Inner Rooms

[nearlythere]

Paul said "Yet never seen a mention of a device that should be fitted to the outside of the fire exit door that maintains the necessary security but can be breached by staff  to evacuate the residents from an unaffected compartment. Does any code ask for this?....never seen one myself."

Other than a key which can be dropped, lost or left at home, is there such a thing as an intellegent lock which can tell the difference between friend or foe? Never seen one of those either.

[Pip]

Pip,

That is only for new builds.  The guidanceand it is only guidance from CLG allows sleeping in inner rooms.

I would not have thought a door makes a difference unless it is required for protection and I agree with you.

aha just read that in the guide.still dont like it though!:-(
But I guess it must occur in some Hotel suites.

[PhilB]

Regardless of what any book says the situation Paul describes in my opinion is far from ideal. As he points out it's the difficulty staff may have evacuating residents if there is a problem in the access space.

But if the book says it's ok, it's ok. I'm beginning to get the hang of this!

[Paul2886]

PhilB, You seem to get the point I'm making.
I have undertaken a number of mock evacuations in care homes and this problem arises on a number of occasions where I deliberately block the 'access' space saying its smoke filled, leading to a final exit fitted with just a push bar .
The staff are absolutely stumped on how to gain entry to the 'safe' space via a final exit that is fitted with a push bar which in most cases cannot be opened externally. Where this situation may arise, where it often does, I strongly recommend an external lock also on the door. Ok, not ideal as it may require a remote key or other method.
My point to others is that just a push bar accords with the codes, which can fall short of suiting all situations. And why do you need a push bar on a final exit in a care home where only a very small number of residents and staff may use it. They used to be called 'panic bars' remember. Fire risk assessments in care homes are not a matter of just ensuring the codes are met but looking at the logistics and the ability of evacuating elderly infirmed people.

[kurnal]

Paulm I agree with you entrirely on the subject of panic bars on final exits in care homes and the evacuation strategy needing to consider whether in some cases staff may need to gain access from the outside - there are many cases where the layout of the home may need them to do this. And sometimes a key is the only way to achieve this. But my experience is that when I come across these situations and try to explain the logic to the staff or management I am met with bewilderment- We see what you mean but why hasnt someone pointed that out before?

Nearlythere-  You could look at biometric locks that recognise fingerprints but I have never come across one of thses with a fail safe function- usually they are used for access to high security rooms.

The inner room situation- I dont necessarily see the inner room rules in the codes  as the main  issue in this situation becuase the rules as generally written are all about being made aware of a fire inthe access room before your escape is cut off.
I asssume there will be full detection covering both rooms to an L1 standard.

If in this case the occupant of the room is entirely dependent on staff then the issue is whether a fire in the access room could prevent the staff reaching the inner room and this is dependent on layout, contents, management etc.
Within reasonable travel distances and with good control and safe layout   I dont think it needs to be seen as a problem.

One last thought on vision panels- ADB says they should give a good view of the access room and needn't be bigger than 0.1m2. How on earth that can give a decent view of an access room has always been beyond me.

A non code hugger is probably a risk assessor.

[PhilB]

One last thought on vision panels- ADB says they should give a good view of the access room and needn't be bigger than 0.1m2. How on earth that can give a decent view of an access room has always been beyond me.

A non code hugger is probably a risk assessor.

And if the vision panel could give a decent view of the room despite it's small size and position they are often covered with notices or posters etc. because their purpose is not understood by the occupants.

On Pauls point about push-bars in care homes I can see little point in fitting them as the occupants are usually unable to operate them. Furthermore you don't often get stampeding hoards of residents during an evacuation so such devices are not necessary.

As I have said previously this is an example of a building complying with a guide/code yet being unsuitable for the proposed use.

Some posters on this forum seem to think that I advocate reducing standards to save money, that is not the case. I do however recommend risk appropriate solutions that sometimes step outside published guidance.

Guides are just guides and should be treated as such and not clung onto regardless of their relevance in particular situations.

[Big T]

Surely a panic bar is easier to operate as an 88 year old arthritic resident who couldn't operate a thumb turn or similar. I was always under the impression that push bars were supposed to be opearted by all, including the elederly and children?

I don't see the problem with not being able to access via a final exit. If the building is on fire, nobody should be going back into the building, assisting with the evacuation if you are already in the building perhaps but I would like to see the risk assessment that recommends employees should enter a building that is on fire, especially a building thats main entrance is smoke logged....

[kurnal]

OK Big T
Consider a single storey res care home designed for progressive horizontal evacuaton.

The main entrance in the centre, each wing extends outwards at either side and may have one or more protected areas one leading to the next (with or without their own finalexit door) finally terminating in a final exit at the end of either wing.

The residents are wholly dependent on the staff for their safety and evacuation.

The fire occurs in a room halfway down one wing. The final exit doors are secured by panic bolts with no access from outside. How can staff get past the fire to assist those at the far end of the wing without going outside the building and coming in through the exit door?

[greg]

Surely the room on fire should have a self closer so the fire should be contained sufficiently to allow staff to evacuate the immediate area. Therefore the staff would operate the push bar and evacuate residents.

[kurnal]

What if it was a store cupbard on a corridor that contained a central heating clock and should have been shut but wasn't, and allowed the corridor to become smokelogged?

Or a pc in anursing station sited on the corridor itself

And there are many care homes that havn't yet got self closers on bedroom doors- yes its in the new guide since Oct 06 but many have not yet complied and are still designed to the old green guide standard with up to 12 bedrooms in a protocted area without self closers.

[PhilB]

Surely a panic bar is easier to operate as an 88 year old arthritic resident who couldn't operate a thumb turn or similar. I was always under the impression that push bars were supposed to be opearted by all, including the elederly and children?

I don't see the problem with not being able to access via a final exit. If the building is on fire, nobody should be going back into the building, assisting with the evacuation if you are already in the building perhaps but I would like to see the risk assessment that recommends employees should enter a building that is on fire, especially a building thats main entrance is smoke logged....

Well it happened in a care home in Tyne & Wear a few years ago. Residents trapped in a lounge unable to operate the push-bar. Staff unable to reach the lounge from the inside due to smoke filled corridors.

Surely the staff would be expected to enter the building to rescue those cut off!!! The fire was not in the room that they were trapped in.

The building complied with the current guidance, code-huggers take note.

[greg]

Kurnal, Although I see your point on the staff not being able to access the non affected areas, it would appear that that was due to a failing elsewhere in the fire strategy or fire precautions for the premises.

However, having said that, if the fire evacuation strategy was to access the building from the outside to assist escape then the fact that staff could not enter though external doors would be noted and access would have to be provided. This coould probably be done with mag lock doors attached to the fire alarm.  Or a great big hammer:)

Since this has not been done one can only assume that that is not the strategy I've got to say that if I was a worker where the expectation was that I left the premises and then attempted to re enter the premises with no garauntee that it was not the fire compartment or likely to have become one then I would request BA, Fire Kit  training etc. This might prove to be a bit onerous for the premises managers/owners than putting on self closers and employing enough staff to evacuate the residents properly and securely first time around.

[Ken Taylor]

I certainly wish that these places would always have enough able staff to assist evacuation as needed in one operation. From experience, they may possibly have enough during the day but the night shift tends to be an entirely different matter.

[kurnal]

Greg - what you would ask for and what you would recive are two very different things. Many care workers do not have the clout to receive even the basic minimum wage.

Theres a huge pool of migrant workers willing to maintain this situation. But I dont entirely blame the care home operators, margins are so very tight because of th funding mechanism -  local authorities dictate the maximum fees a care home will receive for those residents who are socially funded which is way below the commercial rate- I have a relative in a nursing  home where he is self funding til his money runs out - £679 per week.  The social services pay £275 per resident. Its time something was done about this crazy system.

[jayjay]

Re PhilB comments regarding the fire in Tyne & Wear if this is the same fire I attended, the reason the residents did not escape was due to their mental ability and not their ability to operate a panic fastening.

Staff actualy spoke to the residents by breaking a window from outside and tried to persuade them to leave via the fire exit but they did not respond. Fortunately the lounge door to the corridor was a fire resisting door fitted with smoke seals and this prevented any smoke from entering the lounge from a serious bedroom fire almost directly opposite the lounge.

The value of smoke seals was clealy demonstrated in other areas of this fire as residents were found in areas separated by compliant doors, totally unaffected by smoke.

This is one incident that I quote as a reminder that smoke seals are life savers and should always be recommended.

It is also a reason why I now ensure that final exit doors in residential homes have a handle on the outside so that staff assiting persons to leave can re open the doors in the event of it closing.  However if the door is fitted with a self closer and a relocking panic fastening  this can  prevent them  from re entering.

Most of the homes I now deal with have electromagnetic security locks on final exit doors that release on the fire alarm or by green break glass box, with no selfclosers that can cause the door to shut.

One more thing to think about when discussing evacuation procedures.

If any one would like more details of this incident let me  know.