Let's Clear The Air

One of the challenges faced by Emergency Dispatchers is the correct use of clarifiers. This article will shine a light on meeting established Performance Standards while using clarifiers.

But it’s not only Emergency Dispatchers who must understand how to correctly use clarifiers. Q’s must also understand the correct usage so they can provide a fair assessment of the call being reviewed, while remaining reasonable in the application of standards. There is often a distinction between the encouraged practice in relation to the standards and what will be considered acceptable in the review process.

When I teach a Q course, this section requires a lot of explanation. How do you discern the proper use of clarifiers? Was it required or incorrect? Was it a freelance question or asked in an inappropriate. One of the challenges faced by Emergency Dispatchers is the correct use of clarifiers. This article will shine a light on meeting established Performance Standards while using clarifiers.

First, it is essential to understand when clarification is required. Universal Standard 3 (US 3) specifies that the Emergency Dispatcher must clarify the caller's response in the following situations:

·   The caller does not understand the scripted protocol question or instruction.

·   The caller answers ambiguously.

·   The caller doesn’t answer after a reasonable period of time.

If the Emergency Dispatcher does not proceed to clarify, the question or instruction should be considered to have been asked or given incorrectly. To make the required clarification, the Emergency Dispatcher can ask the question or give the instruction by rephrasing it, provided that the intention of the original sentence is respected.

Emergency Dispatchers are encouraged to use “parenthetical clarifiers” when available, but depending on the context, the Emergency Dispatcher may use a different phrase. If they use one not already provided in parentheses, no deviation should be given as long as the clarifier is appropriate. The best practice is still to use parenthetical clarifiers because they have been previously chosen and designed to achieve the clarification objective accurately; however, there are no Universal Standards that support a deviation in this case.

Remember that Emergency Dispatchers can clarify in a nearly equivalent (equal) way, according to the Performance Standards. You may disagree with the clarifier used, but as long as the intent respects the information that needs to be gathered, this should not result in a deviation. That being said, you can still give feedback on the best practice for a particular situation.

According to Universal Standard 3 in the Performance Standards, “The dispatcher may provide an acceptable clarification or enhancement to any protocol question or instruction.” The reviewer must take this statement into account during the review. When the situation allows, the Emergency Dispatcher can refer to statements previously made by the caller. These are often spontaneously provided.

This can be an excellent example of customer service because it tells the caller that you are paying attention to their situation and listening to what they’re saying. Keep in mind that the intention of the scripted question or instruction must remain intact. Also, the Emergency Dispatcher must ask a complete question without introducing any suggestions.

Clarifiers in action

Here are some inappropriate clarifiers:

 MPDS

The caller said in Case Entry that her mom was having an asthma attack. During Key Questions, the Emergency Dispatcher said, “Your mom has asthma, right?”

FPDS

In Case Entry, the caller said that they had a fire in the oven when they were cooking dinner. During Key Questions, the EFD said, “You said the fire is contained in the appliance, right?”

PPDS

The caller is reporting an argument with his wife and said she slapped him in the face. During Key Questions, the EPD said, “The disturbance is physical, right?”

Now that you’ve seen examples of inappropriate clarifiers, what are some ways to correctly clarify? How about adding, “Is that correct?” The Performance Standards indicates this is an acceptable clarification. In this case, the reviewer's discretion is called upon.

The best practice is to ask the question or give the instruction as written at all times. However, in a conversational context and to respect the principles of active listening, it may be appropriate to repeat what the caller has previously stated, provided that the Emergency Dispatcher then follows that with a question. Adding “Is that correct?” serves this purpose adequately, although there are better ways of clarifying, such as referring to a previously given statement made by the caller and then asking the Key Question as written.

Here are a few correctly used clarifiers:

MPDS

Caller: “I fell and hurt my leg.”

Emergency Dispatcher: “You hurt your leg, is that correct?”

FPDS

Caller: “There is smoke in my house.”

Emergency Dispatcher: “You see smoke in your house, is that correct?”

PPDS

Caller: “There are three bears on my front porch!”

Emergency Dispatcher: “You see three bears on your front porch, is that correct?”

However, it is important to avoid systematically repeating what the caller mentions (also know as parroting). This practice can irritate the caller and give the impression that we have not taken their previous statements into account. This should be evaluated in the customer service section.

It is crucial that the reviewer remains flexible toward the Emergency Dispatcher who talks to themselves while answering protocol questions. This should not be interpreted as suggestive or improvised questions. Although these practices can have the same irritating effect and cause confusion for the caller, they are not incorrect but should be used with care.

It may also be necessary to introduce the interrogation of a third-party caller or an anxious caller by first providing a statement to explain our actions and offer reassurance. This practice is encouraged when the situation allows, and these statements should not be considered as questions or instructions given at an inappropriate area (Universal Standard 22).

These are examples of correct enhancement usage:

·   “Stay on the line. I need to verify some information to better assist you.”

·   “I understand that you're not on site. I will gather some information. Please answer to the best of your knowledge.”

Freelance questions are identified differently in the reviewer's evaluation. A freelance question corresponds to any question that does not appear in the protocol script and is not intended to clarify an ambiguous statement or answer provided by the caller. These questions generally do not provide relevant information for the interrogation, nor do they direct the Emergency Dispatcher's intervention toward a more appropriate protocol or set of specific instructions.

Examples of freelance questions include:

MPDS

“Has he been drinking today?”

FPDS

“Do you think someone started the fire?”

PPDS

“Has he ever hit you before?”

During clarification efforts, if the Emergency Dispatcher asks a scripted protocol question, it should be considered as a question asked in an inappropriate area. This type of situation frequently occurs when clarifying “OK, tell me exactly what happened.”

Asking a question in an inappropriate area can include:

MPDS

Caller: "My grandmother fell, and she has lots of pain."

Emergency Dispatcher: "Where is she hurt?"

FPDS

Caller: “There is smoke in my house.”

Emergency Dispatcher: “Where is the smoke coming from?”

PPDS

Caller: “I’ve been robbed.”

Emergency Dispatcher: “Were any weapons involved?”

Keep in mind that clarification might be needed to determine the primary discipline, and it is conceivable that some of these might come from Key Questions. You may ask if there are any injuries on a lift assist or traffic collision to determine Medical or Fire as the primary discipline. In that case, these are considered acceptable.

Conclusion

Finally, let's quote Performance Standards 10.1.1: “A rigid application of these standards without consideration of reasonableness overlooks the nuances present in almost every case, which may lead the Emergency Dispatcher to feel frustrated and unfairly penalized. This may cause the Emergency Dispatcher to provide robotic calltaking and to fear asking clarifying questions or thinking creatively within the context of the incident.”

Let's remember the intent of quality assurance and improvement. It's about providing a picture of performance in the context of its day-to-day application, not just its ideal application. The context of each call can vary, and these nuances build their uniqueness. The review should reflect this principle.

As a colleague has said: “If a clear Performance Standard is not violated but the behavior could be improved upon, consider the principle of ‘Education over Deviation.’” It's the best way to improve performance and get your team on board with the quality assurance process.