FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Guest on August 06, 2004, 05:02:26 PM
-
I am sure that I know the answer to this but I feel that I need confirmation
Is there any way that a bedroom door in a care or nursing home may be left open (or propped) other than by an approved device which will close the door on operation of the fire alarm?
I don't think there is but I am willing to be corrected.
-
It all depends upon whether the bedroom door is supposed to be fire resisting or not. Different codes take different approaches. Some require fire doors to bedrooms, others not.
-
Theres a hundred and one ways to skin this cat. it was common just to ensure that bedroom doors were closed at night. That was before rose park of course.
free swing closers are the rolls royce solution but a bit pricey.
-
Aside from whatever the findings of Rosepark are, it was never good (or in my opinion acceptable) practice to leave bedroom doors open. The Scottish HTM specifically calls for swing free closers, which must be the best solution but is very expensive. Unfortunately other codes do indeed have other ideas.
-
Keeping doors closed is the best thing for fire safety but the occupants of the rooms like to keep them open. The recent 'enforcement bonanza' in care homes has generated a lot of complaints from residents and their families.
If you make these places too costly or unfriendly by imposing stricter fire precautions then people won’t use them. Old folk are still safer in care homes than they are on their own.
-
It seems simple to me: Electromagnetic door holders connected to a Category L1 fire alarm system. I know this can be costly - but the recent incident proved their need surely!
Wee B, we should not accept poor safety just because it is better than them being elsewhere, there is a legal and moral duty of care.
-
Simple, Christopher but costly. Remember, you aren't flogging the stuff now, and are no longer on commission!
-
If poor safety results in a miserable life - it may be better to accept the lower standard.
A duty of care is all well and good but what exactly is the acceptable standard? the only sure way of avoiding death by fire is by being sure that you die of something else first.
If you over regulate - they won't build them.
Please arrange the above words of wisdom in a logical order - I cant decide which comes first.
-
Wee Brian,
I trust you have your tongue firmly in your cheek re your last comment.
The fact is the hardware exists which would have prevented or at least lessened the consequences at Rosepark. The main problem revolves around management of these systems.
A duty of care is implicit as Rosepark will find to their cost.
Will elctromagnetic closers still seem expensive when the compensation claims start arriving.
I doubt very much that the relatives of those who perished would share your view point.
Gio
-
The very unfortunate events at the Rosepark nursing home may or may not have been preventable by door furniture or indeed something else. I assume the investigation into what happened there is continuing - therefore it would be imprudent to speculate on matters at this stage.
The fact is cost is an issue and Wee Brian is right that if it is too expensive to operate places of care, they will not operate. If they do not operate the consequences to life could be far greater than those from fire.
Fire is a relatively uncommon occurrence, compared to many other risks to life in these and other premises, therefore a sense of proportionality must be maintained. It is for this reason that reasonableness must be part of the considerations of those who make the regulations and those who enforce them.
-
Logan_lewis
Ofcourse cost will always be an issue but what are the costs of this incident now?
Fire as you say is an uncommon occurrence but does that mean we just take the line that nothing has happened for a long time so it will always be OK? (It will never happen to me syndrome)
Remember Rosepark had fire doors which were wedged open this is not speculation. 14 People lost their lives, this is not speculation either.
Nursing homes would always be considered a high risk by their very nature so what level of proportionality applies, what is reasonable?
Sadly it takes an incident such as this to focus the minds of the management of such places to what they should have been doing all along.
Gio.
-
Insufficient details have been published about the specifics of Rosepark for me to discuss that incident in particular.
You are perfectly right about the "never happen to me syndrome". That is true of all aspects of safety. You are also right, that doing nothing because there has been no significant incident is not how decisions should be made. This is also why there must be a sound evidence base for the approach taken to prevent a reactionary approach which is disproportionate to the risk.
It is often the case that the mind is focused on premises in which a significant loss has been recently experienced - football stadia were a perfect example of this. All premises should be treated seriously, regardless of their history, but a close look at the evidence of fire incidents often shows a range of small, cost effective measures may have been just as (if not more) effective than one or two more costly ones.
Logan
-
Logan,
You are correct re the findings of the forthcoming report into Rosepark and it is not my intention either to pre-empt the outcome. I will be surprised however if the significant issues do not surround management of H&S/Fire Safety and procedures. Things that once the safeguards are in place cost relatively little.
Nursing homes accept the fees they must also accept the duty of care.
Gio.
-
Duty of care isn't some kind of moral code its a legal term. In civil courts the damages will be assesed based on economic loss associated with the death of an individual.
Usually old people come cheep. That's becuase they have no dependants and no future earning potential.
Young parents are the most expsenive people to kill. You have to cover the costs of bringing their children up.
Its not a very nice subject but thats the way it works. If my Nan gets killed in a fire I dont wan't or need money as a result. I would of course like to see the individual responsible strung up by his soft parts but thats another issue.
-
Wee Brian,
Duty of care is a legal term, but I feel, as humans (disagree if you want) we have a moral duty of care to prevent people from death and injury as far as reasonably practical irrespective of their age!
You are right about compensation claims, but don't forget that if you injure someone, they might need care for the rest of their lives and this can be expensive.
Criminal law does not differentiate between young and old and mansalughter charges can be brough for killing anyone, a hotel group got fined £400,000 only a few weeks ago, a head teacher and local authority are about to get sentenced tommorrow. Death and injury is expensive, but even if it wasn't government, local authorities, fire brigades, fire prevention officers, building control, who ever you work for probably exists to protect life and health.
-
Gentlemen, lets not get bogged down in the vaguries of our legal system whilst losing sight of the original question. On more than one occasion during this topic Rosepark has been mentioned, open doors kill, read on:
A recent fire occurred in an old persons home and caused six fatalities. The fire originated in a television lounge and the most likely cause was the igniting of one of the many upholstered chairs by a discarded cigarette end. While the occupants had retired for the night, the fire burnt slowly, and generated much smoke and hot toxic gases. These travelled throughout the building. Where occupants had kept their bedroom doors closed and waited by open windows, they survived. Those who tried to negotiate smoke logged corridors and staircases died.
Where?, Liverpool 1957, what have we learned, not a lot despite loads of legislation, regulation and ACOPs, lets get the basics right first.
-
At last, a bit of down to earth common sense on the subject!!!!! I think that should be called Murphy's Law.
-
Colin, could you define common sense as you see it? Is it only those posts that you agree with?
The input of this thread has been largely common sense offered by people who have a valid opinion, that being the point of this type of bulletin board.
Colin Murphy's excellent example merely emphasises much of the earlier contributions.
Gio :rolleyes:
-
Hi Guys sorry to come in late on this one but for info the DOE back in 1995/96 gave a ruling on self closers in these types of premises and under certain circumstances allowed Fire Authorities to waive the fitting of self closers to bedroom doors.
-
perhaps if you referred to a NI standard: HTM 84 you might find some assistance. This provides for a reasonable accomodation between the safety of the semi/non ambulant residents and their quality of life. The approach used is to balance the dilema between risk reduction (elimination being impossible!) and staff intervention. Experience has shown that whilst this may not be an ideal solution, it at least provides for a "real world" solution. :?: :!: :?:
-
I hate to be partisan, but later thinking on the subject is contained in the Scottish version of HTM 84, known as SHTM 84 and it says you DO need s/c devices but that they should be swing free. The NI HTM 84 is in any case in the course of revision
-
Giovanni,
You seem to have an insight into the Rosepark Care Home investigation, can you cast some light on the current situation?