Leicestershire 2021/22

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service is good at understanding risk.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. Arrangements should be put in place through the service’s prevention, protection and response capabilities to prevent or mitigate these risks for the public.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is good at identifying and understanding community risk

The service has assessed an appropriate range of risks and threats after a thorough integrated risk management planning process. When assessing risk, it has considered relevant information collected from a broad range of internal and external sources and datasets.

The service is good at using risk data to create a community risk model. This shows where incidents are more likely to occur and clearly informs how the service best allocates its resources.

When appropriate, the service has consulted and undertaken comprehensive and constructive dialogue with communities, as well as businesses and voluntary groups to both understand the risk and explain how it intends to mitigate it. For example, the service uses these engagement sessions such as ‘pop up events’ in rural locations to generate safe and well visits and provide support to the community to reduce risk.

The integrated risk management plan 2020–24 is up to date and easy to understand

After assessing relevant risks, the service has recorded its findings in an easily understood integrated risk management plan (IRMP) with an annual action plan. These plans describe how prevention, protection and response activity is to be effectively resourced to mitigate or reduce the risks and threats the community faces, both now and in the future. The IRMP has seven clear priorities for the service up to 2024.

The annual action plan is clear on how the service plans to meet its aims and objectives, which are linked to the five corporate strategies.

We found the service is good at regularly reporting progress on its performance to the combined fire authority.

However, even though the IRMP is driving service activity, there are areas of prevention that need to be improved.

The service gathers, maintains and shares a good range of risk information

The service routinely collects and updates the information it has about the people, places and threats it has identified as being at greatest risk. The service stores risk information well. Buildings are given a risk rating and a risk information record is created. We also saw how all high-rise buildings have had wall plates installed at the entrance to the building. These display building-specific information, for instance number of floors and number of stairs. They help firefighters formulate tactical plans quickly.

We found all risk information records to be in date and comprehensive. This information is readily available for the service’s prevention, protection and response staff, which helps it to identify, reduce and mitigate risk effectively.

We were pleased to see good quality assurance in place when risk information records are created or updated.

Where appropriate, the service passes risk information on to other organisations well. For example, information about buildings that don’t comply with fire safety regulations is shared with local authorities and building control teams.

The service should make sure staff read and understand urgent risk information

We found that the service sends a safety flash email to all operational staff that they must read. For example, information about an oxygen cylinder that exploded in another fire service.

We were disappointed to find that not all firefighters read the safety flashes. And the service can’t be assured that its staff have read them. The service needs to improve the way it monitors that staff have read and understood urgent risk information.

The service is good at building understanding of risk from operational activity

The service records and communicates risk information effectively. It also routinely updates risk assessments and uses feedback from local and national operational activity to inform its planning assumptions. For example, the service identified an area which needed to be made more clear following feedback from two fires where fans were used to assist with putting the fire out. The risk to firefighters was identified early and the service acted by removing all fans from fire engines until further training was conducted.

The service makes good use of information from national operational learning from other fire and rescue services. We saw a good example of sharing learning from a fatal basement fire attended by another fire service and the establishment of effective basement fire training for all firefighters in the service.

The service has responded positively to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry

During this round of inspections, we sampled how each fire and rescue service has responded to the recommendations and learning from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service has responded positively and proactively to learning from this tragedy. The service has assessed the risk of each high-rise building in its service area.

It has carried out a fire safety audit and collected and passed relevant risk information to its prevention, protection and response teams about buildings identified as high risk and all high-rise buildings that have cladding similar to the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower.

Research study is informing prevention, protection and response

We were pleased to find the service working with the University of Leicester on a research report into multiculturalism and fire safety. We found this report to be a comprehensive analysis of the distribution of residential fires in an ethnically diverse urban area. The service has acted on its recommendations, some of which are:

• a person-centred approach to communication – providing information to members of the public that is tailored to their needs;
• how to better work with people from ethnic minority backgrounds; and
• how to train staff to be effective.

The report is helping the service work with diverse communities to find ways to build trust and confidence in the service in order to reduce risk.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at preventing fires and other risks.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, including giving fire safety advice. To identify people at greatest risk from fire, services should work closely with other organisations in the public and voluntary sector, and with the police and ambulance services. They should provide intelligence and risk information with these other organisations when they identify vulnerability or exploitation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The prevention plan aligns with the IRMP

Prevention falls under ‘Safer Communities’ in the corporate and IRMP, which is one of the service’s five corporate strategies.

The service’s prevention plan is good: the service is targeting those most at risk. And departmental and district plans at fire stations clearly detail how prevention activity is provided to the communities.

The service’s teams work well together and with other relevant organisations on prevention, and it shares relevant information when needed. Information is used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s prevention, protection and response functions. For example, the service provided post-incident advice and support following a fatal fire in the community.

However, even though the prevention plan is good, it isn’t communicated well. Firefighters told us they feel HSCs are all about quantity to meet service targets. And the senior leadership team told us they are about quality, not targets. The service should examine ways to make sure its HSC message is clear and engages the workforce.

No effective plan to deal with the home safety check referral backlog

There is a large number of referring partners, including East Midlands Ambulance Service and district nursing teams. The service would benefit from evaluating its partnerships to ensure each is targeting those people most at risk.

At the start of our inspection, we found a backlog of 725 HSCs from partner referrals, rising to over 1,000 at the end of our inspection. However, we found no plan to deal with the backlog or action to reduce the risk.

The backlog concerns high-risk homes in the community. The service’s policy is for staff from the community educator team to deal with high priority visits. However, the team clearly can’t cope with the demand. We were also disappointed to find senior managers unaware of the backlog.

Even though the service has a strong partner referral scheme, we found the service isn’t training partners in how to complete an HSC referral to make sure partners are assessing risk correctly. And the service isn’t carrying out any quality assurance or equality assessments to ensure no groups of people are at more risk than others.

The service should put a plan in place to evaluate the level of risk and then act using all available resources.

The service has adapted its prevention activities to the pandemic well

We considered how the service had adapted its prevention work during our COVID-19 specific inspection in October and November 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its public prevention work appropriately. Since then, we are encouraged to find that the service has continued to conduct doorstep HSCs on a risk-assessed basis, and to make follow-up telephone calls to ensure safety messages are understood.

Prevention activity is prioritised to risk

Prevention activity that is generated by the service is clearly prioritised using a risk‑based approach towards people most at risk from fire and other emergencies. For example, the service targets those most vulnerable in their homes. Homes containing one or more people aged 65 years or over with a disability get a visit. The community educator team carries out visits to the highest-risk homes and firefighters the lower-risk homes.

The service takes account of a broad range of information and data to target its prevention activity at vulnerable individuals and groups. This includes NHS data, demographic information, vulnerability data from the local authorities and historical incident data. We found staff using a Microsoft Power BI dashboard to make informed decisions on where to conduct prevention activity and campaigns based on risk.

The service provides a range of prevention interventions in the community, such as:

• a person-centred approach to HSCs in line with National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) guidance;
• school education work;
• a post-incident response following each fatal fire;
• collaboration with landlords of high-risk tenants;
• attendance at community safety boards;
• road safety initiatives, including using virtual reality technology; and
• youth engagement programmes.

Prevention training has improved

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should make sure it appropriately trains staff to undertake prevention activity.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. It has trained all staff who carry out prevention work.

Staff told us they have the right skills and confidence to carry out HSCs and have received training to go the extra mile. This is when staff give extra advice on a case‑by-case basis based on risk. We found good examples of advice on hazards that can put vulnerable people at greater risk from fire and other emergencies.

Staff are good at identifying and responding to safeguarding concerns

Staff we interviewed told us about occasions when they had identified safeguarding problems. They told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly. The staff we spoke to, including on-call firefighters, were all able to tell us the actions they would take when responding to a safeguarding concern. The service has also provided safeguarding training to all staff since our last inspection.

The service works well with partner organisations

The service works with a wide range of organisations such as Leicestershire and Rutland County Councils, local resilience forums (LRFs), safeguarding and vulnerability boards, and community safety groups where organisations meet and collaborate to prevent fires and other emergencies.

We found good evidence of the service working with organisations in the community to educate and reduce risk, such as:

• campaigns on the increase in candle use due to the cost-of-living crisis, bonfire awareness and Diwali; and
• supporting the private rental sector concerning vulnerable tenants.

The service is good at tackling fire-setting behaviour

The service has a range of suitable and effective interventions to target and educate people of different ages who show signs of fire-setting behaviour. For example, the service supports young people who have been through the criminal justice system due to fire-setting crimes.

When appropriate, it routinely shares information with other relevant organisations as a statutory partner on community safety boards across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland to support the prosecution of arsonists. The service also supports partner organisations by providing anti-arson letterboxes when required.

Lack of evaluation and quality assurance

In our last inspection, we found the service’s evaluation of its prevention work was an area for improvement.

We were disappointed to find limited evidence that the service evaluates how effective its prevention activity is to ensure it has a clear understanding of the benefits. For example, the service has invested in a road safety education vehicle that gives people a virtual reality experience. But there is limited evaluation and more needs to be done to understand what effect this is having on reducing road deaths.

The service performs no quality assurance of the standard of HSCs conducted by staff, to make sure that they are consistent across all fire stations and include all sections of the community. For example, staff told us they don’t have the confidence to ask equality questions at HSCs. This is disappointing as this means equality data isn’t being collected effectively to ensure all communities get equal access to prevention activity that meets their needs.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service is good at protecting the public through fire regulation.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services should assess fire risks in certain buildings and, when necessary, require building owners to comply with fire safety legislation. Each service decides how many assessments it does each year. But it must have a locally determined, risk-based inspection programme for enforcing the legislation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The fire protection strategy is well integrated with the community risk model

The service’s protection strategy is clearly linked to the risks identified in its corporate and IRMP. Protection falls under ‘Safer Communities’ in the plan, which is one of the service’s five corporate strategies. The community risk model gives a broad view of risk at a local level which informs protection activity.

Staff across the service are involved in this activity, with information effectively exchanged as needed. We were pleased to see the service is currently training all front-line watch managers for the Level 3 Fire Safety qualification. They undertake low-level audits, the information from which is passed on to dedicated protection staff who take appropriate action, as required. Information is then used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s protection, prevention and response functions. This means resources are properly aligned to risk.

The service adapted its protection activity during the pandemic

We considered how the service had adapted its protection activity during our COVID‑19 specific inspection in October and November 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its protection work well. Since then, we are encouraged to find that protection activity has continued, and operational staff and specialist protection and prevention staff are working together to reduce risk.

Protection activity is focused on the highest-risk premises

The service’s risk based inspection programme (RBIP) is focused on the service’s highest-risk buildings. We were encouraged to see resources were in place to effectively complete the programme ahead of schedule.

We were also encouraged to find all audits we reviewed were completed in the timescales the service has set itself, and all the audits had the correct risk rating applied. The service has set targets in 2023/24 to increase the number of audits, due to more buildings being built.

We found the service carried out 2.6 fire safety audits per 100 premises in 2020/21, which encouragingly is higher than the England average of 1.7.

All high-rise premises have been inspected

Audits have been carried out at all high-rise buildings the service has identified as using cladding that is similar to the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower. Information gathered during these audits is made available to response teams and control operators, enabling them to respond more effectively in an emergency.

The service has assessed the risk of each high-rise building in its service area.

Fire safety audits are completed to a good standard

We reviewed a range of audits of different premises across the service. This included audits as part of the service’s RBIP, after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies, where enforcement action had been taken and at high-rise, high‑risk buildings.

The audits we reviewed were completed to a high standard in a consistent, systematic way, and in line with the service’s policies. Relevant information from the audits is made available to operational teams and control room operators.

The quality assurance process is effective

Quality assurance of protection activity takes place in a proportionate way. At the time of our inspection, an experienced fire safety officer reviews a fire safety inspector’s audit and completes the sign-off, with the inspector receiving feedback. The service is enhancing this process when two new officers are qualified soon.

The service is good at collecting equality data from protection activity and evaluating it to make sure all sections of its communities get appropriate access to the protection services that meet their needs.

The service is good at using its full range of enforcement powers

The service consistently uses its full range of enforcement powers, and when appropriate, prosecutes those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations.

In the year to 31 March 2021, the service issued 7 alteration notices, 184 informal notifications, 23 enforcement notices, 8 prohibition notices and undertook 2 prosecutions. It completed 6 prosecutions in the last 5 years from 2016/17 to 2020/21.

The service has increased its protection resources

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure it allocates enough resources to a prioritised and RBIP.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. The protection team has increased from 9 to 16. The service now has enough qualified protection staff to meet the requirements of the service’s RBIP. This helps the service to provide the range of audit and enforcement activity needed, both now and in the future.

The service aligns staff training with nationally recognised standards. We found operational staff have received training in how to carry out fire safety checks in lower-risk premises. They spoke highly of the training they received, and specialist protection officers provide good support on a 24/7 basis.

The service also has a fire engineer and has arrangements to help neighbouring services to access engineer support when this is needed.

The service works closely with other enforcement organisations

The service works closely with other enforcement agencies to regulate fire safety and routinely exchanges risk information with them. For example, we found that Environmental Health and Trading Standards shares information with the service during their inspections, such as building faults. The service then takes appropriate action.

The service responds to licensing consultations in a timely manner

The service responds to all licensing consultations on time, so consistently meets its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings. We were pleased to find that, in 2020/21, the service continued to respond to all licensing consultations within the required time frames.

The service needs to improve its response time to building consultations

The service doesn’t respond to building consultations on time, so isn’t consistently meeting its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings. We are disappointed to find the service hasn’t met this responsibility since 2016. For example, in 2020/21, the service received 684 building consultations and responded to only 598 (87 percent) in time.

The service works well with businesses

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure its staff work with local businesses to share information and expectations concerning compliance with fire safety regulations.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. It has built good links with businesses and the private rental sector, where we found good examples of effective collaboration.

The service proactively engages with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation. It uses social media and its website to deliver messages about fire safety compliance. It has held seminars with local businesses to promote fire safety law.

We found the service has agreed to continue its support in managing five primary authority schemes. These schemes allow businesses to receive, through a single point of contact in the service, professional and tailored advice on meeting fire safety regulations.

The service is an active and valued partner at safety advisory group meetings to ensure emergency plans are effective for small or large events, such as sporting events.

The service has reduced its attendance to unwanted fire signals

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure it has an effective system in place to address repeat false alarms.

We are pleased to have found an effective risk-based approach is now in place to manage the number of unwanted fire signals. In January 2022, the service introduced a new unwanted fire signal procedure, which clearly describes a phased approach to reducing unwanted fire signals through engagement and support.

The service works closely with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services as they share their mobilising system. We found a well-established call challenge procedure for any unwanted fire signals.

The service gets fewer calls because of this work. The number of false alarms attended in 2017/18 was 2,849 and in 2020/21 was 2,760. In the year to 31 December 2021, the service attended 2.58 false alarms per 1,000 population, which is below the England average of 3.97 per 1,000 population.

Fewer unwanted calls means that fire engines are available to respond to a genuine incident rather than responding to a false one. It also reduces the risk to the public if fewer fire engines travel at high speed on the roads.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to fires and other emergencies.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must be able to respond to a range of incidents such as fires, road traffic collisions and other emergencies in their area.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

Response resources are regularly reviewed

The service’s response strategy is linked to the risks identified in its corporate and IRMP. Response is one of the service’s five corporate strategies. Its fire engines and response staff, as well as its working patterns, are designed and located to help the service to respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. For example, we saw good examples of fire engines and smaller tactical response vehicles being regularly moved around the service to ensure the widest operational cover is maintained.

Improvements to policy and training concerning tactical response vehicles

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should have a clear policy concerning the deployment of its tactical response vehicles. These vehicles are smaller and have fewer firefighters than a standard fire engine. The service told us this allows them to be more efficient when providing fire cover.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find that the service has addressed this area for improvement. It has revised the mobilising procedures effectively for tactical response vehicles and has provided related training to fire control staff and firefighters. This includes incident command training.

The service is continually improving its response times

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. But the service has set out its own response standard in its IRMP. The service aims to attend all life-threatening incidents in an average of 10 minutes. The service is just outside its 10-minute standard: in 2020/21 the average was 10 minutes 15 seconds.

Home Office data shows that in the year to 31 December 2021, the service’s response time to primary fires was 9 minutes and 55 seconds. This is similar to the average for significantly rural services. Primary fires are more serious fires that harm people or cause damage to property.

We were disappointed to find the service’s reasoning for its ten-minute response time is over a decade old; the service would benefit from revisiting this.

On-call availability could be improved

To support its response strategy, the service has 20 fire stations with 34 fire engines, including tactical response vehicles. It doesn’t have an optimum fire engine model, however, to maintain the 10-minute response standard to life-threatening incidents. It has a plan in place to increase fire engine availability when levels drop to 10 across the service.

In 2020/21 overall fire engine availability was 88.4 percent, with wholetime firefighters at 99.1 percent and on-call at 76.9 percent.

Incident commanders are confident in their role

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure staff know how to command fire service assets assertively, effectively and safely at incidents.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. It has improved how it trains incident commanders, who are now assessed regularly and properly. They are either trained in-house or externally. All incident commanders complete re-validation every two years and, from the files we viewed, all were in date. This training helps the service to safely, assertively and effectively manage the whole range of incidents that it could face, from small and routine ones to complex multi-agency incidents.

As part of our inspection, we interviewed incident commanders from across the service. The incident commanders we interviewed are familiar with risk assessing, decision-making and recording information at incidents in line with national best practice, as well as the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).

Control room staff are integrated into the service

We are pleased to see the service’s control staff integrated into the service’s command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. We were given examples of how fire control staff have been involved in training and major incident exercises with operational staff. We were also pleased to find that control staff were involved in structured debriefs after incidents.

Control room staff can provide fire survival guidance to multiple callers

The service has an effective partnership with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services. All three services share the same mobilising system, which means that, when necessary, they can take emergency calls for each other and mobilise resources.

The control room staff we interviewed are confident they could provide fire survival guidance to many callers simultaneously. This was identified as learning for fire services after the Grenfell Tower fire.

Control has good systems in place to exchange real-time risk information with incident commanders, other responding partners and other supporting fire and rescue services. Maintaining good situational awareness helps the service to communicate effectively with the public, providing them with accurate and tailored advice.

There are good processes in place to manage risk information

We sampled a range of risk information involving short-term and long-term risks, including what is in place for firefighters responding to incidents at high-risk, high-rise buildings and what information is held by fire control.

The information we reviewed was up to date and detailed. It could be easily accessed and understood by staff. Encouragingly, it had been completed with input from the service’s prevention, protection and response functions when appropriate.

However, the quality assurance of cross-border risk information could be improved to ensure risk information held is up to date.

Improvements to portable tablets that hold risk information

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure its mobile data terminals are reliable so that firefighters have good access to relevant and up-to-date risk information.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. It has invested in new portable Toughbooks and iPads for all fire engines and officers. These are in addition to the mobile data terminals at the front of fire engines. Risk information is now also stored on these tablets. Staff told us these improvements have made accessing risk information effective.

Operational learning isn’t effective

As part of the inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events. These included large fires at domestic properties and commercial buildings.

We were disappointed to find that the debrief process lacks sufficient detail to encompass operational learning and that feedback from incidents isn’t collected effectively. This means when operational learning is shared, it is missing information.

We were also disappointed to find, from the files we reviewed, the service isn’t meeting its six-week target to complete a formal debrief.

We also found a backlog of actions from debriefs that aren’t being progressed promptly. Learning is taking too long to be shared with the workforce. This means the service isn’t routinely improving its service to the public.

However, we were encouraged to see the service is contributing to, and acting on, learning from other fire and rescue services or operational learning gathered from other emergency services. Learning is then communicated to the rest of the service.

The public are informed of ongoing incidents

The service has good systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents and help keep them safe during and after incidents. The service’s communication team provides cover during the day and fire control staff have had training in communicating to the public during the night. This includes improved social media messaging and working well with LRFs to provide consistent messages to the public.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to major and multi-agency incidents.

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services must be able to respond effectively to multi-agency and cross-border incidents. This means working with other fire and rescue services (known as intraoperability) and emergency services (known as interoperability).

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is well prepared to respond to major and multi-agency incidents

The service has effectively anticipated and considered the reasonably foreseeable risks and threats it may face. These risks are listed in both local and national risk registers and the service has included these in its corporate and IRMP and management planning. For example, the service has good plans to respond to major incidents, including severe weather conditions, and is working well with LRFs to ensure these plans are co-ordinated and tested.

It is also familiar with the significant risks that could be faced by neighbouring fire and rescue services that it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. Firefighters have access to that risk information, but work needs to be done to ensure it is up to date.

Improvements to training for major and multi-agency incidents

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure it is well prepared to form part of a multi-agency response to a terrorist-related incident and that its procedures for responding are understood by all staff and are well tested.

Since our last inspection, we reviewed the arrangements the service has in place to respond to different major incidents, including high-rise buildings and marauding terrorist attacks (MTAs). Although the service doesn’t have a specialist MTA team, it has trained all its operational staff in MTAs and aligned its staff to the latest joint operating principles.

We are pleased the service has addressed this area for improvement and now has good arrangements in place to respond to major incidents, which are well understood by staff.

The service works well with other fire and rescue services in emergencies

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. For example, it can mobilise resources to any incidents in the relevant service areas. As the service shares its mobilising system with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services, it can mobilise the other services’ resources easily.

The service has additional formal arrangements in place with neighbouring services. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi-agency response. For example, we found the service working well with neighbouring services to establish a regional breathing apparatus working group.

Cross-border exercises are carried out

We were pleased to see the service incorporating cross-border exercises into its training programme. Fire stations have clear training plans in their district plans that state when cross-border training takes place with neighbouring fire and rescue services. This helps them to work more effectively together to keep the public safe.

However, learning from these exercises could be better recorded and shared.

Principles for working effectively with other emergency services are well understood

In our last inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should ensure it is well prepared to form part of a multi-agency response to an incident and staff know how to apply JESIP.

Since our last inspection, we were pleased to find the service has addressed this area for improvement. The incident commanders we interviewed had been trained in and were familiar with JESIP for working with other emergency services. This included training packages and assessments of the command of an incident to consider how well the principles were adhered to. We are pleased the service could provide us with strong evidence that staff can apply and consistently follow these principles.

The service works well with its local resilience forum

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with other partners that make up the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Resilience Forum (LLR Prepared). These arrangements include planning and preparations for major incidents under statutory regulations for COMAH sites, as well as plans to mitigate risks identified in the community risk register.

The service is a valued partner and active member of several sub-groups, and the chief fire officer is a member of the LLR Prepared executive board. The service takes part in regular training events with other members of LLR Prepared and uses the learning to develop plans for responding to major and multi-agency incidents, for example a major power outage or a mass casualty road traffic accident.

The service keeps up to date with national learning

The service keeps itself up to date with national operational learning updates from other fire services and joint operational learning from other organisations, such as the police service and ambulance trusts. This learning is used to inform planning assumptions that have been made with other partners.