# data[].attributes.body
Categorising emergency incidents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 999 Emergency Call Handler | Paramedics On Scene | BBC Scotland

# data[].attributes.body
Part two, Categorising emergency incidents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HSE Factual Report of The Smiler Ride incident

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Application

The national decision model (NDM) is suitable for all decisions and should be used by everyone in policing. It can be applied:

to spontaneous incidents or planned operations

by an individual or team of people

to both operational and non-operational situations

Decision makers can use the NDM to structure a rationale of what they did during an incident and why.

Managers and others can use it to review decisions and actions, and promote learning.

In a fast-moving incident, the police service recognises that it may not always be possible to segregate thinking or response according to each phase of the model. In such cases, the main priority of decision makers is to keep in mind their overarching mission to act with integrity to protect and serve the public.

The model

The NDM has six key elements.

1. Code of Ethics.

2. Gather information and intelligence.

3. Assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy.

4. Consider powers and policy.

5. Identify options and contingencies.

6. Take action and review what happened.

Each component provides the user with an area for focus and consideration. The element that binds the model together is the Code of Ethics at the centre.

Code of Ethics

The NDM puts the Code of Ethics at the heart of all police decision making. This distinguishes the NDM from other decision-making models and recognises the need for all police decisions to be consistent with the principles and standards of behaviour set out in the Code.

Policing principles

The policing principles originate from the Principles of Public Life developed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1995. The Code of Ethics includes the principles of 'fairness' and 'respect' as research has shown these to be crucial to maintaining and enhancing public confidence in policing.

Accountability - you are answerable for your decisions, actions and omissions.

Fairness - you treat people fairly.

Honesty - you are truthful and trustworthy.

Integrity - you always do the right thing.

Leadership - you lead by good example.

Objectivity - you make choices on evidence and your best professional judgement.

Openness - you are open and transparent in your actions and decisions.

Respect - you treat everyone with respect.

Selflessness - you act in the public interest.

Standards of professional behaviour

These standards originate from the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (for police officers) and the Police Staff Council Joint Circular 54 (for police staff). They reflect the expectations that the College of Policing and the public have of the behaviour of those working in policing.

1. Honesty and integrity - I will be honest and act with integrity at all times, and will not compromise or abuse my position.

2. Authority, respect and courtesy - I will act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. I will use my powers and authority lawfully and proportionately, and will respect the rights of all individuals.

3. Equality and diversity - I will act with fairness and impartiality. I will not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.

4. Use of force - I will only use force as part of my role and responsibilities, and only to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

5. Orders and instructions - I will, as a police officer, give and carry out lawful orders only, and will abide by police regulations. I will give reasonable instructions only, and will follow all reasonable instructions.

6. Duties and responsibilities - I will be diligent in the exercise of my duties and responsibilities.

7. Confidentiality - I will treat information with respect, and access or disclose it only in the proper course of my duties.

8. Fitness for work - I will ensure, when on duty or at work, that I am fit to carry out my responsibilities.

9. Conduct - I will behave in a manner, whether on or off duty, which does not bring discredit on the police service or undermine public confidence in policing.

10. Challenging and reporting improper behaviour - I will report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour.

Six key elements (CIAPOAR)

The mnemonic CIAPOAR can help users to remember the six key elements of the NDM. It also acts as an aide-memoire in aspects of decision making.

Code of Ethics - principles and standards of professional behaviour.

Information - gather information and intelligence.

Assessment - assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy.

Powers and policy - consider powers and policy.

Options - identify options and contingencies.

Action and review - take action and review what happened.

Code of Ethics

The Code of Ethics sets out the policing principles that members of the police service are expected to uphold and the standards of behaviour they are expected to meet. Many forces have their own values statements which are complementary to the Code of Ethics.

Throughout a situation, decision makers should ask themselves the following questions.

Is what I am considering consistent with the Code of Ethics?

What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?

What does the police service expect of me in this situation?

Is this action or decision likely to reflect positively on my professionalism and policing generally?

Could I explain my action or decision in public?

Information - gather information and intelligence

During this stage the decision maker defines the situation (ie, defines what is happening or has happened) and clarifies matters relating to any initial information and intelligence.

Decision makers (ie, potentially everyone in policing) could ask themselves the following questions.

What is happening?

What do I know so far?

What do I not know?

What further information (or intelligence) do I want/need at this moment?

Assessment - assess threat and risk and develop a working strategy

This analytical stage involves assessing the situation, including any specific threat, the risk of harm and the potential for benefits. Among other things decision makers should consider the objectives of preventing discrimination, promoting good relations and fostering equal opportunities.

Develop a working strategy to guide subsequent stages by asking the following questions.

Do I need to take action immediately?

Do I need to seek more information?

What could go wrong (and what could go well)?

What is causing the situation?

How probable is the risk of harm?

How serious would it be?

Is that level of risk acceptable?

Is this a situation for the police alone to deal with?

Am I the appropriate person to deal with this?

What am I trying to achieve?

Will my action resolve the situation?

Powers and policy - consider powers and policy

This stage involves considering the powers, policies and legislation that could apply in this particular situation.

Decision makers could ask themselves the following questions.

What police powers might be required?

Is there any national guidance covering this type of situation?

Do any local organisational policies or guidelines apply?

What legislation might apply?

Is there any research evidence?

It may be reasonable to act outside policy as long as there is a good rationale for doing so.

Options - identify options and contingencies

This stage involves considering the different ways to make a particular decision (or resolve a situation) with the least risk of harm.

Decision makers should consider:

the options that are open

the immediacy of any threat

the limits of information to hand

the amount of time available

the available resources and support

their own knowledge, experience and skills

the impact of potential action on the situation and the public

what action to take if things do not happen as anticipated

If decision makers have to account for their decisions, will they be able to say they were:

proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?

reasonable in the circumstances facing them at the time?

Action and review - take action and review what happened

This stage has two distinct steps. At the action step, decision makers are required to make and implement appropriate decisions. The review step requires decision makers to review and reflect on what happened once an incident is over.

Action

Respond:

Implement the option you have selected.

Does anyone else need to know what you have decided?

Record:

If you think it is appropriate, record what you did and why.

Monitor:

What happened as a result of your decision?

Was it what you wanted or expected to happen?

If the incident is continuing, go through the NDM again as necessary.

Review

If the incident is over, review your decisions, using the NDM. What lessons can you take from how things turned out and what might you do differently next time? If appropriate, evaluate the impact of the decision on outcomes.

Recording decision making

Decision makers are accountable for their decisions and must be prepared to provide a rationale for what they did and why. In some circumstances the need to document decisions is prescribed by statute, required by organisational strategies, policies or local practices, or left to the decision maker's discretion.

Whatever the circumstances, the police service recognises that it is impossible to record every single decision and that not all decisions need to be recorded. In most instances professional judgement should guide officers on whether or not to record the rationale, as well as the nature and extent of any explanation.

The record should be proportionate to the seriousness of the situation or incident, particularly if this involves a risk of harm to a person.

Decision makers may find the mnemonic CIAPOAR provides a useful structure for recording the rationale behind their decisions (for example, brief notes in notebooks against individual letters). Any notes should be proportionate to the situation.

C - the principles and standards of the Code of Ethics considered during decision making.

I - information and intelligence known about the situation.

A - how it was assessed and what the working strategy was.

P - any powers, policies, legislation that applied.

O - the main options considered.

A - the decision made or action taken.

R - the resulting outcome.

CIAPOAR may also be useful when describing or reviewing a decision.

Reviewing decision making

The NDM can be useful for examining decisions made and action taken, whether by a supervisor or during an informal investigation or a formal inquiry.

Code of Ethics

How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?

Information

What information or intelligence was available?

Assessment

What factors (potential benefits and harms) were assessed?

What threat and risk assessment methods were used (if any)?

Was a working strategy developed and was it appropriate?

Powers and policy

Were there any powers, policies and legislation that should have been considered?

If policy was not followed, was this reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances?

Options

How were feasible options identified and assessed?

Action and review

Were decisions proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?

Were decisions reasonable in the circumstances facing the decision maker?

Were decisions communicated effectively?

Were decisions and the rationale for them recorded as appropriate?

Were decisions monitored and reassessed where necessary?

What lessons can be learnt from the outcomes and how the decisions were made?

Questions for supervisors

In reviewing and reflecting on decisions, questions that supervisors might ask themselves include the following.

Did you recognise and acknowledge instances of initiative or good decisions (and were they passed to managers where appropriate)?

Did you recognise, question and challenge instances of poor decision making?

Can you relate the decision making to the Code of Ethics?

Are there any opportunities for organisational learning?

Even where the outcome was not as planned, if the decision was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, and made in accordance with the Code of Ethics, the decision maker deserves the support of their supervisor and that of the organisation.

The joint decision model

The NDM is the primary decision model for the police service. However, responding to emergencies is a multi-agency activity and the resolution of an emergency will usually involve collaboration between police, fire and rescue, and ambulance services.

The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP) has been established to improve the ways in which the three emergency services work together at major and complex incidents.

When commanders arrive at the scene of a major incident, it is essential that they can quickly establish what is happening around them and jointly agree a plan of action. The joint decision model (JDM) has been adapted from the NDM to enable this to happen.

The single difference between the JDM and the NDM is the wording in the central box. The NDM has the Code of Ethics in the centre, whereas the JDM has 'Working Together, Saving Lives, Reducing Harm'.

According to JESIP:

Joint decisions must be made with reference to the overarching or primary aim of any response to an emergency: to save lives and reduce harm. This is achieved through a coordinated, multi-agency response. Decision makers should have this uppermost in their minds throughout the decision-making process.

The mission of policing is to prevent crime and protect the public. The objectives of saving lives and reducing harm are, therefore, entirely consistent with the police mission and the Code of Ethics.

In working towards the JESIP objectives, police personnel are expected to act with principles such as integrity, honesty, respect, fairness and selflessness - ie, all the principles and standards of professional behaviour outlined in the Code of Ethics.

When involved in joint situations, the three emergency services will apply the model collectively. For example, they will consider and share information, make a shared assessment, and take any respective powers and policies into consideration.

Emergency situations may involve differing professional opinions on the best course of action. Reaching a joint decision that is not necessarily the same one as the police would have decided on if they were the only agency making the decision is the nature of collaboration and a feature of joint working. As long as the police representatives can agree the proposed decision is proportionate, lawful, necessary and ethical, there is no conflict with the Code of Ethics.
JESIP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National decision model | College of Policing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The principles for joint working should be used during all phases of an incident, whether spontaneous or pre-planned and regardless of scale.
They support the development of a multi-agency response and provide structure during the response to all incidents.
The principles can also be applied during the recovery phase.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The principles for joint working should be used during all phases of an incident, whether spontaneous or pre-planned and regardless of scale.They support the development of a multi-agency response and provide structure during the response to all incidents.The principles can also be applied during the recovery phase.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by College of Policing

About these guidelines

Our approach to recognising vulnerability-related risk is based on the concept that vulnerabilities are features of individuals, and that harm - or the risk of harm - occurs when relevant vulnerabilities interact with the individual's situation. For example, an individual with a learning disability may not be at risk of harm if they receive suitable support and protection that helps to prevent them from being exploited or abused.

THRIVE

We have adopted the THRIVE (threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement) definition of vulnerability. This states that a person is vulnerable if, as a result of their situation or circumstances, they are unable to take care of or protect themselves or others from harm or exploitation.

Applying the THRIVE approach requires the following four steps.

1. Identify an individual's vulnerability or vulnerabilities.

2. Understand how these vulnerabilities interact with the situation to create harm or risk of harm.

3. Assess the level of harm or risk of harm.

4. Take appropriate and proportionate action if required, involving partners where they have the relevant skills and resources.

Over the last decade, responders have been reliant on checklists and risk tools to identify and assess risk. The review of the research evidence undertaken in developing these guidelines identified a lack of evidence associated with the effectiveness of these checklists and tools. Most people who need help will be vulnerable in more than one way, and a single tool is unlikely to address all vulnerabilities.

This does not mean, however, that checklists and tools have no value. They can inform and guide a responder on the nature and origin of risks. However, decisions about the level of risk and what action to take rely on responders using professional judgement.

Note: ensure a refreshed assessment of risk and vulnerability at each police interaction.

What these guidelines are for

These guidelines focus on spotting the signs associated with vulnerability (clues), as well as creating a safe, trusting environment to identify risk, encouraging the disclosure of harm and eliciting the information required to inform appropriate actions to keep people safe (communication).

Responding officers and staff often come into contact with people in crisis, who have already suffered or are at risk of harm. These initial police interactions present crucial opportunities for appropriate action, for example, safeguarding.

Responding to these opportunities requires the ability to recognise vulnerabilities and risks of harm, to maintain an open and enquiring mind, to understand your own responsibilities and to know the most appropriate action to take. Appendix 1 presents examples of action that may be appropriate when responding to these types of incidents.

The aim of these guidelines is to support all officers and staff to:

spot the clues associated with vulnerability-related risk

create an environment that encourages individuals to disclose relevant information

be curious and obtain a rich picture of circumstances associated with an incident

This will help responders to deliver an appropriate policing response, irrespective of crime or incident type. For the guidelines to be implemented effectively, there must be suitable professional development opportunities for all staff.

The research evidence that underpins the guidelines is mainly drawn from the experiences of vulnerable victims. Police encounter individuals in other contexts, for example, witnesses, suspects, detainees, colleagues. These encounters may also reveal vulnerabilities. Although not the focus, the guidelines can be used to help understand vulnerabilities in different contexts and to frame appropriate responses where relevant.

The evidence base is strongest in identifying themes that cut across public protection strands, as well as those that can positively inform and influence professional judgement. This evidence base is reflected in three responder-focused guidelines - clues, communication and curiosity.

Applying these guidelines

To better inform professional judgement, the three guidelines should be applied in combination, not in isolation. They are not hierarchical - one is not more important than any other.

The three guidelines are also potentially self-reinforcing. For example, good communication can reveal more clues, which may open up more avenues for investigation (curiosity). This can then lead to more focused communication, and so on.

If officers and staff listen to people, spot potential indicators of risk and are curious about these indicators, it will help them to identify individuals who require higher levels of intervention and support, as well as those who do not.

In order to respond effectively to a person's vulnerabilities, and to manage them so they do not suffer harm, it is necessary to have an assessment of the capacity and resilience of that individual, as well as the people around them.

Individuals are resilient and resourceful to different degrees. They are supported by families, friends and communities to different levels. The police form part of a broader system that should work together to make people safer, building on the resilience of the individual and those around them.

The framework for support from the broader system can be understood as operating at three levels. This framework is based on the College's 10 principles of risk.

Framework for support

Level

Principle

Description and link to risk principles

Individual

Making risk-based decisions is a core professional requirement.

The risk of harm can never be totally removed ( Principle 4).

All members of the police service must make decisions in conditions of uncertainty ( Principle 1) to achieve the safety, security and wellbeing of individuals and communities ( Principle 2).

Individual

Recording or referring risk decisions requires professional judgement.

Decision makers are required to consider the value and likelihood of a decision's possible benefits against the seriousness and likelihood of the harm ( Principle 3).

After considering the likelihood of harm occurring, as well as its seriousness should it happen ( Principle 7), decision makers should use professional judgement to determine whether to record risk decisions and whether to share them with partner agencies ( Principle 9).

Organisation

Evaluating risk decisions should focus on the quality of the decision making, not the outcome.

When reviewing others' decision making, the reviewer should take into account the dilemmas or emergencies that the decision maker faced, whether they were part of a sequence of decisions, or the role and responsibilities of any other agencies ( Principle 5).

The standard expected of risk decisions should be consistent with what would be expected from officers of similar rank, specialism or experience in the same circumstances ( Principle 6).

Organisation

Learning from risk decisions is necessary to reduce risk aversion and improve decision making.

The police service can encourage a more positive approach to risk by openly supporting decision makers and by building their confidence to avoid them being risk averse ( Principle 10).

Recognising good risk taking promotes a culture that learns from successes as well as failures ( Principle 8).

Wider system

The police should not assume responsibility, directly or indirectly, for all forms of risk.

This underpins the 10 risk principles, as other agencies may have more appropriate skills (for example, in risk assessment), resources (for example, ability to provide long-term interventions) and legal powers.

This framework links directly to the guidelines. For example, clues, communication and curiosity offer an evidence-based opportunity to inform professional judgement. The first guideline ( Professional development) is aimed at senior leaders, to drive organisational learning that can help to underpin an effective response at an individual and organisational level.

Development of these guidelines

These guidelines were developed collaboratively by a College Guideline Committee consisting of frontline practitioners, subject matter experts and academics. The committee was supported by College of Policing specialist staff.

The role of the committee was to develop the scope, consider the evidence and draft the guidelines, taking into account the views of stakeholders.

Evidence base for these guidelines

The guidelines and supporting information draw on the best available evidence - in this case, an extensive review of the relevant research, along with insights from police officers, police staff, partner organisations and other sectors.

Although there is a large evidence base in this area, the largest proportion of studies included in this review focused on domestic abuse and serious sexual abuse victims.

However, these studies do provide useful findings to help responders recognise more complex factors, such as coercive control, that span a range of vulnerabilities.

There was sufficient consistency across the studies reviewed for the committee to give a clear steer as to the skills that officers and staff need, as well as the clues and signals of which they should be aware.

The supporting information has been developed using:

practitioner expertise, including face-to-face interviews and calls for practice

generally applicable suggestions extracted from existing guidance on achieving best evidence

relevant information from the research evidence

Who the guidelines are for

The guidelines are aimed at policing responders who, as part of their role, identify and protect vulnerable people.

Policing responders include police officers or staff in initial encounters with members of the public, such as:

frontline officers

PCSOs

specials

call handlers

front counter staff

These guidelines may be useful for specialist officers and staff conducting secondary risk assessments. They may also be useful for individuals who are responsible for supporting responders or for developing organisational policy and strategy connected to vulnerability-related risk, for example, senior leaders.

Although these guidelines have been developed primarily for face-to-face interactions, the issue of identifying and responding to vulnerability is relevant in other forms of interactions, such as telephone calls and contact via social media. Officers and staff who are involved in these roles may also find a number of the guidelines relevant to their role.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to vulnerability-related risk | College of Policing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What and who these evidence-based guidelines are for

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ride along with two of our volunteer Emergency Responders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 7 Ass 1 Emergency incidents 2026 27

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unit 7 Ass 2 Simulated emergency incidents 2026 27