning for the future.
ADDRESSING ISO/DISPATCH DEFICIENCIES – JAY LOEFFLER – Hand out.
Jay addressed the issues of the Insurance Services Ratings for the Community in a 1993 report which was questioned at the previous meeting.
History on Insurance Service Office (ISO) – Provides underwriting, rating and statistical information for the insurance industry and one area they deal with is Fire Suppression. Part of the rating includes the Public Protection Classification putting them in a range from 1, (the highest) to 10, (the lowest) based upon the percentage of three areas:
· 10% Receiving and Handling Fire Alarms (Communication and Dispatch Center)
· 50% Fire Department
· 40% Water Supply
Ten percent of a community’s overall score is based on how well the CDC receives and dispatches fire alarms. There are a variety of areas the ISO field representative evaluates, including: the communications center, number of operators, telephone service, number of lines coming into the center, listing of emergency numbers in the telephone book, dispatch circuits and how the center notifies firefighters about the location.
Jay pointed out the most recent ISO ratings sent from Onalaska FD, which was alluded to in the last meeting, were from1993 where Receiving and Handling of Alarms received 7.50 out of 10 points
The most recent ISO ratings sent from La Crosse FD were 1996 where Receiving and Handling of Alarms received 9.4 out of 10 points.
Jay said he has made a written request by e-mail to ISO, Inc. on letterhead for the latest ratings for all of the Fire Departments but have not received any respond to it, nor to a second request.
From the minutes of the Public-Safety Communications Board meeting of January 28, 2008 it was stated that: the Onalaska Fire Department is getting ready to go through another evaluation from the ISO Office and I (Onalaska Fire Chief) reviewed information prior to being appointed in Onalaska and the biggest category of deficiencies of Community was penalized on was the Dispatch Center.
The 1993 ISO report shows three categories:
1. Receiving & Handling Fire Alarms 7.5 out of 10 (75%) or 2.5 points lost
2. Fire Department 24.14 out of 50 (48%) or 25.86 points lost
3. Water Supply 33.93 out of 70 (85%) or 6.17 points lost
4. Divergence 7.31 points lost*
Divergences are points deducted when the Fire Department and Water-Supply categories are out of line with each other per the ISO Community Mitigation Analyst.
Statement: Communications lost 33% of possible score in Receiving and Handling Alarms.
The actual figure is 25% of a possible score and these deductions are related to receiving and handling alarms for the system, not just the dispatch center.
Statement: There are 20 points possible and the Dispatch Center was able to obtain 15 and it’s the biggest deficiency.
Actually there are 10 points possible for receiving and handling alarms with 7.5 points obtained. The biggest deficiency was the Fire Dept. category in the area of equipment and fire fighters available, while Receiving & Handling Fire Alarms was the least amount of points deducted.
Statement: With ISO, the lower rating or the fewest number of penalty points that you should accumulate goes across the board to every business and everybody who has an insurance policy, every taxpayer and every business and resident in Onalaska is being penalized.
In talking with the Deputy Fire Chief at that time, who also sat on this board, the ratings only affects those commercial structures that do not have sprinkler systems. So really there was no penalty to everyone.
To show where changes have been made since the 1993.
Credit for Telephones – 1.90 out of 2.00 – Review the facilities provided for the public to report fires, including the listing of fire and business number in the telephone directory.
· In 1993 La Crosse County had 12 incoming 9-1-1 lines there are currently a total of 31.
· In 1996 Under ISO report for the City of La Crosse, the rating was 2.00 out of 2.00.
Credit for Operators – 2.10 out of 3.00 – This reviews the number of operators on-duty at the communications center to handle the fire calls.
· In 1993 La Crosse County Emergency Dispatch Center had 17 Telecommunicators
· In 1996 La Crosse County Emergency Dispatch Center had 19 Telecommunicators
· Currently there are 22 full time Telecommunicators and 5 Supervisors
· In 1993 minimum staffing was 3 at all times and currently our average staffing is 5.
Credit for Dispatch Circuits – 3.50 out of 5.00 – Reviews the dispatch circuit facilities used to transmit alarms to members.
· This rating has little to do with the Dispatch Center itself rather how the is notified. This is still being done the same as it was in 1993 and is out of our control.
· In 1993 in Onalaska, as it is now, had the majority of the fire fighters responding from off-site of the Fire Station. The paging system was and still is used for notification.
· In 1996 in the city of La Crosse where all fire fighters are full-time and on duty 24/7, they received a perfect rating.
Jay said if the Dispatch Center, which is attributed to the communications portion of this rating, was rated on its own we would have been rated a 3 in Onalaska in 1993 where the Fire Dept. was rated a 5 so we were actually 2 categories higher than the FD itself
Jay said the did get a copy of the communications and dispatch center pre-survey information to be prepared when people do come forward. Interestingly there are 30 questions with question 23 relating to call detail reporting and three of them go into standards, but these standards don’t have as much weight on this ISO as there are in other areas. He said he is very confident he will be able to provide a high figure from the communications side on the things we can control and guarantees if we don’t, we will be working to make it in the future, as we have taken these steps in the past.
Steve O’Malley said he did not attend the previous meeting and wasn’t aware, as he read disturbingly through the minutes, there was an accusation made that somehow we were not performing well. He said he would like to urge anyone who might be concerned if that is the type of discussion that happens on the agenda that we be told before hand to be able to respond and prepare it because t would have been helpful to have had this report at the same time. Particularly when a lot of the information was based on a 1993 report which 15 years ago was hardly current information. Steve said Sheriff Helgeson had to leave for a meeting but was also very concerned at the sense there was an accusation tone with this and because it wasn’t addressed in last meetings minutes, he wanted something reflected that he was very much concerned about it. Our service at the dispatch center will do everything we can to respond to the true needs of the community and always try to improve. Steve conveyed he has been so impressed by Jay with the information of the standards, of the context and the performance we were given today and it will just continue to improve. Obviously as the Administrator of the County I want to make sure that is happening and am very pleased with the amount of detail Jay has gone into.
Chief Kondracki said he didn’t feel it was more than a request for a discussion on benchmarking which is healthy and appropriate. He also feels Jay does a wonderful job and should be congratulated. Also if there is no more discussion Chief Kondracki asked we move on with the agenda items.
REPORT FROM GUNDERSEN ProQa – Jim Klock – Tom Carpenter – Quentin Lamers
Jim conveyed there are four individuals in the dispatch area trained as Emergency Medical Dispatch Quality Improvement Specialists (EMDQ). Tom Carpenter, who has been the lead in this process, explained the Quality Assurance Case Review format.
· Questions the dispatchers are supposed to ask and where they are directed are compared by reviewing tapes of the call.
· If the patient comes to Gunderson or is transferred by Tri-State those records can also be reviewed.
· These standards to be met are by accuracy of case entry, not by speed.
· There is also a score given on the dispatcher’s demeanor and how the call is handled.
· The standards are achievable and have to be met to become accredited. None of the standards involve time of processing a call. The agenda is to get things going in the right direction and getting the information accurately.
· The standards allow a learning curve for new dispatchers and within six months have to receive ratings consistent with the academy.
· The reviews are graded they are discussed with the dispatcher to determine strengths and opportunities for improvements or adjustments immediately following the review.
· According to size of system, they are expected to review 25 cases a week of calls which can be randomly selected or by category.
· Reports can be generated monthly, quarterly or daily of the calls that are audited and also by determinate.
Tom also went into detail on the breakdown of reports and explanation of the categories and dispatcher response in correspondence with an example hand out.
Chief Kondracki recommended the next two Agenda items be carried over to the following meeting. The board agreed.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS -
Jay Loeffler – EMD Update
Jay Loeffler – Review with Dispatch Center on NIMS Compliant Dispatching.
Chief Kondracki – Excited Delirium
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next regularly scheduled meeting date is July 28, 2008
ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Burke/O’Malley to adjourn at 11:48 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Disclaimer: The above minutes may be approved, amended or corrected at the next board meeting. Patti McDonah, Recorder