Orange County Grand Jury • 2021-2022

Where’s the Fire?

Published: May 20, 2022 24 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
Despite fire departments throughout Orange County having evolved into emergency medical departments, most have not updated their emergency response protocols accordingly, but have simply absorbed emergency medical responses into their existing fire response models. Correspondence from OCFA to OC Public Health, cc: County Executive Officer, January 25, 2022. Joint Statement on Lights & Siren Vehicle Operations on Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Responses February 14, 2022.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F2
Despite use of a tiered dispatch system, OCFA’s deployment of resources for medical responses are the same for nearly all calls, resulting in unnecessary wear and tear on expensive fire-fighting equipment and public infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F3
ALS staffed ambulances or smaller squad vehicles are often the most appropriate response to medical calls and do not compromise the quality of medical care.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
There has been a breakdown of communication and trust between OCEMS and Orange County Fire Chiefs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
While OCEMS should recognize how certain policy changes may pose operational challenges to emergency responders in the field, fire leadership should recognize and respect the independent oversight authority and expertise of OCEMS. F4
F5
Over-deployment of firefighters for medical calls contributes to the current climate of forced hiring and firefighter fatigue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
As recommended in the 2012 and 2014 OCFA Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plans, as well as other studies, the Grand Jury recommends that, by 2024, all Orange County fire agencies utilize criteria-based dispatch protocols and send a single unit response to those incidents triaged as non-life-threatening (BLS). F1, F2, F5
F6
Code 3 response is over utilized by OCFA, unnecessarily putting the responders and public at risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
OCFA should immediately stop the practice of requesting Code 3 responses on all non- life threatening (BLS) calls. F6
F7
Since the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, there has been an emergency medical personnel shortage. The pandemic also has contributed to longer wait times at hospitals resulting in firefighter personnel being out of service for longer periods.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
There are specific areas within Orange County, such as Laguna Woods and Seal Beach, that have an extremely high percentage of medical calls which, under the current model, results in the stations servicing those communities to require two engines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By 2024, OCFA should station a paramedic squad vehicle, which is more nimble and less costly to operate, in place of a second engine in stations with high volumes of medical calls. F8
F9
OCEMS has the authority and responsibility to inspect all for-profit ambulances operating in Orange County; however, publicly owned ambulances are not automatically subject to OCEMS oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Departments with publicly owned ambulances should allow OCEMS to inspect their ambulances for compliance with State EMS guidelines and adopt OCEMS recommendations. F9 RESPONSES California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
F10
Placentia’s changes to the emergency medical response protocols after leaving OCFA have resulted in improved medical call response times.
No recommendations for this finding

Commendations 4

Agency Responses 13

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.