Search

Background: Fire danger rating systems are used daily across Australia to support fire management operations and communications to the general public regarding potential fire danger. Aims: In this paper, we introduce the Australian Fire Danger Rating System (AFDRS), providing a short historical account of fire danger rating in Australia as well as the requirements for an improved forecast system. Methods: The AFDRS combines nationally consistent, spatially explicit fuel information with forecast weather and advanced fire behaviour models and knowledge to produce locally relevant ratings of fire behaviour potential. Key results: A well-defined framework is essential for categorising and defining fire danger based on operational response, the potential for impact and observable characteristics of fire incidents. The AFDRS is modular, supporting continuous and incremental improvements and allowing upgrades to components in response to new science. Conclusions: The AFDRS provides a new method to estimate fire danger based on the best available fire behaviour models, leading to potentially significant improvements in the way fire danger is calculated, forecast and interpreted. Implications: The Australian Fire Danger Rating System was implemented in 2022, the most significant change to fire danger forecasting in Australia in more than 50 years. We introduce the Australian Fire Danger Rating System (AFDRS), providing a history of fire danger rating in Australia and requirement for advancements. We describe development, design principles and the supporting framework of the AFDRS as an introduction to subsequent papers in this series. This article belongs to the Collection Australian Fire Danger Rating System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Development of the Australian Fire Danger Rating System began in 2017 with a project aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of a new fire danger rating system through a Research Prototype (AFDRSRP) that accounted for variability in Australian vegetation types, was nationally applicable, modular and open to continuous improvement. Aims: In this manuscript, we identify and define transition points and categories for the AFDRSRP. We discuss user responses to the categorisation during a live trial evaluation of the AFDRSRP and reflect on limitations and potential improvements. Methods: A review of available literature, broad consultation with stakeholders and reanalysis of fire impact data were used to determine suitable thresholds for categorising fire danger within the AFDRSRP. Key results: Fire danger categories within the AFDRSRP reflect transitions in fire behaviour that result in application of different fire management strategies or are associated with variation in serious consequences and impacts. Conclusions: The AFDRSRP incorporated the best available science, supported by a well-defined framework for categorising and defining fire danger making it suitable for application across Australian fire jurisdictions and range of fuel types. Implications: The framework allows fire managers to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of forecasted fire danger. We identify and present defined categories and thresholds for the Australian Fire Danger Rating System: Research Prototype based on reflecting transitions in fire behaviour that result in application of different fire management strategies or associated with variation in potential for serious consequences and impacts. This article belongs to the Collection Australian Fire Danger Rating System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Speech pathologists are confronted by ethical issues when they need to make decisions about client care, address team conflict, and fulfil the range of duties and responsibilities required of health professionals. However, there has been little research into the specific nature of ethical dilemmas experienced by speech pathologists and whether the nature of ethical conflict changes as they acquire experience in the professional workforce. Speech pathologists' perceptions of ethical issues provide insight into factors impacting upon quality of care in contemporary healthcare settings. Aims: To describe, compare, and contrast the nature of ethical dilemmas identified by new graduate and experienced speech pathologists. Methods & Procedures: A narrative methodology was used to explore the ethical dilemmas that participants experienced in the professional work place. Primary data were collected through in-depth interviews with ten new graduate and ten experienced speech pathologists in their work settings. During these interviews, participants were asked to "tell the story" of ethical dilemmas they identified at work. Outcomes & Results: An ethical story was constructed for each participant based upon keywords and concepts from interview transcripts. These keywords and concepts were coded into group themes that reflected the nature of ethical dilemmas experienced by new graduate versus experienced speech pathologists. Comparing the results of thematic analysis for both groups of participant revealed similarities and differences in ethical dilemmas identified by new graduate and experienced health professionals. Conclusions & Implications: Participants identified ethical dilemmas in the professional practice areas of client management, professional relationships, service delivery, and personal/professional identity. Themes from new graduates' ethical dilemmas included: making safe choices; avoiding conflict, following service delivery rules, and building professional identity. Experienced speech pathologists' themes included: life choices, adapting policies, and professional status. Supporting client autonomy, managing risk taking, adopting fair service delivery policies, and supporting health professionals' ethical practice are part of ethical quality care. The results support the need for an increased focus on ethical practice in the workplace and further support for speech pathologists experiencing ethical conflict in response to service delivery policies. (Contains 3 tables and 1 note.)