HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7829
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7829)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/6/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PAFD Performance Report FY17 Q2
Title: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the
Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly
Performance Report for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017.
Background and Discussion
In Fiscal Year 2015 the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) identified performance
reporting as a key initiative, and began reporting on key performance measures
quarterly.
The report provides overall calls for service information, as well as more detailed
information on the key service areas, including Emergency Medical Services, Fire
Suppression, Rescue and Hazardous Materials Response, and Fire Prevention. The
report also provides information on mutual and automatic aid with our regional public
safety partners and internal workforce planning efforts.
Performance measures include the following:
Calls for Service: This data provides information on the final outcome of all
emergency response calls. The data is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record
Management System, and uses standardized call type codes, which are defined
by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The report includes
overall call volume by primary category, and a detailed listing of call type in the
service type sections.
Response Times: This aspect measures the time it takes from an emergency call
or request for response being created in the dispatch center to the arrival of
resources to the scene of the emergency. This information is tracked in the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, and the performance goals, or service
levels, are set by Council in accordance with county and national standards.
Ambulance Transports: The report provides the number of ambulatory transports
to hospitals or other medical care facilities, and the proportion of Emergency
Medical Calls that included transports. This information is tracked in the Fire
Department’s Emergency Medical Record Management System.
Fire Containment: This measures the proportion of building and structure fires
that are contained to the area or room of origin within Palo Alto and Stanford
Campus.
Mutual and Automatic Aid: This includes the number and proportion of all
incidents in which the PAFD provided aid to neighboring communities, as well as
the aid received from neighboring Fire Departments. This information is tracked
in the CAD System.
Permits: This provides the count of facility, electric vehicle, and solar permits
issued by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This information is currently tracked in the
Development Center’s Records Management System.
Inspections: A count of the total number of Hazardous Materials and State
Mandated inspections is provided. In addition, an estimated number of
inspections to be completed for the year is also provided to assess overall
workload performance to date.
Fire and Life Safety Plans Reviewed: This provides a total count of all plans
reviewed, as well as the proportion of plans that were reviewed within the time
guidelines.
Vacancies and Off-Line Employees: This section provides the total number of
budgeted full-time equivalent line personnel, current vacancies, and employees
that are off line from workers compensation or light duty. This information is
obtained from the Fire Department’s Staffing and Scheduling System (TeleStaff),
as well as the City’s Personnel Management System.
Succession Planning Metrics: This provides the number and proportion of line
personnel that are eligible to retire, or will be eligible within the next five years.
This information is tracked in the City’s Personnel Management System. This
report also provides the total number of hours line personnel have spent in an
acting capacity. Personnel serving in an acting capacity are a key component of
the Department’s overall succession planning efforts. Acting capacity allows
junior officers to learn the responsibilities of higher ranks with guidance from
senior officers. This information is tracked in TeleStaff.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Training hours: The total number of training hours completed by all line
personnel is provided, as well as the average number of hours per each line
personnel on staff. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record
Management System. Local, State and Federal mandates require fire personnel
to train a minimum of 20 hours per month.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A: Coverletter
ATTACHMENT B: FY17 Q2 Peformance Report
ATTACHMENT C: Thank You Letters
ATTACHMENT D: EMS Customer Survey
1 | P a g e
Palo Alto Fire Department
Quarterly Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2017, Second Quarter
Calls for Service
The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) responded to a total of 2,292 calls for service in the second
quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. This includes responses within Palo Alto, Stanford, and neighboring cities to
provide Automatic and Mutual Aid. Approximately eighty-one (81%) of calls are generated from Palo
Alto, fourteen percent (14%) from Stanford, and the remainder from neighboring cities or requests for
regional fire deployment.
The majority of calls were for Rescue and Emergency Medical Services, making up sixty percent (60%) of
the responses. Table 1 below shows the main categories of the calls to which PAFD responded. Calls are
classified based on the actual event occurred, rather than the initial call request.
Table 1. Calls for Service
Type FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
Emergency Medical Service 1352 1380
Good Intent 400 346
False Alarm & False Call 269 326
Service Call 115 135
Rescue & Hazardous Material 58 74
Fire 37 29
Other 3 2
Grand Total 2234 2292
Good Intent and False Alarm calls make up the second largest types of responses. Most calls for service
that may be a true threat of fire, gas or other emergency hazard are actually found to be something else
after Firefighters investigate the situation. These calls are coded as Good Intent calls. As well, many fire
alarm activations are from causes other than fire or emergency hazard. These situations are categorized
as False Alarm calls.
Emergency Medical Services
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is the primary service that the Palo Alto Fire Department provides to
Palo Alto and Stanford. While this shift toward EMS is being seen across the region, the Palo Alto Fire
Department is the only Fire Department in the County that provides ambulance and transport services.
This is especially valuable to our community. Indeed, the 2016 National Citizen Survey rated the EMS
and Ambulance Service as the highest city-provided service, with a positive rating (excellent or good) of
97%.
The most recent Report from the Council on Aging Silicon Valley from 2012 indicates that Palo Alto has
the highest percentage of the oldest seniors (75 and over) in the County. This population relies most on
our services, with a service utilization rate more than six times greater than the rest of the population.
2 | P a g e
Of the 1,380 Emergency Medical Service calls the PAFD responded to in the second quarter of Fiscal Year
2017, the overwhelming majority were for medical, trauma and cardiac calls that did not involve a
vehicle accident.
Table 2. EMS Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
NFIRS Code Description
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1255 1276
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 72 73
324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 14 19
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 11 9
381 Rescue or EMS standby 0 3
Total 1352 1380
Transports
Number of Transports 977 962
Percent of EMS Calls resulting in transport 72.3% 69.7%
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes 91.5% 92.9%
Percent of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes 98.3% 98.9%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls 04:47 04:48
EMS transports continue to occur on more than two-thirds of all EMS responses, this quarter seventy
percent (70%) resulted in an ambulance transport to a local hospital or care facility. This is the primary
source of revenue generated from emergency medical services, and revenue received in this quarter is
on track with budget projections.
Response Time Goal Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8
minutes.
This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes ninety-three
percent (93%) of the time.
Response Time Goal Met: At least 99% of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls
within 12 minutes.
This quarter the PAFD paramedic responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes ninety-nine
percent (99%) of the time.
3 | P a g e
Fire Suppression
Very few of the potential fire calls coming into dispatch turn out to be a real fire once PAFD investigates
the scene and cause of the concerning elements. This quarter PAFD responded to 29 calls where fire was
present, with 27 in Palo Alto or Stanford. There were five building fires that the Department responded
to, of which four were contained to the area of origin.
These fires happened periodically throughout the quarter and vary in degree. The first incident occurred
on the 400 block of Guinda Street during the second week of October. Engine 61 responded to the call,
with the occupant reporting a smell of smoke. Upon inspection a malfunctioning light fixture was found
to be the cause, and salvage covers were placed in the room of origin and the crew began to expose the
structural members of the ceiling around the light fixture. Firefighters noted charring of wood in the
ceiling and some smoldering insulation. During the overhaul process 2 rafters were partially removed.
The ceiling was then shored up to ensure that it would not fall before it was repaired.
The second incident occurred the next week on the 300 block of Tennessee Lane. Engine 65 arrived on
scene with smoke showing from a single story single family residence. The fire was found to be burning
above the stove top impinging on a structural beam above it. Fire crews made entry and extinguished
the fire. Engine 65 and Medic 62 completed overhaul, reported no extension into the walls or ceiling and
Truck 66 completed ventilation.
In late November, on the 2100 block of East Bayshore Road, Engine 63 responded to a report of smoke
detector activation in a kitchen area. Dispatch advised that several more detectors were activated. The
incident was upgraded to a first alarm assignment after a passerby stated it looks like fire in building.
Firefighters dressed in full PPE and made access through the door leading to a large kitchen/lounge area.
There was no fire visible, only smoke with a single sprinkler head flowing near the area of a small
refrigerator and microwave. A portable hot/cold water system appeared to be burned which extended
to a wall counter with charring to the back wall and ceiling. Crews stopped water flow from the sprinkler
head, cleared the second floor, with no occupants found. Additional units initiated ventilation, and set
up an electric fan to remove the smoke. The Fire Department worked closely with the Utilities
Department to safely shut down the utilities only in the immediate area so the rest of the business could
continue operating. The sprinkler system was put back in service and the fire alarm was restored.
On the 3100 block of Middlefield Road, during the first week of December Engine 65 arrived on scene
and noted smoke showing from a medium sized two-story apartment with a sub-level parking garage.
Crews verified that all occupants were out, and the resident stated she was cooking and had food on the
stove while she was upstairs. She came downstairs to find smoke and an activated smoke detector
before calling 911 and exiting the apartment. A fire was located on top of the stove, which was clearly
visible from the kitchen window. Firefighters pulled a hose line to the front door and were able to
extinguish the fire. Once Truck 66 and Engine 62 verified there was no extension and all smoke had been
ventilated, Incident Command cleared them and Engine 65 remained on scene to assist displaced
residents and wait for Red Cross to arrive. Building owner and residents were advised not to enter unit
until a restoration company could remove debris and repair the damage.
4 | P a g e
The fifth fire of the quarter was the largest occurring on the 2100 block of Louis Road. Battalion Chief 66
responded to a structure Fire was the first to arrive on scene to a structure fire call, and found a fully
involved structure with the possibility of rescue. A 2nd alarm was requested. The homeowner was
found two houses down from his home; he indicated that he was the only person in the house and an
"All Clear" was given.
Engine 63 made entry through the front door for fire attack and rescue. The crew encountered high
heat with heavy fire and smoke conditions. The crew requested back up assistance to help with the
hose line. During fire attack, an "All Clear" was given indicating no victims were trapped inside the
home. The fire was knocked down within 30 minutes of arrival. Engine 63 remained onscene with Truck
66 to continue salvaging belongings and overhauling the fire. A fire investigator and a City building
inspector responded. There was minor damage to one neighboring house. No firefighters or civilians
were injured.
Table 3. Fire Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
NFIRS Code Description
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 8 8
131 Passenger vehicle fire 4 6
111 Building fire 6 5
100 Fire, other 8 3
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 0 2
150 Outside rubbish fire, other 3 1
170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, other 0 1
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 1
142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 0 1
162 Outside equipment fire 1 1
114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 1 0
116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 1 0
130 Mobile property fire, other 1 0
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 1 0
140 Natural vegetation fire, other 1 0
143 Grass fire 1 0
Total 37 29
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes 95.0% 85.9%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls 05:42 05:22
Fire Containment
Percent of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin 50% 80%
5 | P a g e
Response Time Goal Not Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls
within 8 minutes.
This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes eighty-six percent
(86%) of the time. This is consistent with the small improvement that was seen in the prior fiscal year, a
few percentage points above historical performance. The Fire Department continues to explore ways to
improve on this measure.
Fire Containment Goal Not Met: At least 90% of building and structure fires contained to the
room or area of origin.
This quarter there were five building or structure fires within Palo Alto or Stanford, of which eighty
percent (80%) were contained to the room or area of origin.
6 | P a g e
Rescue and Hazardous Materials
The Fire Department responded to a total of 74 rescue and hazardous material calls. The most common
rescue call is for the removal of victims from a stalled elevator, which accounts for eighteen percent
(18%) of these call types.
Table 4. Rescue and Hazardous Materials Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
NFIRS Code Description
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 12 13
444U Power line down - PA Utilities Related 2 8
400 Hazardous condition, other 7 8
331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 5 6
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 3 6
412U Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) - PA Utilities Related 3 6
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 0 5
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 4
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 3 4
442 Overheated motor 3 3
422 Chemical spill or leak 1 2
410 Flammable gas or liquid condition, other 0 2
365 Watercraft rescue 0 1
461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 0 1
424U Carbon monoxide incident-PA Utilities Related 0 1
424 Carbon monoxide incident 0 1
420 Toxic condition, other 0 1
444 Power line down 2 1
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 2 1
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 2 0
471 Explosive, bomb removal 1 0
480 Attempted burning, illegal action, other 1 0
413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 3 0
Total 58 74
Response Times
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to
Rescue & Hazardous Materials calls
06:04 06:16
7 | P a g e
Mutual and Automatic Aid
The Fire Department has automatic aid agreements with five regional Fire Departments, including
Mountain View, Menlo Park, Woodside, Los Altos, and Santa Clara County Fire. The PAFD primarily
provides aid to Mountain View, which is due to the virtual consolidation effort with the cities of
Mountain View and Los Altos, which was completed at in the first quarter of FY15.
The Deputy Chief of Operations communicates regularly with the Mountain View Fire Department to
review the agreement and ensure Palo Alto’s resources are not overly relied upon. In this quarter, the
PAFD provided mutual or automatic aid to two jurisdictions on a total of 116 incidents. Five agencies
provided mutual or automatic aid for calls within Palo Alto or Stanford on a total of 143 incidents.
Table 5. Mutual and Automatic Aid Performance Measures
Mutual and Auto Aid Provided FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
Agency
Mountain View Fire 92 92
Santa Clara County Fire 24 24
All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 116 116
Mutual and Auto Aid Received
Agency
Mountain View Fire 73 116
Menlo Park Fire 20 16
Santa Clara County Fire 3 6
Woodside Fire 5 4
Moffett Fire 1 1
All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 102 143
8 | P a g e
Fire Prevention
The Fire Prevention Bureau ensures compliance with the Fire Code for the safety of occupants and
protection of property. Fire Inspectors perform fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan checks, permitting, and
field inspections with the goal of ensuring all construction complies with local and national codes.
The number of plans to review remained consistent with the prior fiscal year. The Bureau has kept up
with reviewing the majority of plans on time despite an overall increase in plans this year, with ninety-
six percent (96%) of plans reviewed on time.
Table 6. Prevention Bureau Performance Measures
Permits FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
Fire Permits Issued 151 105
Electric Vehicle Permits Issued 13 28
Solar Permits Issued 32 31
Inspections
Hazardous Material Inspections Completed 98 82
Number of Hazardous Material Inspections for the year 207 440
Percent of Hazardous Material Facilities Inspections Complete 90.3% 41.6%
State Mandated Inspections Completed 114 106
Number of State Mandated Inspections for the year 340 397
Percent of State Mandated Facilities Inspections Complete 58.5% 51.6%
Fire and Life Safety Plan Review
Plans Reviewed 399 401
Percent of Reviews Completed On-Time 100% 96.3%
9 | P a g e
Workforce Planning
The Department operates daily emergency response operations with a total of 96.00 FTE line personnel.
This includes three battalions of crews that staff six stations in the City and Stanford 24 hours each day.
Over the last quarter, the department has operated with 12.0 positions vacant and 7.0 employees off-
line creating a total of 19.00 FTE positions that require backfilling.
The permanent vacancies are solely within the Firefighter and Apparatus Operator Classifications.
During this Fiscal Year the Department will conduct a promotional process for Apparatus Operator,
which will shift all vacancies to the Firefighter rank.
There has been an increase in the number of personnel currently eligible to retire. As of the end of the
second quarter, twenty-seven percent (27%) of personnel are eligible to retire. The department is
expecting a handful of retirements this year and next, and has begun the planning process for another
entry level hiring process.
Table 7. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees FY17 Q2
Classification Budgeted
FTE
Vacancies Off-Line Employees
(Workers
Comp/Light Duty)
Personnel
On Line
Percent of
Personnel
On Line
Battalion Chief 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 100%
Fire Captain 22.00 0.00 2.00 20.00 91%
Fire Apparatus Operator
& Fire Fighters
70.00 12.00 5.00 53.00 76%
TOTAL 96.00 12.00 7.00 77.00 80%
Table 8. Succession Planning
FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2
Number of Line Personnel Currently Eligible to Retire 18 24
Number of Line Personnel Eligible to Retire within Five Years 23 17
Percent of all Line Personnel Eligible to Retire over Five Years 43.2% 45.6%
Number of Acting Battalion Chief Hours 372 382
Number of Acting Captain Hours 2696 1578
Number of Acting Apparatus Operator Hours 7054 6205
Training
Hours of Training Completed 6091 5794
Average Hours per Line Personnel 73.39 75.25
From: Joseph Yang [mailto:yangjoseph@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Fire; publicsafety@lists.stanford.edu
Cc: Joe Yang
Subject: Thank you ‐ turkey debacle
Hello:
Last Thursday, October 13, around 10 am, a whole crew of first responders ‐‐ Stanford PD officer Rick
Rondeau (whom I had previously met at the Stanford community police academy), a Stanford CSO, and
Palo Alto firemen and paramedics ‐‐ came to help me at the Stanford Dish. I'm writing to thank you all
for helping me during my moment of need. It was very much appreciated.
I had injured my back when I fell on a stone while kicking at a flock of wild turkeys that had chased my
wife off the pavement, and were trying to bite her.
It was so painful that I laid sprawled on the path, and couldn't move, for a long time. After about 45
minutes, I could finally get up, and was adamant that I only wanted a ride down to my car to go home.
So I climbed into the Stanford PD vehicle. It was so painful I could barely sit, and I had to get out again.
Throughout this process, there must have been 6 of you in all, very patiently and professionally waiting
for me, while I figured out what I wanted to do.
When I was again ready to go home, one of you firemen or paramedics (sorry, I don't remember your
name), gently and tactfully suggested that I reconsider going to the ER. You said that, in your
experience, that much pain for that long suggested more than just a simple bruise. I finally agreed, but
wanted to go down to El Camino ER, instead of Stanford ER (too busy). The paramedics kindly said they
would take me wherever I wanted.
At the ER, they found I had fractured two ribs, plus 4 smaller bones on the spinal column itself. But no
internal bleeding, no ruptured spleen, and no torn kidney. One more inch, and I might have broken my
back, or injured the spinal cord and become paralyzed. All in all, it was my lucky day.
To whomever encouraged me to go, please accept my warmest thanks. You had a great understanding
of human nature, and used exactly the right type and amount of persuasion. Pushing harder would've
made me dig in, and pushing less would have validated my desire to not go.
On a lighter note, I hope you all got a kick out of the incident, and a funny story to share back at the
station house. As I heal, I'm laughing about the absurdity of it all ‐‐ who would have thought urban
hiking and turkeys could be dangerous?
Most importantly, please eat as much turkey as you possibly can this Thanksgiving. I really want to get
back at those bastards.
Thanks again!
All the best,
Joe Yang
Number of Your Patients in this ReportYour Score
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
EMS System Report
Palo Alto, CA
1515 Center Street
City of Palo Alto
1 (877) 583-3100
www.EMSSurveyTeam.com
Client 9701
service@EMSSurveyTeam.com
Lansing, Mi 48096
9793.64
Number of Patients in this Report
15,840
Number of Transport Services in All EMS DB
135
Page 1 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Executive Summary
This report contains data from 97 City of Palo Alto patients who returned a questionnaire between
10/01/2016 and 12/31/2016.
The overall mean score for the standard questions was 93.64; this is a difference of 1.13 points from the
overall EMS database score of 92.51.
The current score of 93.64 is a change of -0.51 points from last period's score of 94.15. This was the 31st
highest overall score for all companies in the database.
You are ranked 9th for comparably sized companies in the system.
80.88% of responses to standard questions had a rating of Very Good, the highest rating. 98.77% of all
responses were positive.
Page 2 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Demographics — This section provides demographic information about the patients who responded
to the survey for the current and the previous periods. The information comes from the data you
submitted. Compare this demographic data to your eligible population. Generally, the demographic
profile will approximate your service population.
Total
This PeriodLast Period
OtherFemaleMale OtherMaleTotalFemale
Under 18 3 2 05 264 0
18 to 30 3 2 05 110 0
31 to 44 6 4 010 671 0
45 to 54 1 5 06 693 0
55 to 64 3 5 08 693 0
65 and older 31 40 071 346531 0
Total 47 58 0105 97 42 55 0
Gender
Page 3 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Dispatch Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern dispatcher operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service
92.64
92.45
0.19
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service
92.00
92.40
-0.40
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.40
Variance1000
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived
92.01
90.80
1.21
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
0.34
100
91.88
Variance
0
Your Score
92.22
Page 4 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Ambulance Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern ambulance operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner
92.90
91.84
1.06
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Cleanliness of the ambulance
96.43
94.29
2.14
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Comfort of the ride
93.68
87.62
6.06
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the person driving the ambulance
94.19
93.64
0.55
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
2.41
100
91.87
0
Your Score
94.28
Page 5 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Medic Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance
95.17
94.37
0.80
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously
95.83
94.23
1.60
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family
95.45
93.91
1.54
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the medics
95.06
94.31
0.75
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment
94.58
92.74
1.84
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)
94.10
92.33
1.77
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort
93.43
90.59
2.84
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Page 6 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Medic Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Medics' concern for your privacy
93.13
93.39
-0.26
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.26
Variance1000
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person
94.89
94.23
0.66
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.34
100
93.34
0
Your Score
94.68
Page 7 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Billing Staff Assessment Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern office operations. The analysis contains the mean
scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score,
the second column is your variance from the database score.
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office
89.05
88.41
0.64
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs
86.28
88.38
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-2.10
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
Variance
100
-0.72
88.40
0
Your Score
87.68
Page 8 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Overall Assessment Analysis
This analysis details the section results that concern assessment of operations. The analysis contains the
mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database
score, the second column is your variance from the database score.
How well did our staff work together to care for you
94.89
93.59
1.30
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility
94.29
93.56
0.73
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment
95.57
93.22
2.35
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged
86.05
87.36
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-1.31
Variance1000
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service
94.58
93.34
1.24
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others
92.00
92.75
-0.75
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.75
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
100
0.93
92.31
0
Your Score
93.24
Page 9 of 28
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Question Analysis
This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores for this monthly reporting
period. The first column shows the company score from the previous period, the second column shows the change, the third
column shows your score for this period and the fourth column shows the total Database score.
Dispatch Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64-1.20 92.4593.84
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00-2.64 92.4094.64
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 92.010.44 90.8091.57
Ambulance Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90-3.46 91.8496.36
Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.431.02 94.2995.41
Comfort of the ride 93.680.82 87.6292.86
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19-2.24 93.6496.43
Medic Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17-1.74 94.3796.91
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.83-0.34 94.2396.17
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.450.65 93.9194.80
Skill of the medics 95.06-2.62 94.3197.68
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.580.01 92.7494.57
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)94.102.41 92.3391.69
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.431.95 90.5991.48
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.13-0.05 93.3993.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.89-0.06 94.2394.95
Billing Staff Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05-1.08 88.4190.13
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28-4.16 88.3890.44
Page 10 of 28
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Question Analysis (Continued)
Overall Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89-0.81 93.5995.70
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29-0.49 93.5694.78
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.571.81 93.2293.76
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.050.98 87.3685.07
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation 94.58-0.58 93.3495.16
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00-2.18 92.7594.18
Page 11 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Dec
2015
Jan
2016
Feb
2016
Mar
2016
Apr
2016
May
2016
Jun
2016
Jul
2016
Aug
2016
Sep
2016
Oct
2016
Nov
2016
Dec
2016
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 95.83 94.57 97.00 97.22 100.00 95.03 93.75 94.64 94.44 91.24 98.15 90.13 83.33
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 95.65 94.32 96.00 97.22 100.00 93.95 93.18 94.64 94.91 93.75 98.15 88.89 83.33
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 91.13 93.59 87.50 97.22 95.83 93.08 93.15 94.64 93.48 82.21 96.30 88.95 100.00
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 94.77 94.74 92.31 98.91 94.44 97.28 94.33 98.53 95.38 97.62 98.48 89.42 91.67
Cleanliness of the ambulance 98.73 93.09 96.15 100.00 93.75 97.56 95.83 96.88 95.90 92.86 98.48 94.90 100.00
Comfort of the ride 95.76 90.63 92.31 96.51 93.75 94.51 93.41 95.31 93.03 90.48 95.45 92.65 91.67
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 98.25 95.31 96.00 99.40 96.88 95.24 94.17 96.88 97.13 94.05 95.45 93.14 100.00
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 98.28 97.81 93.75 98.84 97.22 96.43 96.35 98.53 96.37 97.22 98.57 92.65 100.00
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 98.28 96.05 94.79 99.43 97.22 96.43 96.65 98.53 95.24 97.22 97.86 94.23 100.00
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 97.81 96.05 95.83 100.00 97.22 97.02 96.51 95.59 95.90 90.33 97.79 93.63 100.00
Skill of the medics 98.68 95.98 96.74 98.84 97.22 96.95 95.60 97.06 97.62 98.53 97.14 93.37 100.00
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 98.04 96.00 95.45 98.13 94.44 96.15 93.75 98.33 94.17 92.65 97.79 92.02 100.00
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 97.22 93.29 94.32 95.83 100.00 96.55 92.31 94.23 93.65 82.21 97.41 91.46 100.00
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 96.43 94.32 92.86 98.48 89.29 93.38 92.41 89.29 93.52 85.79 95.00 92.07 100.00
Medics' concern for your privacy 98.56 94.39 93.18 98.21 87.63 95.14 94.38 98.44 92.27 91.18 97.50 90.10 100.00
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 99.11 97.64 92.43 100.00 97.22 95.39 95.74 97.06 94.58 94.12 98.53 92.16 100.00
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 92.39 89.58 92.50 86.00 100.00 87.50 86.48 96.43 90.22 84.38 94.64 85.04 100.00
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 92.86 83.75 91.67 84.00 100.00 87.50 84.94 95.83 90.00 87.50 94.64 80.25 100.00
How well did our staff work together to care for you 98.61 95.10 96.88 97.62 97.22 96.53 94.29 94.12 95.76 97.06 99.29 91.33 100.00
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 99.07 94.61 95.83 99.38 97.22 95.17 94.78 97.06 95.18 91.18 97.79 91.33 100.00
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 99.07 95.37 95.83 96.98 96.88 94.74 94.95 92.19 95.34 89.76 97.66 93.89 100.00
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 90.98 86.84 88.80 89.00 100.00 91.91 85.55 85.94 86.54 78.64 89.32 81.93 100.00
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 99.54 95.28 94.79 98.84 97.22 96.05 96.13 95.31 95.49 93.75 99.24 91.15 100.00
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 97.50 94.27 95.83 98.75 100.00 95.30 96.07 93.75 95.26 90.69 96.88 88.40 91.67
Your Master Score 97.08 94.39 94.30 97.65 96.47 95.18 93.97 95.43 94.55 91.64 97.16 91.09 96.93
Your Total Responses 64 65 29 49 10 48 105 17 66 22 36 58 3
Monthly Breakdown
Below are the monthly responses that have been received for your service. It details the individual score for
each question as well as the overall company score for that month.
Page 12 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Monthly tracking of Overall Survey Score
Page 13 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question
Increases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions
(if applicable)
91.69 2.40 92.3394.10
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48 1.96 90.5993.43
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76 1.81 93.2295.57
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41 1.02 94.2996.43
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07 0.98 87.3686.05
Comfort of the ride 92.86 0.82 87.6293.68
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80 0.65 93.9195.45
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
91.57 0.45 90.8092.01
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your
treatment
94.57 0.01 92.7494.58
Decreases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.44 -4.17 88.3886.28
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.36 -3.46 91.8492.90
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.64 -2.64 92.4092.00
Skill of the medics 97.68 -2.62 94.3195.06
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.43 -2.24 93.6494.19
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18 -2.18 92.7592.00
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.91 -1.74 94.3795.17
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.84 -1.19 92.4592.64
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.13 -1.08 88.4189.05
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.70 -0.81 93.5994.89
Page 14 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Greatest Scores Above Benchmarks by Question
Highest Above Benchmark
This
Period Variance
Total DB
Score
Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.292.1396.43
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 94.231.695.83
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.222.3595.57
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.911.5595.45
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 94.370.895.17
Skill of the medics 94.310.7595.06
How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.591.3194.89
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.230.6694.89
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 93.341.2394.58
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 92.741.8394.58
Page 15 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.4395.41 1.02 94.29
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.8396.17 -0.34 94.23
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.5793.76 1.81 93.22
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.4594.80 0.65 93.91
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.1796.91 -1.74 94.37
Lowest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.0585.07 0.98 87.36
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.2890.44 -4.16 88.38
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.0590.13 -1.08 88.41
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.0094.18 -2.18 92.75
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.0094.64 -2.64 92.40
Page 16 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Key Drivers — This section shows the relative importance of each question to the respondents' overall
satisfaction. The greater the coefficient number, the more important the issue is to your patients' overall
satisfaction. The questions are arranged based on their weighted importance value.
Question Your Score
Correlation
Coeffecient
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family .91442164695.45
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment .90545251295.57
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs .90452561486.28
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment .8954199594.58
Medics' concern for your privacy .8927420293.13
Skill of the medics .86814651295.06
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person .8663175894.89
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance .83892223595.17
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived .81064218992.01
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously .80346382195.83
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner .79624534192.90
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable).77722947994.10
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort .77491482493.43
How well did our staff work together to care for you .77115359694.89
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service .7672412992.64
Comfort of the ride .76681958293.68
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service .76204623292.00
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility .74928073394.29
Cleanliness of the ambulance .74578071796.43
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged .65714511786.05
Skill of the person driving the ambulance .63769969294.19
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office .62562838189.05
Page 17 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Company Comparisons — The following chart gives a comparison of the mean score for each question as scored
by comparable companies. Your company is highlighted. There is also a green-shaded highlight of the highest
score for each question. This will show how you compare to similar companies.
Your
Company A B C D E F
Comparison Companies
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 97.34 92.72 94.28 94.10 84.7690.3092.64
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 97.40 93.35 93.90 94.44 87.6087.3392.00
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 95.48 92.43 90.33 93.01 83.0186.8692.01
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 93.97 90.98 96.04 93.10 84.1789.0892.90
Cleanliness of the ambulance 98.18 94.51 96.38 95.06 88.0890.2396.43
Comfort of the ride 88.20 78.70 88.57 91.56 79.2582.4893.68
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 98.61 93.75 96.07 95.73 87.4288.5294.19
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 98.21 93.90 97.19 97.32 88.9991.4695.17
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 99.54 94.71 97.47 95.83 89.5590.4395.83
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 99.07 93.75 96.59 95.54 87.6990.0695.45
Skill of the medics 99.06 93.90 97.19 95.73 89.2790.4395.06
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 97.60 92.38 96.43 94.33 86.3389.7994.58
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 97.02 92.42 97.08 96.37 84.9288.1394.10
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.89 90.67 95.73 93.66 83.1486.1193.43
Medics' concern for your privacy 96.81 94.62 96.04 95.19 86.9188.3193.13
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 99.06 94.64 98.24 96.25 88.3589.3894.89
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 92.39 83.06 93.18 91.89 82.3584.7289.05
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 91.30 82.29 93.75 91.89 82.2284.3386.28
How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.64 94.64 96.33 94.87 87.7990.0094.89
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 95.21 93.98 97.39 94.59 88.2789.8794.29
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 96.15 93.75 96.07 95.33 87.7089.9395.57
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 93.13 87.72 91.67 89.91 80.9081.0186.05
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 97.64 93.45 98.26 95.51 86.0288.9294.58
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 95.83 92.68 97.86 92.51 83.9586.4192.00
Overall score 93.64 88.25 96.44 92.14 95.70 94.50 85.97
National Rank 31 88 8 54 13 21 93
Comparable Size (Medium) Company Rank 9 2 27
Page 18 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Yo
u
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
91.92Total Score
Benchmark Comparison
93.64
To
t
a
l
D
B
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
z
e
d
92.51 91.57
Medics' concern for your privacy 91.8793.13 93.39 93.00
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.1192.64 92.45 91.97
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 91.6394.58 92.74 92.46
Skill of the medics 93.7895.06 94.31 93.81
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 92.2395.45 93.91 93.51
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 93.4394.29 93.56 92.57
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 91.7192.01 90.80 90.22
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.4995.17 94.37 94.07
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 90.4393.43 90.59 90.71
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 90.3786.28 88.38 86.09
Comfort of the ride 88.4093.68 87.62 87.97
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 90.9394.10 92.33 92.01
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 90.3489.05 88.41 86.41
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.0492.90 91.84 91.21
How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.2894.89 93.59 93.21
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.0194.89 94.23 93.66
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 86.1286.05 87.36 85.74
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.9994.19 93.64 93.08
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.4692.00 92.40 91.49
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.4194.58 93.34 92.72
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 91.3992.00 92.75 91.91
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 92.8595.83 94.23 93.85
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 92.8395.57 93.22 92.15
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.0096.43 94.29 93.84
Number of Surveys for the period 97
Page 19 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Benchmark Trending Graphic - Below are the monthly scores for your service. It details the overall score for each month as well as your
subscribed benchmarks for that month.
Page 20 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Cumulative Comparisons
This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores over the entire
lifetime of the dataset. The first column shows the company score and the second column details the total
database score.
Your Score Total DB
91.7294.43Overall Facility Rating
Dispatch 94.01 91.51
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.2594.90
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 91.9894.40
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 90.2992.74
Ambulance 95.16 91.3
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.6295.43
Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.8296.43
Comfort of the ride 87.0692.91
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.7195.86
Medic 95.55 92.74
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.7596.86
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.6696.66
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.3996.26
Skill of the medics 93.8196.61
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 91.8895.03
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.6793.84
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 90.2293.64
Medics' concern for your privacy 92.6494.68
Page 21 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Cumulative Comparisons (Continued)
Your Score Total DB
91.7294.43Overall Facility Rating
Medic 95.55 92.74
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.6096.34
Billing Staff Assessment 88.62 88.13
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.1188.80
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 88.1588.44
Overall Assessment 94.41 91.79
How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.8395.97
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 93.0195.84
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 92.7595.65
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.7087.51
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.9296.15
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.5495.36
Page 22 of 28
The Top Box Analysis displays the number of responses for the entire survey by question and rating. The Top Box itself
shows the percentage of "Very Good" responses, the highest rating, for each question. Next to the company rating is the
entire EMS DB rating for those same questions.
Top Box Comparisons
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 14 63 271 75.81%80.88%1510
Dispatch 1 2 8 44 73.98%75.56%170
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance
service 1 0 2 15 60 76.92%75.53%
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance
service 0 1 3 15 56 74.67%75.10%
Extent to which you were told what to do until the
ambulance arrived 0 1 3 14 54 75.00%71.32%
Ambulance 0 2 8 57 74.21%80.58%278
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely
manner 0 1 5 12 70 79.55%74.54%
Cleanliness of the ambulance 0 0 0 12 72 85.71%79.38%
Comfort of the ride 0 1 0 19 67 77.01%64.73%
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 0 0 3 14 69 80.23%78.18%
Medic 1 5 23 95 79.32%83.49%627
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the
ambulance 0 0 3 11 74 84.09%81.84%
Degree to which the medics took your problem
seriously 0 0 3 9 78 86.67%82.25%
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or
your family 0 0 3 10 75 85.23%81.20%
Skill of the medics 0 1 1 12 72 83.72%81.52%
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about
your treatment 0 0 3 12 68 81.93%77.53%
Page 23 of 28
Top Box Comparisons
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
(Continued)
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 14 63 271 75.81%80.88%1510
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment
decisions (if applicable)0 1 3 8 60 83.33%76.74%
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or
discomfort 1 1 2 9 63 82.89%72.45%
Medics' concern for your privacy 0 1 2 15 62 77.50%78.18%
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 0 1 3 9 75 85.23%82.20%
Billing Staff Assessment 2 2 4 18 62.76%67.90%55
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service
billing office 1 0 2 10 28 68.29%62.37%
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address
your needs 1 2 2 8 27 67.50%63.15%
Overall Assessment 5 3 20 57 76.87%81.72%380
How well did our staff work together to care for you 1 0 2 9 71 85.54%78.98%
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the
medical facility 1 0 4 7 71 85.54%79.11%
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation
treatment 0 0 1 12 66 83.54%78.30%
Extent to which the services received were worth the
fees charged 2 1 6 10 40 67.80%66.60%
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency
Medical Transportation service 0 2 2 8 71 85.54%79.27%
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to
others 1 0 5 11 61 78.21%78.93%
Page 24 of 28
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Standard Deviation by Question
SD
Variance
Database
Standard
Deviation
Company
Standard
Deviation
Total
DBYour Score
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64 92.45 15.994 15.424 -0.57
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00 92.40 15.362 15.18 -0.18
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
92.01 90.80 15.493 17.034 1.54
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90 91.84 15.516 16.281 0.76
Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.43 94.29 8.748 12.046 3.30
Comfort of the ride 93.68 87.62 12.696 19.961 7.27
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19 93.64 12.456 13.501 1.05
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17 94.37 11.833 13.885 2.05
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.83 94.23 11.335 14.644 3.31
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.45 93.91 11.644 14.89 3.25
Skill of the medics 95.06 94.31 12.54 13.784 1.24
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 94.58 92.74 12.302 15.754 3.45
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if
applicable)
94.10 92.33 14.727 16.613 1.89
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.43 90.59 17.311 18.249 0.94
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.12 93.39 14.238 14.341 0.10
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.89 94.23 13.672 14.65 0.98
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05 88.41 19.837 17.485 -2.35
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28 88.38 24.247 18.141 -6.11
How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89 93.59 14.832 14.231 -0.60
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29 93.56 16.083 14.508 -1.57
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.57 93.22 10.342 15.088 4.75
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.05 87.36 24.355 21.802 -2.55
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical
Transportation service
94.58 93.34 15.054 15.35 0.30
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00 92.75 17.608 17.002 -0.61
Overall Survey Rating 93.64 92.51 14.93 15.83 0.9
Page 25 of 28
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Responses vs Score Histogram — This graph shows the number of responses on the Y
axis vs the average score on the X axis.
Page 26 of 28
Facilities in Database
October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Adair null Adair EMS Kirksville, MO
Air San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA Alliance Mobile Health Troy, MI
AMT Peoria, IL Ava Springfield, MO
Bay State Springfield, MA Bay Village Bay Village, OH
Beaumont Troy, MI Beaumont Medical Troy, MI
Birmingham Fire Birmingham, MI Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills, MI
Burnsville Fire Department Burnsville, MN Care Flight Operations,Reno, NV
Carilion Clinic Roanoke, VA Cetronia Allentown, PA
Christian County Springfield, MO City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA
Columbus Connection Cols, OH Community Ambulance Macon, GA
Community Care EMS Ashtabula, OH Community EMS MI Southfield, MI
Community EMS OH Columbus, OH CoxHealth EMS Springfield, MO
Cumberland Carlisle, PA Cy-Fair Houston, TX
Cypress Creek Spring, TX Dade County Springfield, MO
DMC Care Detroit, MI Edward Naperville, IL
Emergent Health Partners Ann Arbor, MI Emergent Health Partners null
EMSA Oklahoma City, OK EMS Float Springfield, MO
Escalon Ambulance Service Escalon, CA Falck Rocky Mountain Inc Aurora, CO
Ferndale Fire and Rescue Ferndale, MI F-M Ambulance Moorhead, MN
Genesis Community Zanesville, OH Gold Cross Menasha, WI
Greene County Springfield, MO Guilford EMS Greensboro, NC
Harris County Emergency Houston, TX Health East St. Paul, MN
Health Link Taylor, MI HEMSI Hunsville, AL
Hennepin County EMS Minneapolis, MN Hillsboro Moorhead, MN
Hot Springs Hot Springs, AR Hot Springs Village Hot Springs, AR
Howard County Nashville, AR Humboldt Winnemucca, NV
Iosco County EMS East Tawas, MI Lassen County Ambulance Susanville, CA
LifeCare Ambulance Battle Creek, MI LifeCare Medical EMS Sterling, CO
Life EMS Ambulance Grand Rapids, MI LifeNet EMS Texarkana, TX
Loyola Medicine Transport Melrose Park, IL Madison Heights Fire Madison Heights, MI
Malvern Malvern, AR McCormick Ambulance Torrance, CA
MCHD Conroe, TX McKinney Fire Department McKinney, TX
Medcare Ambulance Columbus, OH Medic 1 Ambulance Canton, MI
Medic Ambulance Service Vallejo, CA Medic Ambulance Service Vallejo, CA
Medic EMS Davenport, IA Medstar Clinton Twp., MI
Medstar Mobile Healthcare Fort Worth, TX Medstar Mobile Healthcare null
Mercy Flights Medford, OR Mercy Ohio Cincinnati, OH
Metro West Hillsboro, OR Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY
Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY Mobile Medical Response Saginaw, MI
MONOC Neptune, NJ Nature Coast Lecanto, FL
North Memorial Robbinsdale, MN Northwell Health Syosset, NY
Oceana Hart, MI Patterson District Patterson, CA
Pearland EMS Pearland, TX Portage County Stevens Point, WI
Pro EMS Cambridge, MA ProMed Muskegon, MI
Page 27 of 28
Prompt Ambulance Highland, IN PTS Loveland, OH
Puckett Austell, GA Regional EMS Flint, MI
REMSA Reno, NV REMSA Air Transport Reno, NV
Ridgefield Fire Department Ridgefield, CT Riggs Ambulance Merced, CA
Royal Oak Fire Department Royal Oak, MI San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA
San Marcos Hays County San Marcos, TX Scott & White Temple, TX
Senior Care Bronx, NY Sioux Land Sioux City, IA
SkyHeath Syossett, NY SMCAS Niles, MI
Snohomish County Fire Snohomish, WA Southfield Soutthfield, MI
St. Charles St. Peters, MO Stillwater Stillwater, OK
Stone County Springfield, MO Suburban Palmer, PA
Swartz Flint, MI Taney County Ambulance Branson, MO
Texarkana Texarkana, TX Thief River Falls Moorhead, MN
Tri-Hospital Port Huron, MI Umpqua Health Alliance null
University Medical Center Lubbock, TX Van Buren EMS Paw Paw, MI
Waterford Regional Fire Waterford, MI Webster County Spriingfield, MO
West Bloomfield Fire West Bloomfield, MI WestSide Community Newman, CA
York Regional EMS Yoe, PA
Page 28 of 28