FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: shaunmckeever on December 10, 2006, 05:12:39 PM
-
Does anyone advocate a stay put policy, and if so, under what circumstances?
-
Every Specialist Fire Safety advisor in the NHS would advocate stay put policy, at least in part.
This is part of the phased horizontal evacuation principle described in Firecode where the only persons moved are the persons that are affected, or likely to be affected by the fire.
Of course if this principle is to be used effectively the following has to be ensured.
That the building is designed to have properly separated Fire resisting compartments and where necessary, sub compartments
The fire alarm system is a two stage system where the boundary of each fire alarm zone is the same as the compartment line.
The staff are trained by a competent trainer to understand the PHE principles and a clear fire evacuation procedure is in place that is regularly practised.
-
How about PHE for similar occupants (who might be difficult to evacuate) such as a children's Nursery??
-
Can we describe progressive evacuation as simply 'stay put'?
-
Ken
I do not think it is as simple as that, it depends on the situation. As I said PHE is a combination of stay put and PHE.
Messy
As a general rule stay put what not be applied just beacause persons are difficult to evacuate. An assessment has to be made that includes staff to dependant ratios and the design of the building. You will have to give us more info if we are to discuss your particular scenario. As you are aware the management have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the occupants which includes evacuation where appropriate.
-
I am looking at a stay put policy for student accommodation. As we all know students are not very responsive when the fire alarm operates, but I am also concerned that they regulalry leave open fire doors and defeat other fire protection methods. So long as the construction is right I am wondering if the stay put policy is the best approach.
-
shaunmckeever
I assume that you are talking about them staying put in their rooms and not moving to an unaffected part of the building.
I know that it can be difficult to get a student to respond to anything; and to actually get them out of bed before midday is nigh on impossible.
However, if they are ABLE to evacuate the building WITHOUT ASSISTANCE then, in my opinion, that’s exactly what they should be doing.
As for the construction and compartmentation being right; its extremely rare to come across a building with adequate fire stopping and all fire doors doing the job that they were designed for. Even if it is today, you can’t guarantee that it will be tomorrow.
-
It could depend on the "student accommodation" if you are discussing flats that are occupied by students, then the "stay put" method may be suitable, as it would be in standard apartments.
Colin G.
-
I totally agree Colin, but I assumed that he was referring to ‘halls of residence’; otherwise I doubt that he would be asking the question in the first place.
-
Reference STAY-PUT POLICY many local authorities have a stay-put policy for sheltered accommodation, with certain cretia to be met: following a fire risk assessment,the building meets an approved standard of construction. BS 5588: Part 1:1990 or CP3, an approved fire alarm system throughout, with a category L2 AFD [at least] acceptable fire safety management
procedures confirmed in writing suitable trained staff with recorded training, any system of ventilation in accordance with BS 5588: Part 9. Good history of fire precautions, no fires ect:
No blanket policy for stay-put, each examined on it's own merits. I would not regard progressive horizonal evacuation methods in hospitals as
stay-put procedures. Hope this is of some use for debate.
-
I personally would not stay in a burning building even if there was a 'stay put' policy in place and I see no reason why ABLE BODIED persons who can evacuate WITHOUT ASSISTANCE should be told to 'stay put'.
I don't know the full circumstances of this fire, but I think it is a timely reminder of what could happen when considering 'stay put' policies.
Saturday, 9 December 2006, 14:59 GMT
One dead in sheltered house fire
A woman died and 13 other people were trapped by smoke when a fire broke out at sheltered housing flats.
The fire started in a ground-floor flat at Cherry Orchard, Prestwood, in Buckinghamshire, on Friday afternoon.
Firefighters carried 12 people through smoke filled corridors to safety, while a member of the public rescued another.
Thames Valley Police and Bucks Fire and Rescue Service are investigating the cause of the fire but it is not being treated as suspicious.
'Restricted mobility'
At the peak of the fire, about 50 firefighters and officers attended the scene.
Assistant Chief Fire Officer Andy Hickmott said: "Firefighters quickly brought the fire under control and mounted an outstanding rescue operation under difficult and exhausting circumstances.
"Given the nature of the building, and the fact that some of the residents had restricted mobility, they were unable to get out of their rooms without assistance.
"But for the professionalism and thoroughness of the firefighters, there could have been many more deaths."
-
I agree with DaveyH, the best option for everyone is to get out of the building that is on fire. That is where they are safest. However there are circumstances where for specific reasons a stay put policy would give a safer option for the occupants principally restricted mobility. Here the demon risk assessment raises its head. I see the relevance of the fire in Bucks but the report states that the fire stared in a flat. If the fatality was in that flat then the stay put principal worked. Yes 12 people were safely evacuated by the fire service but that is what is meant to happen.
As far as student accomodation is concerned then, unless there is a specific reason such as disability, the stay put option must be a non starter. Granted the problem of getting students to respond is a different kettle of fish but why should we reduce our aims just because we have failed to educate them as to why they need to evacuate?
-
If a defend in place option is agreed then surely the fire alarm system should be a staff alert system. Logic would state that if you want residents to "stay put" then being awaken or moved by the warning from a fire alarm defeats the object of this in the first instance. Mike, the FRS job is not too evacuated that is the roel of the RP. FRS rescue people. Even with a defend in place policy for evacuation there has to be a thought process for second stage evacuation. Defend in place is not PHE, it is something entirely different.
-
The nearest I can equate with the term 'stay put' is with many modern blocks of purpose-built flats. In my understanding progressive evacuation is precisely that - even if the FRS arrive and deal with the fire before persons in more remote zones have been required to evacuate.
Sheltered accommodation is generally a candidate for PHE but with generally short horizontals, it can soon require vertical evacuation - albeit progressive.
Halls of residence tend to have a number of common areas and will usually require evacuation. This necessitates provision for assisted evacuation of non-ambulant residents - or, at least, careful allocation of accommodation.
-
I am with you Mike B, “a defend in place option” is the last resort and Jokar "the FRS job is not too evacuated that is the role of the RP" their role or not, when they arrive, depending on the severity of the fire, they will evacuate.
-
Not sure a stay put policy is the best idea for student accomodation... I don't know I could be wrong but I feel stay put and progressive evacuation should be left for the immobile, old or frail etc.
Then again... who knows - it could work - the building would need to be right however - damn good FR and compartmentation is required, good standard of AFD, and i would suggest well trained staff as Marshalls - as we all know students do need the preverbial rocket up there unmentionables to get them moving at times.
But it certainly would be intresting to see if this would work! This type of procedure is unheard of in student accom really, normally only used in sheltered schemes and residential nursing / care homes.
With refernce to the fire in the sheltered scheme in Buckinghamshire I'd be intrested to know about the condition of the building - especially as there was one fatality. I suspsect very poor FR and detection was the culrprit perhaps?
Its like sopmeone already said - if you are going to look at PHE or a SPP then you need a fire tight building, an believe me thats very hard to achieve and maintain properly!
Seems to me there could have been very poor FR there.
-
We cannot judge the FR and detection just on the evidence that there was one fatality. It depends on where the fatality was when the fire started. I have been to a fire where the fatality was in fact the item first ignited and the fire was confined to the fatality.
Just because a raven is a black bird does not mean that all black birds are ravens.
Yes I agree that if you are going for PHE or SPP then the fire resistance of the building must be suitable, but this is back to the fire risk assessment.
-
We cannot judge the FR and detection just on the evidence that there was one fatality. It depends on where the fatality was when the fire started. I have been to a fire where the fatality was in fact the item first ignited and the fire was confined to the fatality.
Just because a raven is a black bird does not mean that all black birds are ravens.
Yes I agree that if you are going for PHE or SPP then the fire resistance of the building must be suitable, but this is back to the fire risk assessment.
No you're right Mike but i was approaching it from the angle that the victim was not in the room of fire origin.
In my experience Ive found that in sheltered housing schemes casualties have arisen due to poor FR and lack of adequate detection.
-
Not if the residents are not in danger. Why on earth would you put people on the street if they are not affected by the fire?
-
Jokar I disagree, in general the best place for occupants of a building that is or may be on fire is in the street. That way no matter how the fire develops they are safe. However there are situations where the risk of getting people out onto the street is greater than the risk of leaving them where they are.
In an extreme case no one would advocate unplugging the patients in an Intensive Care Unit in a hospital just because the fire alarm goes off!
At the extremes there are black and white cases in the ICU case definitely defend in place, in the case of an office building, everybody out.
What we are dealing with in the case of residential homes etc. is grey, there is no simple answer. It has to depend on the abilities (or lack of) of the residents, the fire precautions already present in the premises, the staff likely to be present etc. etc. It all comes down to the Risk Assessment and a final decision as to what is the best option for the residents. In the crudest terms how many are likely to die in they stay in place verses how many are likely to die if you evacuate them outside at 3.00 am in a blizzard in January?
-
So 2 staff on duty with 30 residents, some of whom have debilitating illnesses, alzhiemers or another memory loss disease and we chuck the lot on the street in a light drizzle. I think the owners may have more than a duty of care under fire to worry about. Mind you it would probably be cheaper to leave them in the fire and kill the lot.
-
I think you need a plan that ultimately will include evacuation of the building if essential and possible. It should never be a matter of simply putting people out into the street. Sometimes there are nearby buildings; sometimes there are grounds large enough to provide assembly points; sometimes minibuses are on site, thermal evacuation wraps and blankets are readily available; progressive evacuation provides time to collect warm clothing, etc. The hazards of fire, the evacuation process and subsequent care all need to be considered in the risk assessment for care type premises.
-
In a multi-storey block of flats we do not tip everyone out on the street. The buildings I am looking at are constructed similarly to blocks of flats, the only difference is there are about six bedrooms per flat and they are occupied by students. Personally I am happy to have a stay put policy. The stay put policy that I am referring to was not devised by me but by a well known fire engineering consultancy. The landlords are not happy with the stay put policy and have asked me to review it. Judging by the responses above there is not much support for able bodied people to remain in the building, but I think knowing what students are like, refusing to evacuate when the alarm goes off, 60 odd malicious calls per month etc I think the best policy is to assume they are not going to move so lets protect them where they are. I know this requires tight management to ensure the fire precautions in place are not defeated by the students.
Thanks for the contributions so far.
Shaun
-
Shaun, the 'on the street' bit was following on from Jokar's response, of course.
In your case, my inclination would be to have an evacuation policy - even though they may not all comply. At least this 'puts the ball in their court' when things go wrong and not yours. Like you, I would, however, plan the protective measures upon the assumption that some will remain.
Whilst they may not be too interested in evacuating for drills or when the sounders are first activated, if they smell the smoke and see the appliances arrive, they'll probably be quite keen to get out.
-
We get very differing views from fire officers about whether stay put policies are acceptable in sheltered housing schemes. Some FOs insist that we have a stay put policy, regardless of the fire tightness of the scheme, some say we cannot have one, regardless of fire tightness, some say we can have a SPP providing fire doors are well fitting and have smoke seals. The existence of deep rebates seems to be considered by many fire officers to be a suitable substitute for smoke seals - I found the debate on this topic on the FireNet site very useful.
The approach we have taken is that where there are smoke seals on the doors we will advise tenants to stay put (providing the scheme is fire tight in other respects). Where smoke seals are not present we will advise them to evacuate to a safe internal area if there is one available (eg a communal lounge with an exit to outside). Tenants who cannot evacuate because of disability can stay put and we will fit smoke seals to their doors - their names and flat numbers are listed inside the fire panel. In some cases we may upgrade the fire doors throughout the scheme so that a stay put policy can be adopted, eg where there is no suitable internal assembly area, or where the cost of providing one would exceed the cost of upgrading the fire doors.
-
in the case of student accomodation i think if they can get out without assisstance they should. Halls of residents are notorious for door wedging, if you can't say for sure that the doors will be shut its a big risk using stay put.
Perhaps makng them do regular dry runs and explaining why its important to have the fire doors shut would help.
The staff should also be prepared and there should be nominated persons to check if everyones evacuating
-
In a multi-storey block of flats we do not tip everyone out on the street. The buildings I am looking at are constructed similarly to blocks of flats, the only difference is there are about six bedrooms per flat and they are occupied by students. Personally I am happy to have a stay put policy. The stay put policy that I am referring to was not devised by me but by a well known fire engineering consultancy. The landlords are not happy with the stay put policy and have asked me to review it. Judging by the responses above there is not much support for able bodied people to remain in the building, but I think knowing what students are like, refusing to evacuate when the alarm goes off, 60 odd malicious calls per month etc I think the best policy is to assume they are not going to move so lets protect them where they are. I know this requires tight management to ensure the fire precautions in place are not defeated by the students.
Thanks for the contributions so far.
Shaun
That sounds sensible to me. If you have similar protection to a modern block of flats then stay put sounds reasonable. The standard of fire safety can be improved by suitable fire alarms in each flat and you could consider a staff alert system (if there is staff).
-
I have been to quite a few buildings ( sheltered, student and private ) that are multiple dwelling/occupant buildings with 'stay put policies', and when surveyed found that there is not complete compartmentation above celings ( suspended or fixed) or in doors and walls , the use of a stay put policy can only be used by an organisation with complete confidence in the compartmentation, construction or suppression. I usually find it is used by organisations and advisors that do not want to confront and deal with an evacuation problem in their buildings, and they are playing the 'odds' in that it will never happen to me !
-
It is not too long ago that during a multi rescue operation a female was told to "stay put" because she was in a different tenement building separated by a party wall. Unfortueately smoke permeated through that wall and the lady died. You can imagine the uproar. There is no stay put in these circumstances now.
Hospitals and Res Care are obvious "kinda stay put", in as much as they stay in the building but are moved horizontly from zone to zone if and when required.
Remember though that there may come a time in that emergency where vertical evacuation must take place and the owners/occupiers/responsible person must have in place, the means to achieve this.
-
Exactly, Nova. That's why I dislike the term 'stayput' and believe that fire plans for care and other non-domestic residential accommodation should address ultimate evacuation if it becomes necessary.
-
Thanks for all the replies. We have decided to go with an evacuation policy. Personally I believe the stay put policy was sound but our client was uncomfortable with it so we ended up rewriting his fire strategy.
-
For those that support the "Stay Put Policy" can I ask what are they staying put for or untill? Untill the fire burns out? The guides clearly state that reliance on fire service intevention should not be written into any risk assessment.
-
There are no black and white answers to the questions. The assessment is whether it is safer for the people involved to remain in protected areas or to be evacuated. The assessment has to be dynamic and adjusted to the circumstances at the time. The fire evacuation plan must cater for this.