Back To ED-Q Basics

*To take the corresponding CDE quiz, visit the College of Emergency Dispatch.*

You may have heard the saying that 90% of communication is nonverbal as an explanation for why some conversations go better when held in person versus over the phone. While it’s an intriguing concept, the saying is most likely based on a formula introduced by Albert Mehrabian in the 1960s. The 55/38/7 formula theorizes that communication can be broken into three sections—55% of the total message is conveyed through body language, 38% is conveyed through the tone of voice, and only 7% is conveyed through the actual words being spoken.¹

If you ascribe to this formula, half of an overall message is lost in non-visual settings where the body language of the speaker can’t be seen, like in a dispatch center. Because of this disadvantage, it’s more important than usual for a speaker’s words and tone to be as clear and compassionate as possible.

One of the main goals of the ED-Q Universal Standards is to give clearly outlined principles by which ED-Qs can determine an Emergency Dispatcher’s compliance to the protocols. The ED-Qs can go to the Performance Standards at any time when completing their case review work, and the Universal Standards can be used to explain why certain aspects of a call are scored the way they are. Many of the Universal Standards are concerned with what an Emergency Dispatcher says (the 7%), but a good deal of them are also concerned with how the message is delivered (the 38%). Some Emergency Dispatchers may be reading the protocol exactly as scripted, but if they are not also using an appropriate tone of voice or using tools at the correct time, they are not using the protocols to their fullest extent.

Universal Standard 23 (Obvious Answers)

Obvious Answers are a concept that many Emergency Dispatchers and ED-Qs alike have struggled with. One of the reasons it can be difficult to decide if something qualifies as an “Obvious Answer” is that it so often depends on the context.

As stated in Universal Standard 23, “If the calltaker asks the question as written without explaining to the caller why the question is being asked when the caller spontaneously provided an answer (i.e., using good caller management technique), it can set up a frustrating or hostile conversation with the caller.”

Let’s say an anxious caller reported that his nephew found an apparently untouched landmine among other dusty belongings while cleaning out the shed. He and his nephew are reluctant to pick it up. Police Priority Dispatch System™ (PPDS® ) Protocol 103: Administrative (Lost or Found Property, Found UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE, Messages, Transports) dictates that the Emergency Police Dispatcher (EPD) taking the call should ask, “Where exactly is it?” However, since the caller has already provided that information and seems extremely unsettled by the situation, the EPD could consider this obvious and move forward in the protocol in order to convey to the caller that he’s been heard and his concern is being taken seriously.

The EPD could also clarify the situation by saying something like, “You said the landmine was in the shed. Is that correct?”

Universal Standard 3 (Acceptable Clarifications or Enhancements)

Because Emergency Dispatch is a non-visual practice and Emergency Dispatchers must rely on what they are being told by the callers, they will undoubtedly have questions beyond those scripted in the protocol. While freelance questions are explicitly forbidden by Universal Standard 11 (Freelance Questions and Instructions), there are times when it is appropriate for an Emergency Dispatcher to seek clarification—but only after the Emergency Dispatcher has already asked the scripted protocol question. They may use an enhancement or clarifier when the caller does not understand the scripted protocol question or instruction, when the caller answers ambiguously, and when the caller doesn’t answer after a reasonable period of time.

For example, let’s say someone called from her kitchen to report that her neighbor’s shed exploded. The Emergency Fire Dispatcher (EFD) taking the call asked all the Key Questions and gave all the Post-Dispatch Instructions (PDIs) in Fire Priority Dispatch System™ (FPDS® ) Protocol 57: Explosion as scripted. When the EFD instructed the caller, “Do not use, turn on, or turn off any additional electrical devices,” the caller asked specifically if that includes the toaster because she was planning to make some toast when the explosion happened. If the EFD replied, “Yes, that includes the toaster,” that would be an acceptable clarification.

Universal Standard 22 (Calming and Caller/Scene Management Statements)

If either the man reporting the UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE or the woman reporting her neighbor’s shed exploding seems extremely upset by the situation to the point that they won’t answer questions or follow instructions, it is appropriate for your Emergency Dispatcher to use a calming statement to get things back on track. Universal Standard 22 states that Emergency Dispatchers “may temporarily interrupt the protocol script at any time to add an acceptable calming or caller/scene management statement.” A calm caller is a more cooperative caller, and the more cooperative the caller is, the more quickly the Emergency Dispatcher will be able to obtain relevant information and send the appropriate response.

Let’s say that a man called to report that he was burned severely while working in his garden because his neighbor’s shed spontaneously combusted. The Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD) taking the call tried valiantly to follow the flow of questions on Medical Priority Dispatch System^™ (MPDS^®) Protocol 7: Burns (Scalds)/ Explosion (Blast), but the caller kept repeating, “BOOM! Out of nowhere! How did this happen?” The EMD attempted to calm the caller by saying, “This must be a very upsetting experience for you. I am sending help as quickly as possible. I need to gather some more information for the responders, okay?” This was an acceptable calming statement.

Conclusion

If you’re having a difficult time deciding where an Emergency Dispatcher’s behavior falls within the purview of the Universal Standards, remember that in non-visual environments like the dispatch center, context is everything. Each individual case needs to be viewed in the context of the information that the Emergency Dispatcher was able to access at the time of the call. If the Emergency Dispatcher handled the situation differently than you would have handled it yourself without explicitly going against any specific Universal Standard, give them grace.

“If it’s not completely wrong, it has to be right,” said John Lofgren, ED-Q, Academics, and Standards Expert with the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch^® (IAED^™).

Source

1. Thompson J. “Is Nonverbal Communication a Numbers Game?” Psychology Today. 2011; Sept. 30. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-words/201109/is-nonverbal-communication-a-numbers-game (accessed Feb. 23, 2026).