BACKGROUND

 

Scenario

You have been asked to produce a briefing paper for a number of new local Councillors. Your paper should discuss how local objective fits in with a Fire & Rescue Service Integrated Risk Management plan.  Specifically, you will need to discuss how prevention, protection and response activities will be best used to mitigate the impact of risk on communities in a cost effective way.

Following the recent death of 2 firefighters in Southampton. You should include in your paper. How the fire and rescue service manage Health and Safety both operational and non operational. You should give an example of a risk assessment which is used during operational incidents, to help the Councillors to understand the process.

Learning Outcome Covered: 1,2, 3, 4 & 5

 

word limit of 2500 words

 

Your report should:

1. Make reference to the relevant Health & Safety legislation, specifically the need for a ‘risk assessment’.
2. Review the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 and analyse why this act places ‘prevention’ at the core of all Fire & Rescue activities.
3. Identify a Fire & Rescue service ‘Integrated Risk Management Plan’ and give examples of how such plans form the basis of an effective and efficient Fire & Rescue service.

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Outcomes

Students will be able to:

• Assess the significance of risk management in relation to Fire and Rescue Services.

• Explain the principles and application of ‘Integrated Risk Assessment Plans ‘within Fire and Rescue Services

• Explain and apply qualitative and quantitative risk evaluation techniques

• Discuss the different factors leading to specific risks within a workplace and the role of Health and Safety legislation in this context

• Undertake a risk assessment in relation to a work-based task within Fire and Rescue operations

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

 

1        You must submit ONE copy of your assignment via MOODLE and one in ONE SINGLE POLY WALLET to the front desk of the HE Building on

 

Monday 24^th May 2010 by 4.00 pm.

Please DO NOT staple your assignment together

2        You must retain a SECOND copy for your own purposes.  Your marked copy will not be returned to you until the end of the academic year, following moderation by external examiners

3        You must ensure that a completed front sheet is also submitted.  Your work will not be graded without one.  You can obtain these from MOODLE.

4        You will receive a COPY of this front sheet back containing feedback from the tutor and indicating the provisional grade awarded subject to confirmation by the external moderation process

5        You must also carefully read the attached assessment criteria

6        Please note there is a total word limit of 2500 words

7        If more than one task, indicate the weighting of each task

8        Specify the learning outcomes being assessed by this assignment

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: Foundation Degree

 

80-100%

Thorough explicit knowledge and understanding of the issues of risk  management. Clear understanding of and explicit links to wider aspects of the field.  Sustained and fully substantiated critical analysis including competing perspectives. Discussion is fully supported by reference to relevant contemporary source material and key texts. Accurate and appropriate use of referencing system.  Wholly relevant to all aspects of the set task and often insightful. Organising principles always promote and enrich the discussion. Logical structure and some evidence of independent thought. Work displays an excellent use of written English.

 

 

 

70%-79%

Very good knowledge and understanding of issues of risk  management and  explicitly identified.  Some appreciation of links to a wider field.  High level of critical analysis and the questioning of assumptions.  Clear evidence of the application of a wide and relevant source base.  Accurate use of referencing system.  Discussion is always appropriate and contains  some insightful elements.  Organising principles complement and enhance the discussion and may include evidence of independent thought.  Work displays an excellent use of standard written English.

 

60-69%

Good, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of  risk  management.  Some appreciation of wider aspects of the field.  Ability to analyse critically, drawing on a range of competing perspectives.  Some questioning of assumptions.  Discussion is well informed by additional reading.  Evidence of an extended resource base.  Accurate use of referencing system.  Discussion is always appropriate to the set task.  Organising principles support the coherence and clarity of the discussion.  Work displays a very good use of standard written English.  Also statements are clearly expressed and fluently written.

 

50-59%

Evidence of sound factual and/or conceptual knowledge base and the ability to use accurately appropriate terminology.  Some ability to analyse within guiding principles.  Some evidence of critical though.  Effective use is made of relevant source material.  Accurate use of referencing system.  Appropriate discussion with clear relevance to the set task.  Structure supports the coherence and clarity of the discussion.  Work displays a good use of standard written English with few grammatical errors.  The work  is written in an appropriate academic style.

 

40-49%

Some indications of a limited ability to identify appropriate ideas, concepts and principles.  Mostly descriptive with little evidence of critical thought.  Appropriate use is made of a limited range of source material.  Largely accurate use of referencing system.  Largely addresses the set task.  Clear structure that is relevant to the set task and supports the discussion.  Work is written to an acceptable standard of English.  There are few grammatical errors.  The work may need more careful editing.

 

35-39% (Fail)

Signs of an emerging knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Unable  to consistently  apply knowledge  in an appropriate way. Insufficient understanding to fully achieve the stated learning outcomes. Generally descriptive and uncritical. Some inaccuracy and lack of coherence. Some use of source material but a superficial level. Little evidence of further reading. Poor referencing style Generally addresses the task but some irrelevance or over-emphasis on peripheral issues. Some organisational principles included. Major features may not be sufficiently defined or may be omitted with some repetition. Generally poor use of standard written English.  Much more care is needed with language construction and editing.

 

 

Below 34% (Fail)

Inadequate knowledge and understanding of the central topic issues. Many factual errors. Use of irrelevant or inappropriate material. Insufficient understanding to achieve the stated learning outcomes. Descriptive and uncritical. Lack of consistency in the form of illogical claims. Discussion may be irrelevant to the set task.Poor use of source material. Little or no use of additional reading. Poor or incorrect use of referencing system. Unfocused response. Little sense of the relative importance of the issues presented and the work may be peripheral to the set task  Little evidence of planning. Discussion lacks organisation. Major features may not be sufficiently defined of may be absent. Work may be repetitive. Poor standards of basic English. Much more care needed with language construction and editing.