Skip to content
 

Form

Form - Post-Incident Analysis Report Outline (Tier 2)

Document FSSMS-FRM-50Stage 1Revision 4Version 0.3.3

Topic pages open on your jurisdiction, and requirements tables show its line. You can change this on any page.

Purpose and use

The outline every Tier 2 Post-Incident Analysis report follows, so that reports are comparable, auditable and readable by a crew. The lead facilitator writes it; the sponsor checks it against the quality standard before release; participants see it before anyone else. The method behind each section is in Incident Investigation and Learning Program element 5.6 and follows the national incident investigation standard (CSA Z1005:21, cl. 6), the systems view of contributing factors (Holden et al., 2013)DOI and the principle of local rationality (Woods & Cook, 1999; Dekker, 2014). The outline also serves as the written post-incident analysis the responder safety standard asks of the incident safety officer (NFPA 1550, 2024, s. 5.7 and Annex G), with the safety officer’s observations entered under section 4.

Target: 30 days from triage, 60 at most. Length: as short as the event allows; most reports are eight to 15 pages plus appendices.

Report outline

Cover. Report reference; event reference; date of event; date of report; sponsor (role); lead facilitator (role); team (roles); distribution and status (draft to participants / draft to sponsor / released).

Firewall statement. The learning firewall text from the policy, on the first page.

1. Summary (one page)

What happened, in three sentences, as the crew experienced it. The three to five conditions that shaped it. What went well. The recommendations, each with its strength rating and proposed owner. One line on what a crew can do tonight.

2. Terms of reference

The signed terms of reference (toolkit 15.5 in the program note): tier and trigger, scope in and out, questions, team, access, timeline, statutory interfaces, support.

3. Method and sources

How the review was done: records collected (dispatch, radio, accountability, action plan, pre-plans, telematics, camera, weather, photographs, equipment set aside, training and inspection records, exposure log); number of learning interviews by role; site visit; subject matter advice; limits (what could not be obtained and why).

4. The event as experienced

A narrative from the participants’ point of view, in order, without judgment: what each crew knew, saw, expected and did, and when. The incident safety officer’s observations from the scene are entered here. Roles, never names.

5. Timeline

A single table: time; what happened; who knew it (by role); source. Checked with the participants.

6. What went well

The things the crews did, and the conditions that were present, that kept the event from being worse. Stated as specifically as the things that went wrong.

7. Decision points and local rationality

For each decision point: what the person knew; what they were trying to do; the cues they had; the pressures on them; why the action made sense at the time; what the system could have given them that it did not.

8. Contributing factors

The classification table (toolkit 15.8 in the program note): each factor in one work-system row (person, task, tools and equipment, organization, internal environment, external environment), cross-referenced to any of the five recurring fireground factors (risk assessment, command, accountability, communications, procedures). No factor entered as “human error,” “complacency,” “failed to” or “lost situational awareness” without the condition that produced it.

9. Recommendations

A table: number; the contributing factor it addresses; the recommendation; where it sits on the hierarchy of controls; strength rating (stronger / moderate / weaker); proposed priority on the department’s one scale; proposed owner (role); proposed date; effectiveness check proposed. Where only weaker actions are available, the stronger action that could not be recommended and why. The priority sets the interim control and the dates once the item enters the Corrective Action Register. P1 (Imminent): interim control immediately, the same shift, with the fire chief and JOHSC co-chairs told within 24 hours; plan due in two working days; closed within seven days. P2 (Serious): interim control within 24 hours where practicable; plan due in seven days; closed within 30 days. P3 (Moderate): plan due in 30 days; closed within 90 days. P4 (Improvement): plan by the next quarterly program update; closed within 365 days or the next budget cycle. Extensions and escalation follow the register.

10. Disagreements

Any participant’s or team member’s disagreement with a finding or recommendation, recorded in their words.

11. Support provided

Support offered and by whom (roles), independent of participation; no personal health information.

12. Distribution and briefing record

Participants briefed (date); sponsor’s quality check (date; result); JOHSC received (date); fire chief received (date); learning bulletin issued (date); register items opened (references); decisions recorded within 30 days (date).

Appendices (de-identified)

Photographs and diagrams; equipment examination results; relevant procedure extracts; the interview guide used; the firewall notice given to participants.

Sponsor’s quality check (before release)

# Check Yes / No
1 Timeline complete and checked with participants
2 Local rationality written for every decision point
3 Every contributing factor classified in a work-system row; no bare “human error”
4 What went well recorded as specifically as what went wrong
5 Every recommendation linked to a factor, placed on the hierarchy, rated for strength, given a priority (P1 to P4), with owner and date
6 Language rule met: roles not names; conditions not character; no “failed to,” “should have,” “ignored,” “complacent”
7 Participants briefed before release; disagreements recorded
8 Within 30 days (or reason for up to 60 recorded)
9 No conduct concern handled inside the report; any referral recorded by the fire chief separately
10 No personal health information

Fields

Field Type Required Who completes
Cover fields Identifiers; dates; roles; status Yes Lead facilitator
Firewall statement Fixed text Yes Lead facilitator
Summary Free text, one page Yes Lead facilitator
Terms of reference Attached document Yes Sponsor
Method and sources Free text; counts Yes Lead facilitator
Event as experienced Free text Yes Lead facilitator
Timeline Table (time; event; who knew; source) Yes Lead facilitator
What went well Free text Yes Lead facilitator
Decision points Repeating block (six fields) Yes Lead facilitator
Contributing factors Table (factor; work-system row; fireground factor) Yes Team
Recommendations Table (number; factor; text; hierarchy; strength rating; priority P1 to P4; owner; date; effectiveness check) Yes Team
Disagreements Free text Yes (may be “none”) Lead facilitator
Support provided Free text, no health information Yes Sponsor
Distribution and briefing Dates; references Yes Sponsor
Appendices Attachments, de-identified No Lead facilitator
Quality check Ten yes/no items Yes Sponsor

Records

Released reports are kept per 05 Document Control and Records. Interview notes are the facilitator’s working papers and are destroyed when the report is accepted. Reports are written for freedom-of-information disclosure.

References

CSA Group. (2021). CSA Z1005:21 (R2026), Workplace incident investigation. https://www.csagroup.org/store/product/CSA%20Z1005:21/

Dekker, S. (2014). The field guide to understanding “human error” (3rd ed.). Ashgate.

Holden, R. J., Carayon, P., Gurses, A. P., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., Ozok, A. A., & Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J. (2013). SEIPS 2.0: A human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics, 56(11), 1669–1686. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.838643

National Fire Protection Association. (2024). NFPA 1550, Standard for emergency responder health and safety (consolidates NFPA 1500, 1521 and 1561). https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-1550-standard-development/1550

Woods, D. D., & Cook, R. I. (1999). Perspectives on human error: Hindsight biases and local rationality. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 141–171). Wiley.

© 2026 The Human Factor · Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 with the Adopting Agency Grant

General information only, not legal, medical or other professional advice. Verify every requirement against the current official text of the law, standards and manufacturer instructions that apply to you. Obtain your own legal review and consult your joint health and safety committee before adopting anything. You adopt, adapt, implement and rely on this material entirely at your own risk and on your own responsibility. Full terms: Terms of Use, thehumanfactor.ca.

Copyright, licence and legal notices

Connections

Pages linked to and from this page.