CESSA Subcommittee for Technology, Systems Integration & Data Management (TSIDM) - December 19, 2022, 2:30 - 4:00 pm
Meeting Minutes - Approved by Members 12/19/2022
Subcommittee members: Brent Reynolds, Cindy Barbera-Brelle, David Albert (Designee-Lee Ann Reinert), Richard Manthy, Alice Cary, Jim Kaitschuk
Expert Consultant Group (ECG) members: Peter Eckart
Welcome and Call to Order
- Meeting called to order at 2:34 pm by Brent Reynolds, Chair
- Eckart confirmed that the meeting minutes are being taken but that the meeting is not being recorded.
- Reynolds confirmed that OMA training is still requested for all members.
Roll Call and Approval of Minutes from TSIDM meeting on November 28, 2022
- Member Attendees Present: Brent Reynolds, Lee Ann Reinert (David Albert designee), Richard Manthy, Jr., Jim Kaitschuk, Cindy Barbera-Brelle
- With five of six members present, a quorum is established.
- Expert Consulting Group Attendees Present: Peter Eckart, Dr Lorrie Jones
- Manthy motioned to accept the minutes, Barbera-Brelle seconded.
- Reynolds, yes
- Kaitschuk, yes
- Reinert, yes
- Manthy, yes
- Barbera-Brelle, yes
- Cary, not present
State updates, Lee Ann Reinert
- No additional updates beyond what was recently reported at SAC meeting last week
Presentation by Cindy Barbera-Brelle
- Consolidated all info regarding regions, PSAPs in the regions, the protocols they are using, and also the EMS systems that supports the various regions
- EMS protocols are written by the providers themselves
- There are 11 systems in 189 PSAPs that are using locally developed protocols
- Interesting that there some systems without any EMD system, as legislatively mandated, or other places where there are fire-only dispatch with
- Only one region with 1 singular provider; the rest have a combination of systems
- The selection of a protocol is a PSAP choice, then they meet with the EMS medical director and gets approval to use those protocols.
- Reviews the different EMS regions for multiple systems
- What is the implication when there are a lot of different systems?
- The protocols are substantially similar, so the questions are similar, esp with the MH calls, so our roles is to make a recommendation for the dispatch responses based on the circumstances
- We won't be making recommendations to dictate who is using what system
- Manthy: For the agencies that don't follow one of the national vendors, is one of the three vendors more standardized, so could we make a recommendation regarding which system is most representative of all three and with the home-grown systems?
- Barbera-Brelle: The powerphone version is flexible, including response suggestions. Having standards in systems makes it easier to onboard new call handlers. Powerphone makes that learning process made easier by search, or to incorporate the targets for dispatch (like MCRT and 988) into the responses.
- Reynolds: Powerphone and APCO seem flexible, and Priority Dispatch is good but less flexible for modifying responses. For home grown systems (like the EMS systems) will also be flexible.
- Priority Dispatch has the alpha/bravo recommendations, which can be modified based on the responding agencies' resources
- The biggest challenge is gathering the data once it's in place.
- Survey of all the PSAPs as to how they are classifying their MH calls. About 50% response.
- Consider standardizing the response types.
- 20 different cad systems operating in the state
- A lot of systems don't have a protocol or classification for BH.
- Some are using uniform crime codes, some using NEIBURS classification or UCR
- The point is that we tried to see some commonality across the state, but there isn't really any.
- If we need data from the PSAPs, we going to have to create some kind of commonality
- Even if the vendor is the same, it's not prepopulating the CAD, the 911 call will pre-populate the address and phone, then the telecommunicator to classify, that's the classification,
- Most of the CAD system will use a response matrix
- When they create the incident, it will come up with a response.
- For suicide, most EMS will send both police and EMS
- EMS reporting is more detailed than the CAD reporting
Eckart describes the six-month CESSA planning process
- Mathy: very good process of description
- Reynolds: this is a very challenging task for us so this is a good way to approach the planning, good structure.
- What should be the early priority in January and February?
- Reynolds: data collection
- Benchmarks without knowing data is impossible, and reporting candle done until we have data
- The recs for call transfer technology: a 911 PSAP received a call, were not able to receive an auto- location from the 988 call and did not locate the caller to get the help they needed. This happens more than we hear about. We need better information and better transfer information.
- Jones: In Baltimore, their monitoring system collects data to immediately identify opportunities for mid-course corrections related to transfers and incidents (root cause analyses) to understand what went wrong and improve the process.
- We have to have the data collection plan to feed the performance improvement plan.
- Manthy: we have these two priorities so we can move to the next steps.
Motion to approve the six-month slate of first and third Mondays of the month, pending meetings that have to be rescheduled for holidays
- Manthy motions, Reynolds seconds.
- Reynolds: yes
- Manthy: yes
- Barbera-Brelle: yes
- Approval for this schedule tabled due to a lack of a quorum.
- No members of the public seeking to speak.
Motion to adjourn:
- The meeting with closed without a motion at 3:36 pm.