HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7463
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7463)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PAFD Performance Report FY17Q1
Title: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the First
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 First 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 (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B_FY17 Q1 Peformance Report_FINAL (DOCX)
ATTACHMENT C_Thank You Letters (PDF)
ATTACHMENT D_EMS Survey (PDF)
1 | P a g e
Palo Alto Fire Department
Quarterly Performance Report
Fiscal Year 2017, First Quarter
Calls for Service
The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) responded to a total of 2,214 calls for service in the first quarter
of Fiscal Year 2017. This includes responses within Palo Alto, Stanford, and neighboring cities to provide
Auto and Mutual Aid. Approximately eighty-three (83%) of calls are generated from Palo Alto, twelve
percent (12%) 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 Q1 FY17 Q1
Emergency Medical Service 1300 1335
Good Intent 440 357
False Alarm & False Call 289 290
Service Call 138 101
Rescue & Hazardous Material 67 75
Fire 31 56
Explosion, No Fire 2 0
Grand Total 2267 2214
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. 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.
Of the 1,335 Emergency Medical Service calls the PAFD responded to in the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2017, the overwhelming majority were for medical, trauma and cardiac calls that did not involve a
vehicle accident.
2 | P a g e
Table 2. EMS Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1207 1225
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 72 69
324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 9 28
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 11 9
381 Rescue or EMS standby 1 4
Total 1300 1335
Transports
Number of Transports 946 903
Percent of EMS Calls resulting in transport 72.8% 67.6%
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes 92.2% 93.5%
Percent of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes 98.7% 99.3%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls 04:59 04:40
This quarter saw a slight dip in the number of EMS calls that resulted in an ambulance transport to a
local hospital or care facility, making up sixty eight percent (68%) of all EMS calls. 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-four percent
(94%) 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 56 calls where fire was
present, with 46 in Palo Alto or Stanford. There were three building fires that the Department
responded to, all of which were contained to the area of origin.
All of the three building fires occurred during the second week of September. The first at restaurant on
the 2300 block of El Camino Real, which began due to an unwatched pan filled with oil. Once PAFD
personnel arrived, the fire had been extinguished by the sprinkler system. All fire units were released
from the scene except Engine 66, Truck 66 and Battalion Chief 66. Crews inspected the wall interior and
ceiling and found black staining and heat running up the flu, along with excessive oil on the roof from
grease clogging the flu being pushed out of the vent and onto the roof. Crews advised the restaurant
manager of the fire risk and the need to clean the flu.
The second fire of the quarter was a full first alarm at the 3900 block of El Camino Real. Thirteen units
responded including mutual aid resources from Mountain View and Santa Clara County. Engine 65
arrived first on scene and established Incident Command, and noted brown smoke showing. The fire
was found in a second-story room approximately halfway down the hall on the left side of the building.
The motel room was wide-open with 10’ flames blowing out the door and lapping up to the roof.
A primary search resulted in an “all clear” with no persons or animals in need of rescue. PAPD closed
lanes on El Camino Real both north and south bound. Utilities arrived on scene to shut down power to
the building. Once fire crews had the fire contained, incident command called for a Fire Inspector and
representative from Red Cross. Crews conducted salvage and overhaul clean up, and the scene was
secured by PAPD for the night. Fire Inspectors determined that the cause was arson from clothing set
fire on the hotel room bed. A rapid and cooperative effort with our law enforcement partners from the
Palo Alto and Mountain View Police Departments quickly identified and located a suspect who was
taken into custody within four hours of the incident.
The third incident was a residential fire on the 4000 block of Laguna Way. First responders assessed the
exterior with no smoke or flames showing. PAPD had confirmed no one was present in the home, and
upon interior assessment crews found smoke damage throughout the second story, and burning embers
that was started by candles that were too close to combustibles and left unattended. Crews
extinguished the embers, and Engine 62 updated the homeowner on the situation and advised on clean
up and restoration.
4 | P a g e
Table 3. Fire Performance Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
113 Cooking fire, confined to container 5 8
154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 1 8
111 Building fire 2 6
141 Forest, woods or wildland fire 2 5
150 Outside rubbish fire, other 5 5
131 Passenger vehicle fire 3 4
140 Natural vegetation fire, other 1 3
100 Fire, other 3 3
143 Grass fire 0 2
116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 0 2
160 Special outside fire, other 0 2
118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 5 2
162 Outside equipment fire 0 1
112 Fires in structures other than in a building 0 1
132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 0 1
151 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 0 1
137 Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire 0 1
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire 0 1
142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 2 0
122 Fire in motor home, camper, recreational vehicle 1 0
161 Outside storage fire 1 0
Total 31 56
Response Times
Percent of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes 86.6% 86.7%
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls 5:37 05:22
Fire Containment
Percent of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin N/A 100%
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-seven
percent (87%) 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 Met: At least 90% of building and structure fires contained to the room or
area of origin.
This quarter there were three building or structure fires within Palo Alto or Stanford, of which all were
contained to the room or area of origin.
5 | P a g e
Rescue and Hazardous Materials
The Fire Department responded to a total of 75 rescue and hazardous material calls. The most common
rescue call is for the removal of victims from a stalled elevator, which accounts for twenty-five percent
(25%) of these call types. Lock-Ins saw a significant spike this quarter accounting for seventeen percent
(17%) of calls.
Table 4. Rescue and Hazardous Materials Measures
Calls for Service FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
NFIRS Code Description
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 12 19
331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 1 13
463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 0 7
400 Hazardous condition, other 10 7
412U Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) - PA Utilities Related 11 6
422 Chemical spill or leak 1 4
442 Overheated motor 3 3
411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 2 3
413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 4 2
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 1
444U Power line down – PA Utilities Related 3 1
421 Chemical hazard (no spill or leak) 3 1
440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 1 1
445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 1 1
451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 1 1
424U Carbon monoxide incident – PA Utilities Related 0 1
365 Watercraft rescue 0 1
423 Refrigeration leak 0 1
481 Attempt to burn 0 1
410 Flammable gas or liquid condition, other 1 1
444 Power line down 3 0
460 Accident, potential accident, other 2 0
350 Extrication, rescue, other 1 0
352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 1 0
443 Light ballast breakdown 1 0
Total 67 75
Response Times
Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to
Rescue & Hazardous Materials calls
05:43 06:19
6 | 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, and the data below shows an increase in the number of calls from the
prior fiscal year for the second year in a row. This 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 four other jurisdictions on a total of 140 incidents. Five
agencies provided mutual or automatic aid for calls within Palo Alto or Stanford on a total of 113
incidents.
Table 5. Mutual and Automatic Aid Performance Measures
Mutual and Auto Aid Provided FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Agency
Mountain View Fire 96 110
Santa Clara County Fire 26 26
Menlo Park Fire 3 2
Sunnyvale 0 2
All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 129 140
Mutual and Auto Aid Received
Agency
Mountain View Fire 66 87
Menlo Park Fire 14 14
Santa Clara County Fire 6 10
Woodside Fire 8 2
Cal Fire 1 0
All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 95 113
7 | 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 continues to rise for the second year in a row. This quarter saw a twenty-
nine percent (29%) increase from the same quarter in the prior year. The Bureau has kept up with
reviewing the majority of plans on time despite the sizeable workload increase, with ninety-seven
percent (97%) of plans reviewed on time.
Table 6. Prevention Bureau Performance Measures
Permits FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Fire Permits Issued 202 134
Electric Vehicle Permits Issued 22 3
Solar Permits Issued 61 25
Inspections
Hazardous Material Inspections Completed 89 101
Number of Hazardous Material Inspections for the year 207 440
Percent of Hazardous Material Facilities Inspections Complete 43.0% 23.0%
State Mandated Inspections Completed 85 99
Number of State Mandated Inspections for the year 340 397
Percent of State Mandated Facilities Inspections Complete 25.0% 24.9%
Fire and Life Safety Plan Review
Plans Reviewed 360 464
Percent of Reviews Completed On-Time 100% 96.8%
8 | 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 6.0 employees off-
line creating a total of 18.00 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.
The Training Battalion Chief has significantly increased succession planning and training efforts. This
focus toward succession planning is becoming increasingly important as forty-six percent (46%) of all
line personnel will be eligible to retire within the next five years. Personnel completed eighty-two
percent (82%) more hours than the prior year. Some of this was department-wide training on the new
hose and nozzles. New hose and nozzles were purchased late last fiscal year, which provided new
technology that better regulates the flow of water.
Other trainings this quarter focused on gas and electric with PG&E, hazardous materials, EMS, ethics,
paramedic updates, and incident commander training.
Table 7. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees FY17 Q1
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 4.00 54.00 77%
TOTAL 96.00 12.00 6.00 78.00 81%
Table 8. Succession Planning
FY16 Q1 FY17 Q1
Number of Line Personnel Currently Eligible to Retire 17 23
Number of Line Personnel Eligible to Retire in Five Years 24 17
Percent of all Line Personnel Eligible to Retire within Five
Years
43.2% 45.5%
Number of Acting Battalion Chief Hours 198 480
Number of Acting Captain Hours 2200 1714
Number of Acting Apparatus Operator Hours 7550 6394
Training
Hours of Training Completed 10,290 18,811
Average Hours per Line Personnel 121.1 241.2
From: Cathie Foster <princesscathie@comcast.net>
Date: August 15, 2016 at 11:34:28 AM PDT
To: Dennis Burns <dennis.burns@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Accident today at Greenwood and Hutchinson
Hi Dennis,
I just wanted to say a big thank you to your team and the Fire Department’s team who responded
to a car vs bicycle accident this morning. Everyone was so calm, kind and professional and
handled all the neighborhood lookie-loos (including me of course) with respect and answered all
our questions in a way that protected the victim but allayed our worries. I didn’t get the officer’s
name who had to ask a woman to turn around and go another way to her house. I couldn’t
believe it when she argued with him. His patience was way beyond anything I could
exhibit. The PAPD and PAFD in my estimation are the best in the USA. And it may sound like
hyperbole but all my local friends agree.
I was wondering, if this is reported in the news would it include whether the bicyclist ran the
stop sign or not. If that did happen it could serve as a heads-up to other bicyclists. If that wasn’t
the case then I will be less likely to jump to that conclusion the next time there is a bike vs car
accident. Since I have had so many bicyclists run through stop signs (when I have the right of
way) that I am always amazed that there are not more injured cyclists. I think I will probably die
of a heart attack one of the times I have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting someone who flies
through a stop sign. I stopped counting how many times it has happened after I got to one
hundred.
I don’t have Eric’s e-mail so if you could forward this to him too I would really appreciate it.
Last thing: we still haven’t met for that coffee. I will be back in town on the 29th. Leaving for
Ashland, Oregon on Sunday. When we meet my husband Mike wanted me to ask you
something.
Cathie
From: Witmer, Derek@CALFIRE [mailto:Derek.Witmer@fire.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:34 PM
To: Nickel, Eric
Subject: FW: Thank You
Eric,
I too wanted to pass on my thanks for your BC who meet the family and the FF at the hospital until
Chief Marcucci could get there.
Derek J. Witmer
Fire Chief
CAL FIRE
Santa Clara Unit
Protecting Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Western Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties
South Santa Clara County Fire District
www.ssccfd.com
Morgan Hill Fire
www.morganhillfire.org
408-778-8600
Every Californian should conserve water. Find out how at:
SaveOurWater.com · Drought.CA.gov
From: White, Josh@CALFIRE
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:04 AM
To: Marcucci, Mike@CALFIRE
Cc: Witmer, Derek@CALFIRE; McFadden, Greg@CALFIRE; Upton, Scott@CALFIRE
Subject: Thank You
Chief Marcucci,
I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to you for all that you did last night/early this morning.
Our volunteer/Columbia College firefighter was transported to Stanford in the early hours this
morning and you were there when he and his family arrived.
This level of service, above and beyond the call of duty, is greatly appreciated. I am also to
understand you had a Palo Alto engine there as well. The family is awestruck with the level of
caring and respect.
Thank you so very much. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can do to assist you or
SCU. Your selflessness and sense of duty means so much to TCU.
Sincerely,
Josh White
Unit Chief
Tuolumne County Fire Chief
CAL FIRE
Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit
(209) 419-4400
From: Ron [mailto:rondillon@mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 9:47 AM
To: Fire
Subject: Clayton fire
Palo Alto Fire fighters.
We would like to give a thousand thanks to Palo Alto Fire for sending two engines up here to Lower Lake
to help with the Clayton fire.
A special thanks to Marc Muzzi and his guys for all their hard work. The poor town of Lower Lake took a
really big hit but it could have been worse.
As a retired City of Palo Alto employee I can't thank you guys enough.
All my neighbors and I are eternally grateful.
Ron Dillon
From: Stephanie Charles <sjcharles@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:40 AM
To: Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Rainey, Nathaniel; Dueker, Kenneth; Johnson, Amy
Subject: Thank You
Hi Amy, Minka, Nathan, and Ken,
I wanted to thank you all for the city’s help to the residents displaced by the Glass Slipper fire. Your
great support of the shelter was invaluable, then I’m sure that putting up the displaced residents over
the weekend was a big relief to them. I heard several of my Red Cross colleagues comment on how well
things went with the city and how good our working relationship with all of you was. Every response to
an incident like this involves a team effort, and I am very appreciative of all the teamwork from every
quarter in the days after the fire.
Thankfully fires like this are rare in Palo Alto, but just let me know if there are other ways in which the
Red Cross can support you.
Regards,
Stephanie Charles
Silicon Valley Red Cross
From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:annette_g@att.net]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Nickel, Eric
Subject: thanks for coming
Dear Eric,
Thanks once again for sharing your Sunday with the Midtown Residents Association.
and for your graciousness in greeting our residents and visitors.
You make such a difference for our community. warmest thanks to you and all the
wonderful firefighters who came to be a part of our event!
Best regards
Annette
From: Steve Drewniany [mailto:sdrewniany@sunnyvale.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Diaz, Juan; Ken Kehmna; William Kelly; Nickel, Eric
Subject: Mutual Aid for 674 Gail Ave, SNY Case #FR 16-6062
Chiefs
On Sunday 09/25 at 09:06:17 hours, SNY DPS responded to a two story,
multi-family residential structure fire that went to 3 alarms. At the conclusion
of the fire 10 apartments were involved, and 47 residents are now
displaced. The City, Red Cross and Sunnyvale Community Services have
facilitated housing for all of the displaced residents. This is the second
multiple alarm residential structure fire in our City this year that has displaced
multiple families. I want to thank you and the members of your agencies for
your rapid response to our call for assistance both at this recent fire and our
previous one.
I am thankful for our strong working relationships and the quality of
personnel we all field here each and everyday. We truly are fortunate to
have the level of professionalism and inter-agency cooperation both at the
Chief level as well as the field level which define our operational area. Please
pass along our appreciation to the men and women of your organizations that
represented you all in such an exemplary manner.
The assignments were:
Backfill at ST1:
MTV - EN54
Backfill at ST2:
SNC - EN93
CNT - TR71
At the Fire Scene:
CNT - EN71
MTV - TR51
SNC - EN90
SNC - BC91
PAF - EN62 (Air Support)
Assoc. FR/EV's
MTV FR #9002
SNC EV #7613 and #7615
CNT EV #C162690018 and #C162690022
PAF FR #9005
Steve
Steve Drewniany, Deputy Chief
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety
700 All America Way | Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(P) 408.730.7123 | (F)408.730.5713
(E)sdrewniany@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Called to Serve: Sunnyvale’s Public Safety Careers
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicSafety.aspx
***** Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. The
sender reserves the right to a reasonable privacy expectation with this
communication. ****
From: Bill Widmer [mailto:bwidmer@ci.atherton.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Fire
Subject: Thank you for great service
Wednesday your organization was called upon to transport me to Stanford from PAMF. I want to thank
the team who handled things well and especially mention Alex who was in the back with me and
seemed to be the team leader.
Please thank these guys for me.! Great job, very competent and caring.
Best regards
Bill Widmer
To: Mike Simbulan
From: Ken Cardinale, Fire Chief
Date: May 18, 2016
Subject: Thank You
Captain Ferry I just want to thank you for the training that you provided to Lewis County this past
weekend. The course was outstanding by providing knowledge from historic door systems to the most
up to date modern security door we may in counter in both residential and commercial occupancies.
The class room instruction and the multimedia aspects where invaluable and laid the foundation for the
hands on training which the bulk of the curriculum is.
The manipulative portion of the course, provided by Fire Fighter Mike Simbulan was so valuable to all of
the firefighters. You can have lectures, read books and see videos, but the most valuable is the hands on
training. It is where the tire meets the road. The unselfish hours of the instructors providing their
guidance and instruction as well their experience will have a long and lasting impression with all the
firefighter in attendance.
Thank you so very much for the outstanding and excellent course.
Sincerely,
Ken Cardinale,
Fire Chief,
City of Chehalis, WA
To: Yovan Sierra
From: Ken Cardinale, Fire Chief
Date: May 18, 2016
Subject: Thank You
Captain Ferry I just want to thank you for the training that you provided to Lewis County this past
weekend. The course was outstanding by providing knowledge from historic door systems to the most
up to date modern security door we may in counter in both residential and commercial occupancies.
The class room instruction and the multimedia aspects where invaluable and laid the foundation for the
hands on training which the bulk of the curriculum is.
The manipulative portion of the course provided by Fire Fighter Yovan Sierra was so valuable to all of
the firefighters. You can have lectures, read books and see videos, but the most valuable is the hands on
training. It is where the tire meets the road. The unselfish hours of the instructors providing their
guidance and instruction as well their experience will have a long and lasting impression with all the
firefighter in attendance.
Thank you so very much for the outstanding and excellent course.
Sincerely,
Ken Cardinale,
Fire Chief,
City of Chehalis, WA
Number of Your Patients in this ReportYour Score
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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.
Lansing, Mi 48096
10594.15
Number of Patients in this Report
19,777
Number of Transport Services in All
131
Page 1 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Executive Summary
This report contains data from 105 City of Palo Alto patients who returned a questionnaire between
07/01/2016 and 09/30/2016.
The overall mean score for the standard questions was 94.15; this is a difference of 1.78 points from the
overall EMS database score of 92.37.
The current score of 94.15 is a change of -0.31 points from last period's score of 94.46. This was the 20th
highest overall score for all companies in the database.
You are ranked 4th for comparably sized companies in the system.
80.34% of responses to standard questions had a rating of Very Good, the highest rating. 99.42% of all
responses were positive.
Page 2 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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
Total
This PeriodLast
OtherFemaleMale OtherMaleTotalFemale
Under 18 4 7 011 253 0
18 to 30 2 3 05 253 0
31 to 44 2 2 04 4106 0
45 to 54 5 3 08 561 0
55 to 64 7 3 010 583 0
65 and older 46 75 4125 407131 0
Total 66 93 4163 105 47 58 0
Gender
Page 3 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
93.84
92.47
1.37
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service
94.64
92.30
2.34
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived
91.57
90.61
0.96
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.64
100
91.79
0
Your Score
93.42
Page 4 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
96.36
91.69
4.67
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Cleanliness of the ambulance
95.41
94.14
1.27
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Comfort of the ride
92.86
87.21
5.65
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the person driving the ambulance
96.43
93.49
2.94
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
3.62
100
91.66
Variance
0
Your Score
95.28
Page 5 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
96.91
94.01
2.90
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously
96.17
94.01
2.16
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family
94.80
93.73
1.07
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Skill of the medics
97.68
94.06
3.62
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment
94.57
92.41
2.16
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)
91.69
92.22
-0.53
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.53
Variance1000
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort
91.48
90.45
1.03
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Page 6 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
93.18
93.23
-0.05
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-0.05
Variance1000
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person
94.95
94.14
0.81
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.60
100
93.14
0
Your Score
94.74
Page 7 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
90.13
88.63
1.50
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs
90.44
88.86
1.58
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.53
100
88.75
Variance
0
Your Score
90.28
Page 8 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 01, 2016 to September 30, 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
95.70
93.24
2.46
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility
94.78
93.43
1.35
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment
93.76
93.13
0.63
Your Score
Total DB
VarianceVariance1000
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged
85.07
87.53
Your Score
Total DB
Variance
-2.46
Variance1000
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation
95.16
93.20
1.96
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others
94.18
92.82
1.36
Your Score
Total DB
Variance1000
Overall Section Score
Total DB
1.03
100
92.23
Variance
0
Your Score
93.26
Page 9 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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 93.84-0.61 92.4794.45
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.640.88 92.3093.76
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 91.57-1.70 90.6193.27
Ambulance Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.361.13 91.6995.23
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41-0.81 94.1496.22
Comfort of the ride 92.86-0.89 87.2193.75
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.431.79 93.4994.64
Medic Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.910.48 94.0196.43
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.17-0.45 94.0196.62
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80-1.90 93.7396.70
Skill of the medics 97.681.58 94.0696.10
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.570.11 92.4194.46
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.69-2.17 92.2293.86
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48-1.02 90.4592.50
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.18-1.00 93.2394.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.95-0.79 94.1495.74
Page 10 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Question Analysis (Continued)
Billing Staff Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.132.80 88.6387.33
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.444.18 88.8686.26
Overall Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.700.63 93.2495.07
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.78-0.26 93.4395.04
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76-1.24 93.1395.00
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07-3.29 87.5388.36
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 95.16-1.02 93.2096.18
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18-1.91 92.8296.09
Page 11 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Sep
2015
Oct
2015
Nov
2015
Dec
2015
Jan
2016
Feb
2016
Mar
2016
Apr
2016
May
2016
Jun
2016
Jul
2016
Aug
2016
Sep
2016
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 96.51 92.36 100.0 95.83 94.57 97.00 97.22 100.0 95.03 93.75 94.64 94.44 91.24
Concern shown by the person you called for 95.35 89.29 91.67 95.65 94.32 96.00 97.22 100.0 93.95 93.18 94.64 94.91 93.75
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 92.68 89.29 100.0 91.13 93.59 87.50 97.22 95.83 93.08 93.15 94.64 93.48 82.21
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 94.12 95.35 100.0 94.77 94.74 92.31 98.91 94.44 97.28 94.33 98.53 95.38 97.62
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.74 95.00 80.20 98.73 93.09 96.15 100.0 93.75 97.56 95.83 96.88 95.90 92.86
Comfort of the ride 91.33 89.23 80.20 95.76 90.63 92.31 96.51 93.75 94.51 93.41 95.31 93.03 90.48
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.88 93.89 100.0 98.25 95.31 96.00 99.40 96.88 95.24 94.17 96.88 97.13 94.05
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 97.50 95.63 100.0 98.28 97.81 93.75 98.84 97.22 96.43 96.35 98.53 96.37 97.22
Degree to which the medics took your problem 97.00 95.12 100.0 98.28 96.05 94.79 99.43 97.22 96.43 96.65 98.53 95.24 97.22
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or 94.79 95.12 100.0 97.81 96.05 95.83 100.0 97.22 97.02 96.51 95.59 95.90 90.33
Skill of the medics 96.88 95.00 95.00 98.68 95.98 96.74 98.84 97.22 96.95 95.60 97.06 97.62 98.53
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 90.56 92.11 95.00 98.04 96.00 95.45 98.13 94.44 96.15 93.75 98.33 94.17 92.65
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 88.12 90.91 100.0 97.22 93.29 94.32 95.83 100.0 96.55 92.31 94.23 93.65 82.21
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 91.46 92.86 100.0 96.43 94.32 92.86 98.48 89.29 93.38 92.41 89.29 93.52 85.79
Medics' concern for your privacy 91.67 95.39 95.00 98.56 94.39 93.18 98.21 87.63 95.14 94.38 98.44 92.27 91.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.27 96.88 100.0 99.11 97.64 92.43 100.0 97.22 95.39 95.74 97.06 94.58 94.12
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 85.23 89.58 50.50 92.39 89.58 92.50 86.00 100.0 87.50 86.48 96.43 90.22 84.38
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 90.33 85.42 50.50 92.86 83.75 91.67 84.00 100.0 87.50 84.94 95.83 90.00 87.50
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.10 95.63 100.0 98.61 95.10 96.88 97.62 97.22 96.53 94.29 94.12 95.76 97.06
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 96.50 96.34 95.00 99.07 94.61 95.83 99.38 97.22 95.17 94.78 97.06 95.18 91.18
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical 93.37 93.90 100.0 99.07 95.37 95.83 96.98 96.88 94.74 94.95 92.19 95.34 89.76
Extent to which the services received were worth the 83.79 89.39 81.25 90.98 86.84 88.80 89.00 100.0 91.91 85.55 85.94 86.54 78.64
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 94.27 95.12 100.0 99.54 95.28 94.79 98.84 97.22 96.05 96.13 95.31 95.49 93.75
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service 92.24 94.87 93.75 97.50 94.27 95.83 98.75 100.0 95.30 96.07 93.75 95.26 90.69
Your Master Score 93.39 93.53 93.73 97.08 94.39 94.30 97.65 96.47 95.18 93.97 95.43 94.55 91.64
Your Total Responses 52 45 5 64 65 29 49 10 48 105 17 66 22
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 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Monthly tracking of Overall Survey Score
Page 13 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question
Increases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.26 4.18 88.8690.44
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 87.33 2.80 88.6390.13
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.64 1.79 93.4996.43
Skill of the medics 96.10 1.58 94.0697.68
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 95.23 1.13 91.6996.36
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 93.76 0.88 92.3094.64
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.07 0.63 93.2495.70
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.43 0.48 94.0196.91
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your
treatment
94.46 0.10 92.4194.57
Decreases
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 88.36 -3.29 87.5385.07
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions
(if applicable)
93.86 -2.17 92.2291.69
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 96.09 -1.91 92.8294.18
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 96.70 -1.90 93.7394.80
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
93.27 -1.70 90.6191.57
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.00 -1.24 93.1393.76
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 92.50 -1.02 90.4591.48
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical
Transportation service
96.18 -1.02 93.2095.16
Medics' concern for your privacy 94.18 -1.00 93.2393.18
Comfort of the ride 93.75 -0.89 87.2192.86
Page 14 of 30
Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question
Page 15 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Greatest Scores Above Benchmarks by Question
Highest Above Benchmark
This
Period Variance
Total DB
Score
Skill of the medics 94.063.6297.68
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 94.012.996.91
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.492.9496.43
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.694.6796.36
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 94.012.1696.17
How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.242.4695.7
Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.141.2795.41
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 93.21.9695.16
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.140.894.95
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.731.0894.8
Page 16 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Highest and Lowest Scores
Highest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Skill of the medics 97.6896.10 1.58 94.06
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.9196.43 0.48 94.01
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.4394.64 1.79 93.49
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.3695.23 1.13 91.69
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.1796.62 -0.45 94.01
Lowest Scores
Last
Period
This
Period Change
Total DB
Score
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.0788.36 -3.29 87.53
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.1387.33 2.80 88.63
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.4486.26 4.18 88.86
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.4892.50 -1.02 90.45
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
91.5793.27 -1.70 90.61
Page 17 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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
Question Your
Correlation
Coeffecient
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person .85046707994.95
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility .83033624294.78
Medics' concern for your privacy .79545287393.18
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment .7535244394.57
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment .74013451193.76
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable).73433229391.69
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office .73341754690.13
How well did our staff work together to care for you .73032990295.70
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort .72757416591.48
Skill of the medics .72106261997.68
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service .71780680893.84
Skill of the person driving the ambulance .71573406396.43
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance .71272688396.91
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service .70750479594.64
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously .70705246596.17
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family .69102892494.80
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs .68318331590.44
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged .67950337585.07
Comfort of the ride .65830109192.86
Cleanliness of the ambulance .62961248395.41
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived .60434425391.57
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner .59532923796.36
Page 18 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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
Your
Company
A B C D E F
Comparison Companies
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 93.02 90.23 94.93 90.43 87.8293.5793.84
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance 92.73 89.74 94.48 92.03 87.8892.9094.64
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 87.34 86.30 91.53 91.21 85.4991.9491.57
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 91.93 92.94 95.32 90.62 85.9292.4896.36
Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.06 94.51 96.71 94.04 89.1794.1395.41
Comfort of the ride 86.97 80.54 92.79 88.42 80.4388.3392.86
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 90.29 91.49 96.40 92.20 89.0693.8196.43
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 90.62 95.13 97.40 93.80 90.9594.2096.91
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 89.72 94.22 97.02 93.63 90.4294.5096.17
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your 89.32 94.75 96.65 93.58 89.7393.8694.80
Skill of the medics 89.59 93.00 97.19 93.44 91.1195.0097.68
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 89.11 92.96 95.91 92.28 88.5893.5794.57
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 90.23 94.40 95.83 92.83 88.4792.3391.69
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 87.85 92.33 94.41 93.43 86.4191.4191.48
Medics' concern for your privacy 90.54 94.38 96.98 92.53 89.7093.5193.18
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 90.11 95.43 96.86 94.48 91.3995.5294.95
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 87.80 86.49 94.51 88.54 81.6588.2990.13
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 88.09 85.14 94.38 88.86 82.0788.1690.44
How well did our staff work together to care for you 90.08 93.92 96.55 92.32 89.1292.9395.70
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 89.96 93.60 96.57 93.24 89.3393.5994.78
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 90.29 93.19 95.84 92.41 87.9394.4493.76
Extent to which the services received were worth the 81.33 88.69 93.60 88.02 77.7887.7685.07
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 89.70 91.80 96.10 90.86 87.9593.5295.16
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to 87.70 92.13 96.54 89.90 85.0590.2594.18
Overall score 94.15 92.62 89.60 91.89 95.74 91.99 87.49
National Rank 20 44 84 58 9 57 88
Comparable Size (Medium) Company Rank 4 26 28
Page 19 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Yo
u
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
91.37Total Score
Benchmark Comparison
94.15
To
t
a
l
D
B
Si
m
i
l
a
r
S
i
z
e
d
92.37 91.65
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 92.8493.84 92.47 91.94
Concern shown by the person you called for 93.1594.64 92.30 91.72
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 91.6291.57 90.61 89.99
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely 93.3496.36 91.69 91.00
Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.9695.41 94.14 93.35
Comfort of the ride 87.5292.86 87.21 87.02
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 93.2496.43 93.49 92.98
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 93.2396.91 94.01 93.65
Degree to which the medics took your problem 93.0096.17 94.01 93.62
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or 92.3194.80 93.73 93.21
Skill of the medics 94.1797.68 94.06 93.72
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about 91.3294.57 92.41 92.09
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 90.1991.69 92.22 91.73
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 89.7791.48 90.45 90.07
Medics' concern for your privacy 92.1593.18 93.23 93.08
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 92.6494.95 94.14 93.82
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 85.6690.13 88.63 88.09
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 85.8690.44 88.86 88.18
How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.4395.70 93.24 92.97
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 92.4594.78 93.43 92.90
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 92.2693.76 93.13 92.94
Extent to which the services received were worth the 84.7285.07 87.53 86.45
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 92.2095.16 93.20 92.92
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service 91.8394.18 92.82 92.10
Number of Surveys for the period 105
Page 20 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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 21 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Cumulative
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 Total DB
91.7094.55Overall Facility Rating
Dispatch 94.2 91.49
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance 92.2495.14
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance 91.9694.64
Extent to which you were told what to do until the 90.2692.82
Ambulance 95.24 91.28
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.6195.68
Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.7996.43
Comfort of the ride 87.0492.83
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.7096.03
Medic 95.64 92.71
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the 93.7297.02
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.6396.75
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your 93.3796.34
Skill of the medics 93.7996.77
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 91.8495.07
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment 91.6493.81
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or 90.2093.67
Medics' concern for your privacy 92.6194.84
Page 22 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
Cumulative (Continued)
Your Total DB
91.7094.55Overall Facility Rating
Medic 95.64 92.71
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.5796.49
Billing Staff Assessment 88.73 88.11
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service 88.0988.78
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address 88.1388.68
Overall Assessment 94.56 91.77
How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.7996.07
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the 92.9896.00
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation 92.7395.66
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 86.6787.63
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency 92.9096.31
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to 92.5495.69
Page 23 of 30
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
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 3 45 351 75.38%80.34%1667
Dispatch 2 0 4 48 73.93%77.78%189
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance
service 1 0 1 15 68 80.00%75.71%
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance
service 0 0 1 16 67 79.76%74.94%
Extent to which you were told what to do until the
ambulance arrived 1 0 2 17 54 72.97%71.16%
Ambulance 0 0 6 63 73.67%82.62%328
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely
manner 0 0 1 13 89 86.41%73.98%
Cleanliness of the ambulance 0 0 1 16 81 82.65%79.02%
Comfort of the ride 0 0 4 20 74 75.51%63.75%
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 0 0 0 14 84 85.71%77.92%
Medic 4 0 17 123 78.66%82.48%678
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the
ambulance 0 0 1 10 86 88.66%80.88%
Degree to which the medics took your problem
seriously 0 0 2 11 85 86.73%81.65%
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or
your family 1 0 0 16 79 82.29%80.60%
Skill of the medics 0 0 0 9 88 90.72%80.67%
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about
your treatment 0 0 2 16 74 80.43%76.47%
Page 24 of 30
Top Box Comparisons
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
(Continued)
EMS DB %
Very Good
Company
% Very
Good
Very
GoodGoodFairPoor
Very
Poor
Overall Company Rating 9 3 45 351 75.38%80.34%1667
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment
decisions (if applicable)2 0 3 12 61 78.21%76.20%
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or
discomfort 1 0 5 14 62 75.61%72.19%
Medics' concern for your privacy 0 0 3 18 67 76.14%77.59%
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 0 0 1 17 76 80.85%81.72%
Billing Staff Assessment 0 0 1 26 63.41%62.50%45
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service
billing office 0 0 0 15 23 60.53%62.86%
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address
your needs 0 0 1 11 22 64.71%63.95%
Overall Assessment 3 3 17 91 76.33%78.93%427
How well did our staff work together to care for you 0 0 1 14 78 83.87%77.98%
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the
medical facility 0 0 2 15 74 81.32%78.35%
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation
treatment 1 0 3 13 75 81.52%77.79%
Extent to which the services received were worth the
fees charged 1 3 8 20 50 60.98%66.55%
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency
Medical Transportation service 0 0 1 16 76 81.72%78.59%
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to
others 1 0 2 13 74 82.22%78.70%
Page 25 of 30
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Standard Deviation by Question
SD
Variance
Database
Standard
Company
StandardTotal
DBYour Score
Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.84 92.47 14.731 15.596 0.87
Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.64 92.30 10.959 15.423 4.46
Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance
arrived
91.57 90.61 16.507 17.469 0.96
Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.36 91.69 9.482 16.384 6.90
Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41 94.14 10.318 12.456 2.14
Comfort of the ride 92.86 87.21 13.363 20.341 6.98
Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.43 93.49 8.748 13.927 5.18
Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.91 94.01 8.98 14.457 5.48
Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 96.17 94.01 10.321 14.908 4.59
Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80 93.73 13.388 15.061 1.67
Skill of the medics 97.68 94.06 7.253 13.994 6.74
Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your
treatment
94.57 92.41 11.555 16.054 4.50
Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if
applicable)
91.69 92.22 19.355 16.469 -2.89
Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48 90.45 17.493 18.452 0.96
Medics' concern for your privacy 93.18 93.23 12.907 14.525 1.62
Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.95 94.14 10.681 14.626 3.94
Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.13 88.63 12.22 17.328 5.11
Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.44 88.86 13.578 17.45 3.87
How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.70 93.24 10.123 14.748 4.63
Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.78 93.43 11.433 14.371 2.94
Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76 93.13 15.409 15.017 -0.39
Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07 87.53 22.335 21.222 -1.11
Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical
Transportation service
95.16 93.20 10.535 15.361 4.83
Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18 92.82 14.861 16.696 1.84
Page 26 of 30
Overall Survey Rating 94.15 92.38 12.77 15.93 3.16
Page 27 of 30
City of Palo Alto
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 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 28 of 30
Facilities in Database
July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016
City of Palo Alto
Adair null Adair EMS Kirksville, MO
Air San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA Alliance Health null
Alliance Mobile Health Troy, MI AMT Peoria, IL
Ava Springfield, MO Bay State Springfield, MA
Bay Village Bay Village, OH Bay Village Employee null
Beaumont Troy, MI Beaumont Medical Troy, MI
Birmingham Fire Birmingham, MI Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills, MI
Burnsville Fire Burnsville, MN Carilion Clinic Roanoke, VA
Cetronia Allentown, PA Christian County Springfield, MO
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA Columbus Connection Cols, OH
Community Macon, GA Community Care EMS Ashtabula, OH
Community Care EMS null 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 Ann Arbor, MI Emergent Health null
Employee Survey null Employee Survey null
Employee Survey MMR null Employee Survey Tri-null
Emp.Survey Medstar null EMSA Oklahoma City, OK
EMS Float Springfield, MO Escalon Ambulance Escalon, CA
Ferndale Fire and Ferndale, MI F-M Ambulance Fargo, ND
Genesis Community Zanesville, OH Gold Cross Menasha, WI
Greene County Springfield, MO Guilford EMS Greensboro, NC
Harris County Houston, TX Health East St. Paul, MN
Health Link Taylor, MI HEMSI Hunsville, AL
Hennepin County EMS Minneapolis, MN Hillsboro Fargo, ND
Hot Springs Hot Springs, AR Hot Springs Village Hot Springs, AR
Howard County Nashville, AR Humboldt Winnemucca, NV
HVA null Iosco County EMS East Tawas, MI
Lassen County Susanville, CA LifeCare Ambulance Battle Creek, MI
LifeCare Medical EMS Sterling, CO Life EMS Ambulance Grand Rapids, MI
LifeNet EMS Texarkana, TX Loyola Medicine Melrose Park, IL
Madison Heights Fire Madison Heights, MI Malvern Malvern, AR
MCHD Conroe, TX McKinney Fire McKinney, TX
Medcare Ambulance Columbus, OH Medic 1 Ambulance Canton, MI
Medic Ambulance Vallejo, CA Medic Ambulance Vallejo, CA
Medic EMS Davenport, IA Medstar Clinton Twp., MI
Medstar Mobile Fort Worth, TX Medstar Mobile 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 Saginaw, MI
MONOC Neptune, NJ Nature Coast Lecanto, FL
North Memorial Robbinsdale, MN Northwell Health Syosset, NY
Page 29 of 30
Oceana Hart, MI Patterson District Patterson, CA
Pearland EMS Pearland, TX Portage County Stevens Point, WI
Pro EMS Cambridge, MA ProMed Muskegon, MI
Prompt Ambulance Highland, IN PTS Loveland, OH
Puckett Austell, GA Regional EMS Flint, MI
REMSA Reno, NV REMSA Air Transport Reno, NV
Ridgefield Fire Ridgefield, CT Riggs Ambulance Merced, CA
Royal Oak Fire Royal Oak, MI San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA
San Marcos Hays San Marcos, TX Scott & White Temple, TX
Senior Care Bronx, NY Sioux Land Sioux City, IA
SkyHeath Syossett, NY SMCAS Niles, MI
Snohomish County Snohomish, WA Southfield Soutthfield, MI
St. Charles St. Peters, MO Stillwater Stillwater, OK
Stone County Springfield, MO Suburban Palmer, PA
Survey Employee-null Swartz Flint, MI
Taney County Branson, MO Texarkana Texarkana, TX
Thief River Falls Fargo, ND Tri-Hospital Port Huron, MI
Umpqua Health null University Medical Lubbock, TX
Van Buren EMS Paw Paw, MI Waterford Regional Waterford, MI
Webster County Spriingfield, MO West Bloomfield Fire West Bloomfield, MI
WestSide Community Newman, CA York Regional EMS Yoe, PA
Page 30 of 30