FY02 ASA Presentation Provide Emergency Response Services

1. FY02 ASA Presentation Provide Emergency Response Services Presented by: Assistant Chief Jonathan Mattingly Team Members: Chief Gary Hess Master Firefighter Joe D’Ambrosio Master Firefighter Paul Donaldson Master Firefighter Edward Gotthardt Master Firefighter Thomas Kellum Master Firefighter Lori Padgett Technician Michael Laven Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health 18 November 2002

2. Table of Contents Main Presentation ASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….3 Customer Perspective……………………….……………………………….5 Customer Segmentation …………………….……………………………………6 Customer Satisfaction……………………….…………………………………….8 Unique Customer Measures………………….…………………………………10 Internal Business Process Perspective……………………………………11 Service Group Block Diagram…………………………………………………..12 Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts……………….18 Process Measures………………………………………………………………..19 Learning and Growth Perspective………………………………………….23 Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……..31 Analysis of Readiness Conclusions…………………………………………… 32 Unique Learning and Growth Measures………………………………………. 33 Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..34 Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………35 Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………37 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….39 Conclusions from FY02 ASA..……………………………………………………40 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………41

5. Customer Perspective

6. Customer SegmentationDS1: Respond to Medical, Fire, and Hazardous Incidents.

7. Customer SegmentationDS2: Maintain a Comprehensive Fire Extinguisher Program.

8. Customer Satisfaction FY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings

9. Customer Satisfaction FY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings

10. Types of Emergency Situations Usage of Service Based on Emergency Type

11. Internal Business Process Perspective

12. Service Group Block Diagram Provide Emergency Response Services

18. Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts • Our Service Group completed 3 linear flowcharts for 2 discrete services • There are little to no outside processes that affect the internal flow, therefore linear flowcharts were created. • Based on the data collected, and the feedback from the NIH Community, there were no deficiencies identified. • FERS data is collected continuously, any future deficiencies would be identified, and corrected within.

19. Process Measures • List process measures for each discrete service • DS1: Response Times • DS2: Fire Extinguisher Inspections Completed on Schedule

20. Response Times

21. Fire Extinguisher Inspections Completed on Schedule • Inspection Schedule is Regulation Driven • JCAHO Requirements for Clinical Center • NFPA 10 Requirements for Campus/Farm • ALAC Requirements for Animal Care Areas • Inspections are REQUIRED to be Completed in Accordance with the Requirements • Therefore, the Inspections are Completed on Schedule, 100% of the Time

22. Incorporate Recommendations of the Service Area Review • Document Percentage of Progress • Proceed with Purchase of Ladder Truck in FY02 • Hire 10 Fire Fighters to Fully Staff the Truck • Hire an Assistant Chief for Health/Safety/Training • Increase Training Between NIH and Montgomery County Haz-Mat Teams • Increase Command Level Meetings Between NIH, NNMC, and Montgomery County • Consider adding Advanced Life Support Capabilities to the NIH Fire Department

23. Learning and Growth Perspective

24. Service Group Turnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Turnover Rate Service Group Number

25. Average Hours of Sick Leave Used (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Service Group 14 NIH Fire Fighters Work a 24 Hour Shift as Part of a 72 Hour Work Week, 72 Hours of Sick Leave = 3 Days In Comparison, We Should Fit Where Indicated In Red Average Hours Service Group Number

26. Average Number of Awards Received (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Average number Service Group Number

27. Average Number of EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Average Number Service Group Number

28. Average Number of ER Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Average Number Service Group Number

29. Average Number of ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002) Average Number Service Group Number

30. Learning and Growth Data Table No EEO complaints, ER cases, or ADR cases No turnover About 2 awards for every 3 employees About 3 days of sick leave per employee

31. Summary of Service Group 14 Learning and Growth Data • No turnover • About 3 days of sick leave per employee • About two awards for every 3 employees • No EEO complaints, ER cases, or ADR cases

32. Analysis of Readiness Conclusions • The NIH Fire Department routinely conducts informal self assessments. • Based on those assessments, the FERS develops strategies to improve and/or implement those findings. • The 2000 SAR panel of experts validated the strategies, previously identified in the assessments. • At this point, there were no new initiatives identified through the ASA. • Provided that the FERS Budget Request is approved as requested, all future initiatives for the improvement of the FERS, will be initiated.

33. PO: Employee’s Education Exceeding Job RequirementsPM: Percentage Above Requirement

34. Financial Perspective

35. Unit Cost Measures

36. Unit Cost Measures

37. Asset Utilization Measures • The NIH Fire Department (FERS) Consists of: • 1 Fire Chief • 3 Assistant Chiefs • 4 Lieutenants • 12 Firefighters • A Recruitment in Progress to add 10 Firefighters • A Recruitment in Progress to add a Program Support Assistant • 1 Engine • 1 Ambulance • 1 Hazardous Materials Unit • 1 Mass Decontamination Unit • 1 Command Unit • 2 Support Vehicles • 1 Fire Station (New Fire Station has a March ’03 Completion) • A Ladder Truck on Order

38. Asset Utilization Measures The assets of the Fire and Emergency Response Section, are considered a necessity to the mission of the NIH Fire Department. It would not be practical to allow others to utilize these assets. In addition, these assets must be immediately available for the purpose of responding to emergencies arising at the NIH. Therefore, the utilization of the assets are viewed as 100%, as they remain in constant use by the NIH as an emergency response resource.

39. Conclusions and Recommendations

40. Conclusions from FY02 ASA • This process reinforced the strategies already in place, previously identified through internal assessments, and that were validated by the External Panel of Experts during the 2000 Service Area Review. • Future periodic assessments will ensure that the strategies implemented will continue to result in efficient operations, and increased customer service.

41. Recommendations • The Fire and Emergency Response Section will continue to collect, and analyze existing and future data to ensure Operational Excellence is maintained. • Continue to implement the existing strategies as previously identified. • The Fire and Emergency Response Section of the NIH will continue to develop and increase its capabilities, to meet the ever changing needs, trends, and developments within the Fire and Emergency Services for the community which we serve.

42. Appendices

43. Appendices • Include the following: • ORS Customer Scorecard Data • Learning and Growth Data • Readiness Data • 2000 SAR Summary • Unit Cost Data

44. FY02 ORS Customer Scorecard Data for the Annual Self Assessments Service Group 14: Provide Emergency Response Services 16 October 2002 Summary Prepared by the Office of Quality Management (OQM)

45. Methodology • ASA Teams determined best methodology to assess customer satisfaction • FY02 methodology reviewed by OQM • Customer segments to be assessed • Customization of ORS Customer Scorecard instrument • Description of item to be assessed (e.g., Service Group, Discrete Service, specific product/service) • Method of survey distribution (e.g., email, hard copy) • Accompanying Memos/email messages • Timeline for distribution and return • Number of surveys to be distributed • Upon gaining approval, ASA Teams distributed surveys to customers

46. Methodology (cont.) • Completed surveys were returned to Emergency Response Services • Provided completed surveys to OQM • Survey data were entered into a database and analyzed • Results typically summarized at Service Group level • If sufficient number of completed surveys were returned, may be able to generate analyses for specific products/services

47. Survey Distribution Number of Surveys Distributed Provide Emergency Response Services 170 Number of Surveys Returned Provide Emergency Response Services 32 Response Rate 19%

48. Survey RespondentsFY02 Respondents by IC Note: Not all respondents answered this question.

49. Survey Respondents (cont.)FY02 Respondents by Location

50. Radar Chart Interpretation • Compare ratings for product/service characteristics • What’s rated highest? Why? • What’s rated lowest? Why? • Compare ratings for customer service characteristics • What’s rated highest? Why? • What’s rated lowest? Why? • As another method to interpret your results, compare your ratings to ORS overall • Are you above or below the ORS overall ratings? • Why?