03-25-2010 COMMUNICATIONS INTERLOCAL AGENCY - GOVERNING
Nor BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
March 25, 2010
The Special Meeting was held pursuant to public notice at the City of Port
Orange, City Council Chambers, 1000 City Center Circle, Port Orange, Florida
on March 25, 2010.
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m.
A role call was taken with Mayor Allen Green and Council members Jack Grasty
and Ted Cooper present. Also present was Board Council Margaret Roberts.
There were no Public Comments and Correspondence.
There were no comments from Governing Members, City Managers or Customer
Agency Chiefs.
Under New Business, Director Bubb handed over the presentation of the County
Report or Board Council Margaret Roberts, investigating the incident which
`ow occurred on January 8, 2010 in the City of Edgewater.
Ms. Roberts stated that RCC had received an undated report from Volusia
County referencing a response on January 8 2010, marked Draft 5. At this time,
this is all that we have received to date, but we do expect additional
documentation via e-mail. Ms. Roberts has reviewed the RCC dispatch record in
addition to this Volusia County report. Ms. Roberts assured the Governing Board
that from what she has seen from that record, RCC is operating as the Board has
intended it to, and it is operating properly. Ms. Roberts stated that this is a very
sensitive matter, and she would ask the Board to keep that in mind with regards
to the facts and circumstances of all the parties involved here. Ms. Roberts
stated that she is more than ready to share the unredacted time records with any
Board member. Ms. Roberts also wants to assure the Board that she will keep
this matter on the forefront and that all records will be reviewed by Ms. Roberts
as they are received. Board Council Roberts stated that she would keep all
Board members apprised of the circumstances, and if any Board member has
any questions on this matter please don't hesitate to contact her directly at
anytime. Ms. Roberts does anticipate that there will be some legal expenses in
obtaining records, and that she will keep them reasonable. Ms. Roberts will also
do everything in her power to preserve the integrity of RCC and to provide the
public with confidence in the RCC system.
rirrr'
Ms. Roberts does not agree with the statements that have been provided in the
`.. Volusia County report. Ms. Roberts believes there may be some inaccuracies.
Board Council then stated that there are inaccuracies in the report. Ms. Roberts
stated that we will continue to attempt to work with Volusia County on this matter,
and Director Bubb has already begun to do so.
Mayor Green stated that his position is that he needs more information before he
makes any decisions on this matter. Mayor Green wants to support RCC but
needs more information at this time to make an honest appraisal. And he
agrees, that RCC will need some outside help to make sure that the Board is
properly informed and that RCC has the proper representation.
Councilmember Grasty concurred with Mayor's Green's comments, as did Ted
Cooper, Edgewater Councilmember. Mr. Cooper than stated that he may have
to recues himself due to his position as a City Commissioner for Edgewater. Mr.
Cooper asked Board Council if a law suit been filed. Ms. Roberts stated that no
law suit has been filed to her knowledge. Normally it takes a bit of time, and they
have some time should they chose to file suit. Mayor Green stated that based on
the general information, we'll need to map out all the use of transport information
which we currently don't have at the present time. There's no way we can make
any decisions on this matter. Director Bubb stated that he has put together a
chronological time line of events that we have available from audio tapes and
CAD reports, and summarized that for the Board. Director Bubb has also
,, provided a policy issued by Volusia County that places some responsibilities on
agencies to facilitate effective communication inn these types of calls. When the
Board goes through the timeline, they will see that this policy was not followed.
Director Bubb stated that this is just 2 more pieces of information supplied to the
Board at this time. Ms. Roberts stated that RCC was not asking for any
decisions today from the Board and that this meeting was to appraise the Board
on where RCC was and where we're trying to go. Mayor Green asked if he could
have a spreadsheet with all the players across the top of the sheet so that he can
see what's occurring at each one of these agencies. Ted Cooper requested the
same.
Mayor Green stated that he has the utmost confidence in all the Managers and
Chiefs involved.
The meetin• . adjourned at 10:17 a.m.
Approves by the,Board on July 2010
By
Allen Green, Chairman
Now
Volusia County
FLORIDA
Review of �
t r Response, January 8, 2010
The EMS Division was informed of an extended ambulance response t• / :34 a _}
on January 8, 2010 by the City of Edgewater Fire Chief, Stephen Cousins. Two concerns were
raised in his email: a prolonged response and a request to reconsider contingency ambulance
transport. During the review by this office, additional problems were identified involving
communications and patient care. This document addresses the ambulance response and
communications. Patient care is addressed under separate correspondence as it is afforded
exemption from disclosure as a public record pursuant to Chapter 401.425, Florida Statutes.
As a precursor to the review, an explanation of the current delivery model of emergency medical
services follows:
Persons requesting an emergency medical response within Volusia County initiate the
request through one of three public safety answering points (PSAP) providing
emergency medical dispatch (EMD). EMD expanded the role of the conventional 9 -1 -1
operator by including caller interrogation to determine the extent of the emergency, an
appropriate resource allocation and pre - arrival instruction to effectively provide a zero
minute response through instruction to the caller when life threats are identified. Under
our present delivery system, that information results in a concurrent, or tiered, response.
'tow
The county and various municipal fire departments comprise the first tier, providing non -
transport service from geographically -based stations throughout the community. With
the exception of the City of DeLand and four' county fire stations, all have indicated that
advanced life support is provided on a continuous basis. There is no locally defined
response time performance parameter for the first tier; however the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) has established standards for reaction time and
response time sixty (60) seconds and two hundred forty (240) seconds, respectively.
The standard recommends that basic life support units should arrive within the above
time limits in ninety percent (90 %) of responses.
The second tier is provided by EVAC Ambulance. Performance parameters are
established under contract with the County of Volusia and are consistent with nationally
recognized performance parameters and the NFPA. They include: urban emergency
responses: ninety percent (90 %) of responses in eight minutes, fifty -nine seconds, or
less (58:59) and countywide emergency responses: ninety percent (90 %) of responses
in eleven minutes, fifty -nine seconds, or less (x11:59). EVAC Ambulance's percentiles
in the above categories for fiscal year 2008 -09 were 92.069% and 96.561%,
respectively.
1 Does not include the fire station at Daytona Beach International Airport.
2 Difference between physical response of the vehicle and time of notification of the response request.
3 Difference between vehicle an- val at the scene and physical response of the vehicle.
Departme,it of Public Protection a Emergency Medical Services Division
�11rr 125 W. New York Avenue c Suite 182 a Courthouse Historic . DeLand, Florida 32720 -5415
Teiepnone: DeLand - (386) 740 -5201 « Daytona Beach - (386) 248 -8149. New Smyrna Beach - (386) 423 -3307
Fax: (386) 626 -6618 c Web: www.volusia.org
Additionally, no more than two percent (2 %) of emergency responses in urban and
countywide categories can exceed 17:59 and 39:59, respectively. Fiscal year 2008 -09
percentiles for responses exceeding these parameters were 0.168% and 0.000 %,
respectively.
Attachment A further details the above values. The historic perspective is consistent
with monthly performance. `
All times within this document are formatted hour - minute - second (h:rntn:ss) unless otherwise
indicated.
Delayed ambulance response
Computer aided dispatch (CAD) records from the Volusia County Sheriffs Office Fire -EMS
(SOFEMS) communications center confirm that EVAC Ambulance's response time' was
delayed: 0:31:04. EVAC Ambulance does not contest the delay.
At a January 15 meeting, EVAC Ambulance's Executive Director, Michael Mellon, attributed
the delay to high ambulance demand within a narrow window of time that exceeded the
number of available ambulances (based upon their demand -based deployment). Volusia
County Sheriff's Office Fire -EMS Communications Center (SOFEMS) computer aided
dispatch (CAD) records indicate a concentration of response requests outlined below:
6:43:16 a.m.: New Smyrna Beach, unincorporated area
6:52:13 a.m.: Daytona Beach, incorporated area
6:55:09 a.m.: Daytona Beach, unincorporated area
6:57:21 a.m.: Port Orange, incorporated area
7:00:39 a.m.: New Smyrna Beach, incorporated area
7:06:59 a.m.: Edgewater, incorporated area
7:09:33 a.m.: New Smyrna Beach, unincorporated area
The demand -based model that is utilized by EVAC predisposes the s stem to inherent
fluctuations in demand. As evidenced in th response, these
vulnerabilities can, and will, lead to delayed respons- ` tom i e to ime.
As it relates to contractual performance, this response did not breach established
performance parameters under the existing contract. Neither did it interfere with the patient
receiving a timely advanced life support response: Edgewater Fire - Rescue arrived on
scene 0:05:53 following time call received.
Contingency transport
On February 4, 2010, the EMS Division received an application for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) — transport from the City of Edgewater. Prior to
receipt of this application, no written request to consider contingency transport had been
received by the Division from the City of Edgewater. The application is being considered
separate from this document.
' Response time is the difference between the physical arrival of the unit on scene and the time the first ambulance
received notification of the response from SOFEMS.
Review o ;t ' a. ' Response, January 8, 2010 r March 17, 2010 a Page 2
Had a contingency transport agreement been in place on January 8, 2010, the Edgewater
ambulance arrival on scene at 7:27:05 could have allowed earlier transport.
Communications
During the review (3f this response, communications surfaced as a separate matter of
concern that, in part, contributed to the delay.
Receipt of the 9 -1 -1 call
The Regional Communications Center (RCC) was the primary public safety answering point
(PSAP) and received the 9 -1 -1 call. A telecommunicator spoke with the caller, gathered
information and relayed information to SOFEMS. RCC maintained possession of the caller:
no other agency spoke with the reporting party.
The duration of the 9 -1 -1 call from th �: address was 0:01:19. Information
gathered from the caller included: address; age; and how to access the residence. Medical
information . red by the telecommunicator inclu•
The emergency medical
dispatcher describes the patient's k ;ya in the CAD notes.
The information is 1 �����1 �4; ^
tow In the minutes following the receipt of the Edgewater 9 -1 -1 call, RCC received another in the
New Smyrna Beach area. The duration of the telephone conversation was 0:01:07 and the
recording confirms that RCC was k informed by a calle
9 -1 -1 relay
The relay of information for the Edgewater response • rovided an abbreviated description of
hP PvPnt .. oss CtrAAts a� tbdivision • The ca er s • escriptions of: ; 1 ;T" ;
were absent in that transfer o in . - •n.
Details relayed fr.m the sub e•uen, New Sm rna Beach 9 call were also condensed:
the patient had .
"
44444 44
Prioritization of ambulance response
The ambulance initially tasked to the Edgewater event was diverted to the New Smyrna
Beach 9 -1 -1 response slightly over seven minutes into their response. The suggestion to
divert was made by the responding ambulance crew which had the ability to revi
SOFEMS CAD notes for both responses. The available information indicated a _�d
k ir at the Edgewater location and � '� at the New Smyrna
e
Review of . i l Response, January 8, 2010 • March 17, 2010 Q Page 3
'r "' ' Beach location. With the concurrence of the emergency medical dispatcher at SOFEMS,
the ambulance was reassigned to the New Smyrna Beach response. Neither SOFEMS nor
the responding ambulance had access to RCC CAD information. A more detaile•
• �r' Y�
descn•tion of the Ed ewater request � � �� ; � � ����, �
� � �, „fit ); would = have allowed a more
informe• decision reaardino t R nRwa er response. Subsequently, the ambulance initially
assigned to wouldn't have been diverted and the response time
would have been M margina y re•uced.
The relay of information raises questions as to the efficacy of communications in the
presence of multiple and independent emergency medical communications centers.
information is not transmitted electronically between communication centers since CAD
systems are not integrated. Information pertinent to incident location and patient condition is
transmitted by way of telephone or radio and relies on the conveying telecommunicator's
understanding and perception of the response and the receiving telecommunicator's
interpretation and manual input of the same.
The susceptibility to error becomes clearer when giving consideration to information bein4
communicated between field providers. R C was provided information from the first arriving
apparatus indicating �, , � � In order for that
information to reach e responding ambulance, the R C telecomunicator would have to
relay it to the SOFEMS telecomrnunicator who, in turn, woutif have to convey it to the
responding ambulance. The relay of that particular information to SOFEMS was delayed
nearly ten minutes
Attachments' B and C, unofficial telephone transcripts and CAD notes from RCC and
SOFEMS, respectively, are demonstrative evidence of the aforementioned weaknesses.
This? document is intended to address the concerns raised by the City of Edgewater Fire Chief
as v ell as identifying other •robiems that occurred during the January 8, 2010 response t. 6
t
The content is based upon information provided by all o the
• Vi e; - `cies and, to the best of my knowledge and ability, is factual and complete.
Portions of this document are subject to redaction under Chapter 365.171(12), Florida Statutes.
V
Review of ° t5 Response, January 8, 2010 6 March 17, 2010 e Page 4
Attachment A: Ambulance Emergency Response Times
Ambulance Emergency Response Times by Contract October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009
s , URBAN
Response Percentile for Cumulative Response Percentile for Cumulative
Time Occu -nces RT Minute Total Percentile Time Occurrences RT Minute Total Percentile
b _ : < .. a_:..� 9 08 .._ .. ..z; ,... , , ," 1 i`�; i '�a;::as in �dn ' ?° c.. �, `# -`Jt7" GI''' - -"‘ ��,
9:00 - 9:59 892 2.873% 26,473 94,942%
10:00 - 10:59 568 1.830% 30,041 96.772%
11:00 -11 :59 358 1.153% 30,399 97.925%
12:00 - 12:59 246 0.792% 30,645 98.718% 12 :00 - 12 :59 323 0.995% 31,683 97 555%
13:00 - 13:59 135 0.435% 30,780 99.153% 13 :00 - 13:59 205 0.631% 31,888 98.186%
14:00 - 14:59 84 0.271% 30,864 99.423% 14:00 - 14:59 140 0.431% 32,028 98.617%
15:00 -15:59 76 a /6
0 .245% 30,940' 99.668 15:00 - 15:59 126 0.388% 32,154 99.005%
16:00 - 16:59 27 0.087%6 30,967 99.755% 16:00 - 16:59 55 0.169% 32,209 99,175%
17 :00 - 17:59 24 0.077% 30,991 99.832% 17:00 - 17:59 50 0.154% 32,259 99.329%
18:00 - 18:59 15 0.048% 31,006 99.881% 18:00 - 18:59 47 0.145% 32,306 99.473%
19:00 -19:59 11 0.035% 31,017 99.916% 19:00 - 19:59 29 0.089% 32,335 99.563%
20 :00 - 20:59 9 0.029% 31,026 99.945% 20:00 - 20:59 33 0.102% 32,368 99.664%
21 :00 - 21:59 7 0.023% 31,033 99.968% 21:00 - 21 :59 27 0.083% 32,395 99.748%
22:00 - 22:59 1 0000% 31,034 99.971% 22:00 - 22:59 19 0.059% 32,414 99.806%
2100 - 23:59 1 0.003% 31,035 99.974% 23:00 - 23:59 5 0.015% 32,419 99.821%
24:00 - 24 :59 1 0.003% 31,036 99.977% 24:00 - 24:59 16 0.049% 32,435 99.871%
25:00 - 25:59 3 0.010% 31,039 99.987% 25:00 - 25:59 10 0.031% 32,445 99.901%
26:00 - 26:59 1 0.003% 31,040 99.990% 26:00 - 26:59 8 0.025% 32,453 99.926%
27 :00 - 27 :59 1 0.003% 31,041 99.994% 27:00 - 27:59 9 0.028% 32,462 99.954%
28:00 - 28:59 1 0 -003% 31,042 99.997% 28:00 - 28:59 4 0.012% 32,466 99.966%
29:00 - 29:59 1 0.003% 31,043 100.000% 29:00 - 29:59 6 0.018% 32,472 99.985%
30:00 - 30 :59 30:00 - 30:59
31:00 - 31:59 31:00 - 31:59 2 0.006% 32,474 99.991%
32:00 - 32:59 32:00 - 32:59 1 0003% 32,475 99.994%
33:00 - 33 :59 33:00 - 33:59
34 :00 - 34:59 34:00 - 34:59 1 0.003% 32,476 99.997%
35:00 - 35 :59 35:00 - 35:59 1 0.003% 32,477 100.000%
Percentage of urban responses >0:17 :59 0.168% Percentage of countywide responses >0:39:59 0.000%
Attachment A: Ambulance Emergency Response Times
Page 1 of 1
'tar Attachment B: Unofficial transcript of 9 -1 -1 call to RCC and subsequent relay of information to SOFEMS.
9 - - call from !` n to RCC (duration: 0:01:19) 9-1-1 Relay from RCC to SOFEMS (duration: 0:00:56)
RCC: 9-1-1, where is the emergency? SOFEMS: Emergency communications, where is the
Caller z' emergency?
E. - RCC: Hi this is RCC, we need you in Edgewater.
RCC: Okay, how old is she? SOFEMS: Go ahead
Caller RCC: Its 6 •
RCC F SOFEMS:
RCC: Uh huh.
Caller ? ?f, �„ SOFEMS: Cross streets?
RCC: 14th and 16th.
RCC: Okay. SOFEMS: Nature?
Caller: (coughs) RCC:
RCC: And how long has this been spin • on? SOFEMS: Okay
Caller . RCC: �¢ y
SOFEMS: Okay, is that in a subdivision?
RCC: Okay RCC: Ahh . r; ...
RCC: SOFEMS: Okay, we're on the way.
RCC: Thank you.
Caller me , - - -� z SOFEMS: You're welcome
�f 3
Dv RCC: i ay. t � , f
Caller rk
RCC: 0 ay.
Caller. 4,41'6,,
RCC: Okay.
Caller: Just a minute (apparently calling out to
someone else in the residence).
RCC: Okay, I've got them... I've already got them on
the way to you, okay?
Caller: Thank you.
RCC: Is the door open so they can come on in?
Caller: Yes, it will be.
RCC: Okay, front door or garage door?
Caller: Front door, right out in the front door,
RCC: Okay, I've got them on the way to you.
Caller: Thank you. •
RCC: You're welcome.
Caller: Bye -bye.
RCC: Bye -bye.
Attachment B Unofficial transcript of 9 -1 -1 call to RCC and subsequent relay of information to SOFEIViS
Page 1 of 1
*o "r Attachment C: Unofficial CAD notes - Regional Communications Center and the Sheriffs Office Fire -EMS
Communications Center
RCC notes were manipulated from original format to provide time formatting in ascending order. CAD chocks
from two communications centers are not synchronized.
RCC CAD notes SOFEMS CAD notes
fi
01/08/10 07:06:27 BPETERS] NOTES FOR 01/08/10 1/8/2010 7:07:16 AM
OTS: CENTRAL FIRE NOTIFIED [01/08/10 Nature ; �� (000844 -115)
,in Y»a
07:06:31 MMCCORMICK] 1/8 010 7:07:16 AM
t;; [01/08/10 07:06:32 BPETERS] Ambulance service incident 1001419 1/8/2010
`. i-_ , ` [01/08/10 7:07:16 AM
07 :06:39 BPETERS] °' e (000844 -115) 1/8/2010 7:07:48
Radio Channel: FIRE 3 10/08/10 07:06:43 TBRADYI A
[01/08/10 07:06:48 BPETERS] � s (000844 -115)
[01/08/10 07:07:02 BPETERS] 1/8/2010 7 :07:57 AM
X01/08/10 07:07:09 BPETERS] CALL DELAYED FOR CODE WL WORKLOAD
FRONT DOOR IS OPEN [01/08/10 07:07:28 (008030 -130) 1/8/2010 7:10:25 AM
BPETERS] CALL DELAYED FOR CODE DIS DISTANCE
M [01/08/10 07:07:40 (008030 -130) 1/8/2010 7:10:28 AM
BPETERS] Unit Exchanged, Original Unit 198, Run Number
=401/08/10 07:07:44 BPETERS] 1001419 (008030 -130) 1/8/2010 7:14:57 AM
[LAW] PER 317A CLOSE OUT UNLESS BEING *Ambulance incident 1001419 closed (008030 -130)
REQD BY FD [01/08/10 07:08:09 1/8/2010 7:14:59 AM
MMCCORMICK] RAISING 210 (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:22:03 AM
UDTS: (E55) PATIENT CONTACT [01/08/10 RCC REQ PERMISSION TO TRANSOPRT (001036-
07:13:49 TBRADY] 101) 1/8/2010 7:22:55 AM
t, -
UDTS: {E55} PATIENT CONTACT [01/08/10b�, >.:�s ,71 V 001036 -101 )
07:1 4:22 TBRADY] 1/8/2010 7:23:03 AM
{E55} � , [01/08/10 07:14:28 TBRADY] OVER EVAC2 (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:23:24 AM
{FM55} PAGE R57 TO SCENE GET APPROVAL 210 ADV NEG ON PERMISSION TO (001036 -101)
FRON CF FOR TRANSPORT REF TO 1/8/2010 7:23:57 AM
CARDIAC ARREST [01/08/10 07:23:15 TRANSPORT (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:23:57 AM
TBRADY] RCC WAS ADV OVER EVAC2 (001036 -101)
(FM55) GET ETA AND LOCATION ON EVAC UNIT 1/8/2010 7:24:39 AM
(10 MIN NOVA/US 1) [01/08/10 07:26:59 RCC WANTED ETA (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:24:42
TBRADYI AM
{E55 }���` a,�� �� � FROM MED UNIT (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:24:59
., . AM
[01/08/10 07:28 :24 TBRADY] 41 ADV 10 -15 MIN ETA (001036 -101) 1/8/2010
cf adv neg on r57 transporting at 0725 [01/08/10 7:25:18 AM
07:29:27 TBRADY] , RCC WAS ADVISED (001036 -101) 1/8/2010 7:25:37
l {C55} UPDATE ON LOCATION AND ETA FOR MED AM
Attachment C: Unofficial CAD notes - Regional Communications Center and the Sheriffs Office Fire -EMS Communications Center
Page 1 of 2
`os UNIT (5 MIN ETA 10/US1) [01/08/10 CALL DELAYED TO SCENE: WL - WORKLOAD
07:34:43 TBRADY] (008030 -130) 1/8/2010 7:38:31 AM
CONTACTED T
O
PATIENT CNA (008030-130) 1/8/2010
{E55} " 1 ( )
7:40:55 AM
POSTS RECOMMENDED: 4B, PT, F1; POST
[01/08/10 07:36:55 TBRADY] SELECTED: IR 1/8/2010 8:23:39 AM
(C55) M41 ON SCENE [01/08/10 07:38:58 TBRADY] *Ambulance incident 1001421 closed (000812-130)
UDTS: {C55} PT CARE TO EVAC [01/08/10 07:42:29 1/8/2010 8:23:39 AM
TBRADY]
(C55) PT ON EVAC STRETCHER [01/08/10
07:42:35 TBRADY]
{C55} 2 RIDERS W/ M41 ENROUTE TO 705
[01/08/10 07:45:24 TBRADY]
{C55} NOTIFY CHAPLIN [01/08/10 07:48:44
TBRADY]
Attachment C: Unofficial CAD notes - Regional Communications Center and the Sheriffs Office Fire -EMS Communicatio Center
Page ns 1 of 2
Sabal Palm Dr - Edgewater, FL - January 8, 2010 at 07:06am.
Audio
Track Time Transmissions - Dialog
01 7:06:16 9 -1 -1 Call - 32 yr old Asthmatic Attack
02 7:06:35 Sheriffs Office Fire EMS Communications Center (Central Fire) Notified Req EVAC for an Asthma Attack on Sabal Palm
Central Fire Call Taker - Were on the way
03 7:06:42 RCC Dispatches Edgewater Fire Rescue E57
04 7:07:13 E55 to RCC - E55 is taking that call
05 7:11:02 R57 to RCC - R57 in service
06 7:13:40 E55 to RCC - Patient Contact Respiratory Arrest
7 -8 min into call EVAC Ambulance Diverted From Sabal Palm to Wayne Ave
07 ) 7:20:03 FM55 to RCC - (unreadable)
RCC to FM55 - Repeat
FM55 to RCC - Request ETA for EVAC on Sabal Palm
08 1 7:20:26 RCC to Central Fire on EVAC 2 - I need an ETA for your unit to Sabal Palm in Edgewater
Central Fire to RCC - Stand -by
09 7:21:11 Central Fire to RCC on EVAC2 - Just North of Dunlawton
10 7:21:11 FM55 to RCC - need a patch for 705
RCC to FM55 - Central Fire advised unit is still north of Dunlawton
FM55 to RCC - Acknowledge, request permission to transport, also page out Chief 57 to respond
11 7:21:43 RCC to Central Fire EVAC2 - Central Fire advised RCC to stand -by
12 7:21:59 FM55 to RCC - have R57 respond & req permission from EVAC to transport a cardiac arrest
R57 to RCC - R57 is on the way
13 1 7:22:14 Central Fire to RCC - I copied the request for transport RCC
RCC to Central Fire - 10-4 You're advising it's Code -4 Maam?
Central Fire to RCC - I'm getting permission stand -by
Central Fire to RCC - Did you advise its a cardiac arrest RCC now
RCC to Central Fire - That's affirmative it started out respitory now it's gone into cardiac arrest
Central Fire to RCC - Copy
14 7:23:38 Central Fire to RCC on EVAC2 - Negative Permission to transport, the med unit is still en -route
15 7:23:51 RCC to FM55 - Central Fire is advising negative on approval to transport
FM55 to RCC - I acknowledge thank you. Can we get an ETA for them then. Location and estimated time of arrival and confirm with
them that we are working a full code
RCC to FM55 - 10-4 they copied a cardiac arrest stand -by for ETA and location
16 1 7:24:17 RCC to Central Fire on EVAC 2 -
Central Fire to RCC - Approximately 10 minutes US1 & Nova
17 7:24:29 RCC to FM55 - They're advising approximately 10 minutes US1 & Nova
FM55 - 10 minutes from US1 & Nova - acknowledge - also we're going to need that patch - and let them know and confirm with them
we have our ALS transport unit on scene so ther's no confusion
RCC - Stand -by for the patch I'll have you select TAC15 and I'II patch you momentarily. Stand -by
18 7:25:17 RCC to FM55 - Select TAC 15 for a patch with 705
19 7:26:10 E55 to 705
'err ' ome •.�/
RCC to E55 - E55 Stand -by one
Track Time Transmissions • Dialog - (Continued)
20 7:26:36 RCC to E55 - E55 go with 705 now
E55 to 705 on 15 - Patient condition information relayed to Hospital for further instructions
CAD 7:27:05 R57 Arrived
21 7:29:15 ?? To RCC add me to that call on Sabal
RCC - Copy Division 55 I'll show you en -route
22 7:29:40 RCC to FM55 - (No Answer)
23 7:29:54 RCC to Rescue 57 - Correction RCC to FM55 -
, Chief 55 RCC go ahead I'm about a block away.
RCC to Chief 55 - I just want to confirm we do not have PD en -route and I just want to confirm if we need them en- route.
24 7:32:39 Chief 55 - Negative on PD at this time.
25 7:33:27 Chief 55 RCC - I want an update from EVAC, location and ETA
26 7:33:41 Chief 55 is requesting an update on location and ETA for Sabal Palm
27 7:34:10 Chief 55 - I want their location also
RCC to Chief 55 - I'm getting their location also
RCC to Chief 55 - US1 & Tenth - 5 minutes
28 7:35:22 FM55 to RCC - Do we still have that patch with 705 on 15
29 7:36:07 E55 to 705 - Still on scene with Asthmatic Patient EVAC still not on scene... (additional patient condition information given)
30 7:38:42 Chief 55 to RCC - EVAC 41 arriving on scene
31 7:42:13 Chief 55 to RCC - Patient loaded on EVAC stretcher patient care transferred to EVAC
32 7:42:41 RCC to Chief 55 - do you want me to keep this patch up for 705? Chief 55 -you can close it out EVAC's got it..
Wayne Ave - January 08, 2010 at 7:08am
Audio Time Events - Transmissions - Dialog - (Continue )
Track
01 7:08:38 9 -1 -1 Call
02 7:09:11 SOFECC Notified - Cardiac - SOB - Non - responsive
03 7:09:19 Dispatched E23
04 7:11:15 E 23 En -Route - Chest •ain - Unres•onsive
05 7:13:55 E23 On- Scene
06 7:15:28 E23 Patient Contact
07 7:28:23 E23 Patient Care transferred to EVAC
08 7:34:10 E23 ln-Service
Slew vie
Volusia County Sheriff's Office Central Fire
General Information I Joint Tactical Channel Usage I 06/15/08
PURPOSE
To provide guidelines for EVAC Ambulance Response on Fire/Rescue Tactical Channels (TAC)
RESPONSIBILITY
All Communications, Fire/Rescue & EVAC personnel shall be familiar with these
guidelines.
PROCEDURE/GUIDELINE
A_ EVAC Ambulance units responding to fire/rescue alarms will be assigned to
a TAC utilized by fire/rescue for that alarm. THIS ASSIGNMENT WILL BE
PROVIDED TO THE MEDIC UNIT IN THE NOTES VIA THE MDT.
B. The responding EVAC unit will select the appropriate TAC & notify the
appropriate Cue/rescue dispatch that they are responding by indicating
their unit number and the incident location. Dispatch shall acknowledge by
echoing the information followed by the time.
• "Medic 67 to Deltona - responding to 777 Deltona Blvd
• SOFECC units will advise Central Fire they are enroute via their MDT if
available
• SOFECC Dispatch will announce the Medic unit number with the
Fire /Rescue unit at the Tac position in their initial announcement of
information
C. When the Medic unit arrives on scene they will advise the appropriate
fire /rescue dispatch that they have arrived on scene.
• "Medic 67 to Deltona on- scene.
• SOFECC units will advise on -scene via their MDT if available
If the Medic unit arrives on scene prior to responding fire /rescue unit(s), they
may provide the appropriate fire /rescue dispatch with an update on the
incident, request additional equipment needed, or advise to reduce the
responding unit to non - emergency.
• "Medic 67 to Deltona on -scene with FHP"
• "Medic 92 to RCC on -scene — advising two vehicles with one vehicle
possible entrapment.
1
Likewise, if a fire /rescue unit arrives on scene prior to the Medic unit, they
,, may reduce the inbound Medic unit to non - emergency or request additional
equipment via their Communications Center.
• "Engine 96 to Dispatch on- scene, accident appears minor — reduce
additional unit to non - emergency."
D. In the event that the responding Medic unit is diverted to another emergency
call, SOFECC dispatch will advise the appropriate Fire/Rescue dispatch
The newly assigned Medic unit come up on the pre - assigned TAC and
notify the appropriate Fore/Rescue dispatch of theme response and replacement
of the previous unit
• 'Medic 85 to Deltona responding to 777 Deltona Blvd'
E. Unit to unit transmissions will be an acceptable practice. However the
following should not be overlooked.
• TACs should not be used as a talk- around. Only short, concise and
pertinent alarm information should be exchanged.
• Unit to unit transmissions should not be used to circumvent the
communication process.
F. At all times for all alarms the appropriate Fire /Rescue dispatch will notify
SOFECC dispatch of the alarm and all appropriate information for that alarm
via the normal mode used for the transfer of the alarm. This includes if a
'iotar Medic unit goes responding to an alarm before the call is transferred to
SOFECC dispatch by the appropriate Fire/Rescue dispatch
• Appropriate transfer mode can include; interface, 9-1 -1 transfer, ten
digit phone transfer or via radio.
SPECIFIC APPROVAL
2