Most of the statements in the FBU document contain a reasonable degree of accuracy, however they are frequently quoted out of context, additionally there is a considerable amount of new research that demonstrates that 4 minutes is the maximum amount of time available to achieve an effective resuscitation. The 2004 Fire and Rescue Service Act places new duties on all FRS, Co-Responder schemes fall into the scope of the act.

• Saving Lives – It is an unfortunate fact that achieving reliable quantifiable scientific data on patient outcomes derived from co responder scheme intervention is virtually impossible.

• All data therefore has to be subjective, this is often miss-quoted in an attempt to minimise the benefits derived from Co-Responder schemes.

• On average each scheme saves 5 lives per year, with as many as 10 others that could be defined as possible saves. There is a huge benefit to very worried relatives when responders arrive; reassurance is often 80% of the treatment given!

• Even in the worst case where a resuscitation attempt has failed, the relatives are comforted by the fact that everything possible was done to save the patient.

• If a patient has an obstructed airway they will be dead within 4 minutes, Co-Responders do not need paramedic skills to save a life. A highly skilled, qualified paramedic equipped with £ 60,000.00 of the latest equipment can not do anything for a patient who has not been breathing for more than 4 minutes.

• Perhaps in an ideal world everyone needing a paramedic should get one in less than 4 minutes, however if the world was that ideal we would not need any of the emergency services.

• Many areas that do not have ideal Ambulance Service cover may have a fire station; these are ideal bases for Co-Responder schemes.

• Many Co-Responder schemes have been in operation since the late 1990s, thousands of Co-Responder calls have been attended. There have been very few instances of simultaneous demand and even fewer where these actually caused any difficulty.

• All services have effective back up arrangements; these easily cover a rare event of simultaneous house fires occurring in the same station area.

• If a serious life threatening call occurred whilst a Co-Responder call was in progress, locally agreed protocols will cover most eventualities.

• Modern and professional control operators should be able to determine the correct response to any incident that could occur.

• In an extreme circumstance the Co-Responder response could be stood down and redirected to a life threatening fire/rescue emergency as the Paramedic response is always mobilised when the call is received in Ambulance control.

• The FRS Act 2004 places a statutory obligation on fire and rescue services to attend any emergency, not just fires.

• Co-Responder schemes are a valuable and effective extension of service delivery that enhances the protection any FRS can offer to the communities it covers.

• There is no suggestion that firefighters participating in a Co-Responder scheme should be trained as paramedics, this would be impossible due to training and skill maintenance implications.

• However moderately enhanced first aid skills save lives ever day, often simply by maintaining the patients airway.

• Training for Co-Responders is usually delivered by the Ambulance Service to ensure that the correct treatment protocols are in use. This also helps to build a better understanding of both services operational priorities and working arrangements.

• This has the added benefit of increasing the operational efficiency at incidents where both services are in attendance leading to better treatment for the patient.

• All Co-Responders benefit from the enhanced training provided by the Ambulance Service staff. Additionally, frequently working together with local paramedics leads to a greater confidence in each others abilities, indeed, most Co-Responders are now on first name terms with paramedic staff.

• It is true that initially, early schemes were only intended to be sent to cardiac related calls; however it quickly became apparent that other categories of call could be attended with some additional training.

• Several more call categories have been added into most schemes, fundamentally they are all dealt with by utilising basic lifesaving skills.

• As Co-Responders are only utilised for immediately life threatening calls, the specifics of the medical emergency are often irrelevant as management of the patients’ airway, breathing and circulation take priority.

• All Co-Responders are regularly reassessed as part of on-going clinical governance by the Ambulance Service.

• The FBU’s position on Co-Responder liability is well known, it has been repeatedly proven that the vicarious liability insurances provided by all Ambulance Trusts are reliable and robust.

• It is interesting that the FBU’s position statement actually confirms that even if the Ambulance Service cover was to be insufficient, the FRS insurance would cover the Co-Responders.

• All Ambulance Trusts provide insurance for their Co-Responders; FRS Co-Responders are only one of a wide selection of lay responders utilised.

• As FRS responders are mobilised by their respective FRS, the Firefighters Pension Scheme will still apply whilst the responders are carrying out Co-Responder calls.

The points above address directly the negative and dogmatic stance of the FBU as detailed in their out of date position statement.

• Improved appreciation of the local station by the community it serves

• Increased call volume, often on very quiet stations

• Increased income generation which preserves retention of staff and encourages recruitment

• Improved first aid skills

• By raising the profile of a fire station within the community, Co Response enhances recruitment

• Greater feeling of value amongst fire station crew, especially after saving a life.

• Greater cooperation between firefighters and paramedics at incidents, this leads to better treatment for the patient and generates a better understanding of FRS and ambulance service roles