Aids to assist evacuation of a care home

[Ken Taylor]

I think there is almost unanimous agreement with your point about the 2 1/2 minutes Marek. Have a look at the earlier thread by Wee Brian '2.5 mins in res care' to see this discussed. In fact, residential care seems to be a major issue if the number of threads on the subject is a good indication.

[BHCC]

Very interesting Marek

How do other carehomes deal with night time evacuation? All of our homes only have 2 staff on at night looking after up to 20 service users.

Nearly all of the service users would require assistance with some having to be hoisted into evac chairs. I've always said that if there was a fire at night there would be no way that the building would be evacuated. I have only just got the powers that be to agree with me that addressable fire alarm systems are required with repeaters on each level.

In one of our homes there was oxygen being stored in one of the so called refuge areas. None of this was mentioned in the FRA until I flagged it up.

[Redone]

On a wing and a prayer...  Recent incidents show they don't manage.

But you get what you pay for, and nobody wants to pay for the actual measures required to have a fighting chance of a rapid evac...

We keep the zones small, fit addressable panels, with repeat panels, still require closers on bedrooms and works to convert lifts that can be something suitable for use in an evacuation though.

We continually promote fire prevention, appoint competent persons to perform regular checks, training etc.

But, currently have problems with residents and smoking, especially with it being cold outside.

We recently had to fully evacuate 34 residents in the floods... God help us in a fire.

[kurnal]

With good management and all elements in place there should never be a need to fully evacuate a care home due to a fire- unless those oxygen cylinders go up I suppose....

But there is a fundamental difference between a fire and a flood. Mankind is powerless to stem floods of that magnitude. But those good guys on the red trucks are fully equipped to deal with any fire a care home can throw at them provided we stick to the rules.

 I think we should be allowed to take that  into account in our planning for emergencies.

[Ken Taylor]

I'm almost entirely with you, Kurnal - but do still remember planning for when it was the 'B Team' in the old green trucks - and then I think of Portsmouth gridlocked for hours due to a RTA on the motorway.

[Clive]

Whislt discussing Resi Care and evacuation problems and staffing levels at night, what are your opinions on the fire services not attending unless there is a confirmed fire ?

I have experience of fire brigades telling homes they will not attend because they have had 1 false alarm ( not always UWFS, and some times not even had 1) in one year unless there is a confirmed fire.  

How can you expect nursing staff to go into a roof void or where ever the signal is indicated to be, to check if there is a fire, in a building with a vulnerable, dependant , occupancy that requires all hands to the pump ( bad pun), to safely evacuate residents needing assistance, whilst also having a 2.5 minute evacuation time levelled at them, but still have staff going off to check on a fire then come back to call the fire service.

I understand the need to stop the number of UWFS, and the majority of them can be reduced by good management of the systems, but then to apply blanket rules to everyone, shows a lack of intelligence and understanding of the risks in the outside world of the present fire service management.

The CFOA policy on UWFS does not lead anyone to stop attending signals via 999 in vulnerable buildings, in general the ARC's signals are the problem.  

In most homes they know immediatley if a cleaner as set off a detector so will not call the FRS, but if a detector has gone off somewhere in a building during the night where staff are not in the vicinity to have done something to cause UWFS, the sensible and safe approach is call the FRS straight away, and then join the ( possibly only one ) other members of staff in investigating and evacuating if required. if they then find no sign of fire they can re call the FRS and turn them around or let them proceed at a reduced speed.

The first time we have a serious fire and the fire service have not attended following a 999 call, I hope they are prepared to defend there action. Remember for years fire authorities have told people to extend the cover of detection systems, and into concealed areas (also the industry tells us how sophisticated and relaible they are), and now they want to ignore them.

And don't anyone say that the FRS will treat hospitals and resi care differently, because I am seeing the standard letters being sent to care homes.

[Paul2886]

Whislt discussing Resi Care and evacuation problems and staffing levels at night, what are your opinions on the fire services not attending unless there is a confirmed fire ?

I have experience of fire brigades telling homes they will not attend because they have had 1 false alarm ( not always UWFS, and some times not even had 1) in one year unless there is a confirmed fire.  

How can you expect nursing staff to go into a roof void or where ever the signal is indicated to be, to check if there is a fire, in a building with a vulnerable, dependant , occupancy that requires all hands to the pump ( bad pun), to safely evacuate residents needing assistance, whilst also having a 2.5 minute evacuation time levelled at them, but still have staff going off to check on a fire then come back to call the fire service.

I understand the need to stop the number of UWFS, and the majority of them can be reduced by good management of the systems, but then to apply blanket rules to everyone, shows a lack of intelligence and understanding of the risks in the outside world of the present fire service management.

The CFOA policy on UWFS does not lead anyone to stop attending signals via 999 in vulnerable buildings, in general the ARC's signals are the problem.  

In most homes they know immediatley if a cleaner as set off a detector so will not call the FRS, but if a detector has gone off somewhere in a building during the night where staff are not in the vicinity to have done something to cause UWFS, the sensible and safe approach is call the FRS straight away, and then join the ( possibly only one ) other members of staff in investigating and evacuating if required. if they then find no sign of fire they can re call the FRS and turn them around or let them proceed at a reduced speed.

The first time we have a serious fire and the fire service have not attended following a 999 call, I hope they are prepared to defend there action. Remember for years fire authorities have told people to extend the cover of detection systems, and into concealed areas (also the industry tells us how sophisticated and relaible they are), and now they want to ignore them.

And don't anyone say that the FRS will treat hospitals and resi care differently, because I am seeing the standard letters being sent to care homes.

RE: Care Homes: I always ask for remote indicators where there are detectors in roof voids, top of lift shafts or any other place where it is not easily visible to staff. Of course this is only where they share other zones. Staff are always instructed to call the FRS even during the day if it is one of these devices that has activated. Any FRA in a care home should be looking at the best levels of detection and containment owing to the problems of evacuation. Where can a fire start: is it the bedside lamp, that could fall onto the bedding. is it that convector heater that is free standing and unguarded, is it the naked bulb in the store cupboard above the pads,  are the bed wheels resting on the electric cables which I often find. There are so many other considerations in which I'm sure you are all aware. Anyway, Happy Xmas to all

[Ken Taylor]

Sounds like a lack of common sense and concern to me, Clive. I've only come across this approach with some schools and 'conventional' workplaces where there has been a number of 'false alarms' and the duty holders have failed to take appropriate action to remedy the situation.

[xan]

Whislt discussing Resi Care and evacuation problems and staffing levels at night, what are your opinions on the fire services not attending unless there is a confirmed fire ?

I have experience of fire brigades telling homes they will not attend because they have had 1 false alarm ( not always UWFS, and some times not even had 1) in one year unless there is a confirmed fire.  

How can you expect nursing staff to go into a roof void or where ever the signal is indicated to be, to check if there is a fire, in a building with a vulnerable, dependant , occupancy that requires all hands to the pump ( bad pun), to safely evacuate residents needing assistance, whilst also having a 2.5 minute evacuation time levelled at them, but still have staff going off to check on a fire then come back to call the fire service.

I understand the need to stop the number of UWFS, and the majority of them can be reduced by good management of the systems, but then to apply blanket rules to everyone, shows a lack of intelligence and understanding of the risks in the outside world of the present fire service management.

The CFOA policy on UWFS does not lead anyone to stop attending signals via 999 in vulnerable buildings, in general the ARC's signals are the problem.  

In most homes they know immediatley if a cleaner as set off a detector so will not call the FRS, but if a detector has gone off somewhere in a building during the night where staff are not in the vicinity to have done something to cause UWFS, the sensible and safe approach is call the FRS straight away, and then join the ( possibly only one ) other members of staff in investigating and evacuating if required. if they then find no sign of fire they can re call the FRS and turn them around or let them proceed at a reduced speed.

The first time we have a serious fire and the fire service have not attended following a 999 call, I hope they are prepared to defend there action. Remember for years fire authorities have told people to extend the cover of detection systems, and into concealed areas (also the industry tells us how sophisticated and relaible they are), and now they want to ignore them.

And don't anyone say that the FRS will treat hospitals and resi care differently, because I am seeing the standard letters being sent to care homes.

some may be following the CFOA to the 'letter',but in my area 'sleeping' risks will still get a response no matter how many unwanted AFA's

[Midland Retty]

Whislt discussing Resi Care and evacuation problems and staffing levels at night, what are your opinions on the fire services not attending unless there is a confirmed fire ?

I have experience of fire brigades telling homes they will not attend because they have had 1 false alarm ( not always UWFS, and some times not even had 1) in one year unless there is a confirmed fire.  

How can you expect nursing staff to go into a roof void or where ever the signal is indicated to be, to check if there is a fire, in a building with a vulnerable, dependant , occupancy that requires all hands to the pump ( bad pun), to safely evacuate residents needing assistance, whilst also having a 2.5 minute evacuation time levelled at them, but still have staff going off to check on a fire then come back to call the fire service.

I understand the need to stop the number of UWFS, and the majority of them can be reduced by good management of the systems, but then to apply blanket rules to everyone, shows a lack of intelligence and understanding of the risks in the outside world of the present fire service management.

The CFOA policy on UWFS does not lead anyone to stop attending signals via 999 in vulnerable buildings, in general the ARC's signals are the problem.  

In most homes they know immediatley if a cleaner as set off a detector so will not call the FRS, but if a detector has gone off somewhere in a building during the night where staff are not in the vicinity to have done something to cause UWFS, the sensible and safe approach is call the FRS straight away, and then join the ( possibly only one ) other members of staff in investigating and evacuating if required. if they then find no sign of fire they can re call the FRS and turn them around or let them proceed at a reduced speed.

The first time we have a serious fire and the fire service have not attended following a 999 call, I hope they are prepared to defend there action. Remember for years fire authorities have told people to extend the cover of detection systems, and into concealed areas (also the industry tells us how sophisticated and relaible they are), and now they want to ignore them.

And don't anyone say that the FRS will treat hospitals and resi care differently, because I am seeing the standard letters being sent to care homes.

some may be following the CFOA to the 'letter',but in my area 'sleeping' risks will still get a response no matter how many unwanted AFA's

Yes this is the case in my Brigade asrea too - vulnerable buildings (res care /sheltered /housing /other accomodation) we always tell people to call us out

Back onto the subject of Res care.

Many of you  have pointed out you often only get two members of staff available to deal with emergencies at night.

This is a scary thought. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you sit) we as a fire authority can not comment upon or enforce staff numbers directly but we can approach the issue by challenging whether or not the fire procedure of a particular home will work effectively.

At the end of the day the RRO is now about the punters out there taking ownership of fire safety, its about getting them to think about how they manage their businesses and their risks. Its about trying to allow greater flexibility in working practices, and fire safety provisions.

If a punter tells me s/he can evacuate their home with two staff on at night then who am I to argue if it is correctly demonstrated in a risk assessment. They just need to be aware that if all goes wrong it will be they explaining themselves in court.

Last point I'd like to make is the issue of fire service response times.

You should always assume the fire brigade may not attend for atleast 15 minutes. The chances of non attendance until this time are practically nil but occassionally during spate conditions, or major traffic problems this can occur.

Remember that crews from the nearest fire station may be attending another incident and it could be another crew from a considerable distance away which is tasked to respond.

So eitherway the fire procedure should not rely or assume that assistance from external agencies will be available.

[val]

If a punter tells me s/he can evacuate their home with two staff on at night then who am I to argue if it is correctly demonstrated in a risk assessment. They just need to be aware that if all goes wrong it will be they explaining themselves in court.

Midland,

I'm sure that this was just a slip but Fire and Rescue Authorities have a duty to enforce the Order and if you think that the risk assessment is unsuitable or insufficient, then it must be challenged, usually, after the intial pleasantries, by means of an enforcement notice which states where and why it is not suitable or sufficient. It is then up to the responsible person to appeal to a Court and prove that it was.
I do not believe that we should turn away from these tricky cases and I know that senior manager support is often lacking but just because residential homes have always operated on minimal staffing at night doesn't necessarily make it right.

[kurnal]

Val
You are of course right but there is also a balance to be drawn.

Minimum staffing levels are set by National Guidance originating from HM Government and enforced by CSCI. On the basis of this guidance Local Government Social Services set the fees that they are prepared to pay for socially funded places in a care home which is always below the commercially viable rate. The self funding residents subsidise the socially funded places. I know- I am paying for my relative.

Then along comes another Government Department ( Fire Authorities and DCLG) that remove all legal obligations on themselves to provide a minimal defined standard of service in terms of fire service attendance times and goes on to commission a fairy tale guidance document that sets a 2.5 minute target for the evacuation of vulnerable, medicated, infirm, confused andsometimes unpredictable people from their beds to a place of safety. Quite frankly the only way this could ever be achieved is by a 2:1 staffing ratio. Will the Government sanction sufficient increases in fees for social funding to enable staffing levels to be increased? No Chance.

The final sting in the tail is that they then down skill the fire safety enforcement departments so that the inexperienced code huggers will eventually predominate who think that if it says it in the guidance it must be right.

It all adds up to immovable objects and irresistible forces in stalemate. Nothing is likley to be changed, on a National Scale nothing is likely to be improved except that the few establishments that do fall foul and have an incident will be
hung out to dry.

Not that I'm cynical of course.....

[Ken Taylor]

- and it's not that easy to get staff to work nights either - particularly if it's nursing care that's needed.

[Midland Retty]

If a punter tells me s/he can evacuate their home with two staff on at night then who am I to argue if it is correctly demonstrated in a risk assessment. They just need to be aware that if all goes wrong it will be they explaining themselves in court.

Midland,

I'm sure that this was just a slip but Fire and Rescue Authorities have a duty to enforce the Order and if you think that the risk assessment is unsuitable or insufficient, then it must be challenged, usually, after the intial pleasantries, by means of an enforcement notice which states where and why it is not suitable or sufficient. It is then up to the responsible person to appeal to a Court and prove that it was.
I do not believe that we should turn away from these tricky cases and I know that senior manager support is often lacking but just because residential homes have always operated on minimal staffing at night doesn't necessarily make it right.

I think you have misunderstood what I have put.

I don't in anyway shape or form think anyone is turning away from "tricky cases" But you must understand we would be on a very sticky wicket trying to make comment or take action on staffing levels. We have no juridiction over such matters. CSCI deal with staffing levels.

Yes we enforce but the duty under the RR(FS)O 2005 is all about self compliance.

As an enforcer if a responsible person produces as decent risk assessment that looks at the staffing levels at a home and is able to put across a convincing argument that the management systems in place are able to cope then even if my gut feeling tells me the procedures may fall down I would have a very hard time trying to convince a magistrate's of my concerns purely based on a " gut feeling" - any defence solicitor would have a field day.

[wee brian]

It seams daft to me that we need lots of staff in every care home just to deal with the occasional fire.

Perhaps a more logical approach would be to have a local service that has specialist equipment and training to help evacuate/rescue people. We could give them big red lorries and blue flashing lights.

thoughts?