FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jayjay on October 31, 2007, 12:58:49 PM
-
Interesting results from the Coroner re this fire, if you have been following the press details you will have seen comments on lack of fire separation and also standards of staff training including fire drills.
The Coroner however has only recommended that firefighters should be given training in evacuating large numbers of people.
Fire was before RRO so no posibility of prosecution under the regulations
Other interesting fact 999 call to timed at 05:06hrs and all persons accounted for at timed at 07:30hrs. This shows the difficuties of fires in residential care homes and time taken to evacuate can be considerably longer than 2.5 minutes, which makes the need for very effective fire and smoke separation a high priority.
This is the link to the news web page.
http://ts10.gazettelive.co.uk/2007/10/anger_after_pensioners_inquest.html
This site should also provide access to previous reports if you missed them.
-
I must admit that I wasn't aware of this case until you highlighted it jayjay, so I'm not in a position to comment about the Brigade's part in this or the background to it.
However, I do find it very surprising that the coroner criticised the Brigade regarding evacuation but not the home.
I am of the opinion that it is entirely the responsibility of the home to evacuate the premises in case of fire, and to have evacuation well underway by the time the Brigade arrive (if evacuation is required of course). If the Brigade arrive and evacuation is still ongoing then of course they will assist and will probably take charge of the situation (it's in our bossy nature!).
As an inspecting officer I always advised the care manager (or owner) that they must have a realistic plan in place for the evacuation of all of the residents, which didn't rely on any assistance from the Fire Service i.e. assume that the Fire Service will not turn up. Invariably they will turn up within a few minutes, but to cover those few occasions when they aren't there within a few minutes, which lets face it is when a fire usually occurs (Sod's Law), they must be able to evacuate fully using the resources they have at that time.
It only takes a couple of decent fires going on at the same time, even in the larger Brigades, to denude large areas of fire appliances, resulting in attendance times of 20/30 minutes or longer. (Should I mention Intergrated Risk Management - maybe not!)
As I mentioned at the beginning, I won't criticise the Brigade concerned because I don't know the whole story. I feel more comfortable criticising the home because even if the Brigade hadn't attended, they should still have been able to evacuate all of the residents within the time available. (unless the Brigades arrival interfered with the evacuation plan of the home, which I can't really see happening)
It is very sad though, and I do feel very sorry for the people involved and their famalies.
-
What a misguided coroner. I would direct my questions at the home owner and staff who have to be held accountable for the care of the residents.
My advice to the relatives is get a good legal team and go for those accountable. Sadly it will not change what happened in this home however lives may be saved in the future. Fire authorities wake up, get out there and enforce before the next one.
-
In fairness Steve, Fire Authorities are out there auditing these types of premises. The Risk Based Inspection Programmes that we are now required to have, ensure that our audits are directed at the highest risk premises, which are usually life risks such as care homes, hospitals etc.
However, without endless resources, which lets face it none of us have at our disposal, there is only so much we can do.
I certainly agree with your comment about the coroner, (s)he appears to have no idea about who's responsibilty it is. And to ask for an overhaul of the training received by firefighters is laughable, again commenting on something (s)he seemingly knows nothing about.
Then again it is written in a newspaper so I wouldn't vouch for its validity.
-
Johno67 I deal with many fire authorities who without exception make the same policy statement as you have. Unfortunately it does not make me feel any more comfortable than I did prior to the introduction of the FS Order, and it should.
Fire safety is more of a nuisance factor than a support to many care providers and the only way to educate them at the early stage of the FS Order is through robust enforcement. Support those who are acting responsibly and making an effort, take action against those who are not. The public, and in the case of a care home, the residents and their families deserve nothing less.
Johno67 please tell me you are a CFO and give me something positive for the future cos as I see it things will drift on until there is a serious loss of life, serious enough for government to step in and ask questions. Maybe new or revised regulations. Does this remind anyone of anything?
Out of interest my company used to undertake assessments and train staff for a very large national care provider. They now use the premises maintenance person for all of the above. Progress, or not? Suitable and sufficient, or not?
-
Sorry to disappoint you Steve, not a CFO I'm afraid. My 'policy statement' comes as a fire safety trainer and former inspecting officer.
I agree that in some cases fire safety is a nuisance to care home owners, as is spending money on service users and anything else that cuts into their profits or inconveniences them. However, I believe that as a Brigade we have always been very active with regards to care homes. I spent several years inspecting them under agency work for Care Standards, and if anything needed doing regarding fire safety then it got done. I didn't come across many owners who were prepared to stick their fingers up to the Fire Officer and the Care Standards Inspector at the same time.
We have a fire safety centre more or less dedicated to auditing these types of premises and we do enforce the FSO appropriately for the conditions we find. We use the H&S enforcement management model which ensures that we always take appropriate action and in some cases it has resulted in Prohibition (I have been involved in at least two closures due to poor fire safety conditions myself).
Under previous legislation we inspected these types of premises annually on a fixed programme. Under the FSO it works out pretty much the same.
I think we are all aware of the fact that the Government expects us to enforce the FSO and we realise that if we don't it will be taken off us. But at the same time that doesn't mean that we should act disproportianately when we do find a problem. Like you say, support those who are complying, take action against those who aren't.
I was looking at our enforcement records covering all premises under the FSO only this week: 50+ enforcement notices, 30+ prohibition notices and even 17 alterations notices! So I think the FSO has the potential to be far stronger than the FP Act, (where Res Care were not designated premises) and the Workplace Regs (that only covered employees). We even had to work to a Draft Guide for I don't know how many years!
-
The fire service is an organisation with its members, we should all be proud of, but they are also human, the decisions made in the split second of a going job are only similar to what normally happen in wartime, and they happen every day on firegrounds around the world, and if a mistake is made ' there but for the grace of god go I ! ' we could have all been in that place.
The modern fire service means that brigade training, promotions, policies and decisions are not always been for the right reasons they are made for the advancement of the senior management. But people on the fireground pay the price, brigade members and public, not sat in the incident command units with their chums or at a conference with like minded pals !
I will 'never' criticise the IC on the initial attendance on the fire ground, and the crews, as it escalates, we were not there !
But also, do not default to blame the owner/owner/employer of the building who have listened to the fire service over the years who have told them on annual inspection the building and procedures are 'satisfactory ' !
Then when it goes wrong point the finger at them, we have all come across people who put profit before safety, but we have also come across many people who listen to the fire service all the time, and do everything they are told as responsible people and still get blamed because the advice was wrong. Also when advised by so called consultants not only the FRS.
It's time to realise everyone should wake up and smell the coffee and get their acts together, people need to work together not sit and point at each other. And in 10 years we may have started to get it right !
-
Hi AFD
Of course we should point the finger at the bl**dy responsible person. They have had 13 months to get their head round the FSO, ignorance is no defence. What have I missed?
Put aside what the fire service has advised prior to October 2006, we are under a new regime,. Fire consultants are however a different matter. Simple checks should identify the consultants that should be given a wide berth.
Fire authorities will not be specific however I am aware of a number who will give general advice on what to look for in a competent advisor.
What is as dangerous as using a bad advisor?
The care provider or hotelier who thinks that responsibility automatically gives them competence to undertake their own RA.
-
Of course we should point the finger at the bl**dy responsible person. They have had 13 months to get their head round the FSO, ignorance is no defence. What have I missed?
Probably the enforcement management model.
Ignorance is no defence but confusion reigns - and is bound to. The significant changes affecting care home owners- such as defend in place and its implications, the requirement for self closers on bedroom doors in the former "protected areas" a need for evacuation plans based on clearing a zone within 2.5 minutes are hidden away in a 160 page document and were largely unannounced. The changes and publicity were purposefully low key for political reasons and the guides issued at the last possible moment.
Most brigades havn't even got a realistic enforcement policy in place and the majority of care homes have not had an audit yet. The guide books - if you try to buy one over the counter - have not reached the official bookshops yet- I tried this week without success for a client and ended up downloading and printing a copy off for them.
And here we are shouting at the RP for not being fully up to speed.
-
Kurnal could you display the URL to download the document you referred to above.
-
Kurnel
I havent missed the enforcement management model.
I agree that many brigades have failed to put an effective enforcement policy in place, however their view seems to be with or without an inspection the owner should still have carried out a suitable assessment. For a brigade not to have audited all care/nursing premises within the first 12 months of the FSO is is failing all those who occupy such premises.
Your comment on a low key introduction certainly applied to the WKPlace Regs are you saying that it continued into the FSO?
Out of interest the significant changes in care homes you refer to have been a condition imposed on owners in my area in connection with registration for at least 10 years.
I will still keep the finger in place although a second finger is 'on hand' to direct at fire authorities.
-
Come on guys, there are some pretty sweeping statements about what FRS' are failing to do. In my experience the overwhelming majority of FSO's carry out their role to the best of their ability and in a very conscientious manner.
It would be very easy for me to sit here and rant about the majority of Fire Safety Consultants and Fire Risk Assessors, but I won't because I don't know the majority of them, I only know the ones that I have to deal with (some very good and some with a long way to go. Like the one who carried out fire extinguisher training yesterday at my place of work, then left his large half full propane cylinder in the only escape route from the office that me and my colleague work in (we were not best pleased to say the least!))
It's all very well saying that FRS should throw ALL of their resources at this particular group, but at the cost of dropping what:
Domestic premises (which lets face it is where most of the fire deaths and serious injuries occur)
Hospitals
Schools
Hostels/HiMO's
Warehouses even??
I'm not trying to be antagonistic (I think Steve's got that covered) but I'd ask that you make some attempt to see it from the other person's point of view.
However, if you have adopted the African Pygmy system of counting i.e. one, two, many! then I apologise for my ignorance and lack of 'Diversity' awareness.
:P
-
I would direct my questions at the home owner and staff who have to be held accountable for the care of the residents.
Responsible for the care of the residents under Care Standards, but the employer was only responsible for safeguarding the safety of employees under the Workplace Regs (technicallity m'lud)
Any case for failing to take reasonable care to safeguard the residents would have to be a private case, so yes, get a decent lawyer.
The Fire & Rescue Service inspections are risk based, not cast in stone. If there are a number of incidents in a particular premises, then I would suggest that it would warrant a sample of a number of premises within that group to guage the level of compliance. A decision can then be made as to the requirement to inspect all premises.
Steve wrote this ... I agree that many brigades have failed to put an effective enforcement policy in place, however their view seems to be with or without an inspection the owner should still have carried out a suitable assessment. For a brigade not to have audited all care/nursing premises within the first 12 months of the FSO is is failing all those who occupy such premises.
The owner should have carried out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment ..... it is a requirement of law (Article 9, Fire Safety Order)
Why is it a failing on the Fire Authority to have NOT inspected all care homes in the first 12 months of the Order coming into force? Do you not think that there are premises out there that pose a far greater risk that should be inspected?
The responsibility to ensure the premises are safe lies with the Employers / owners of them, not the Fire Authority
-
Come on guys, there are some pretty sweeping statements about what FRS' are failing to do. In my experience the overwhelming majority of FSO's carry out their role to the best of their ability and in a very conscientious manner.
Absolutely agree with that and would never suggest otherwise. Any of my critical comments are aimed at the systems under which they are having to work, under difficult circumstances in which the Law has changed so significantly bringing in on the one hand through the RRO a whole raft of premises not formerly subject to their enforcement whilst at the same time the Fire and Rescue Services Act places a new legal duty to focus on additional areas in the community.
All this has taken place without any increase in resources to do the job- as the politicians demand the efficiency and productivity savings to justify that 16.2% pay rise a few years ago. To make the transition possible at all it has been necessary to change the way you work from enforcement of fire safety standards in premises to enforcement of the level of legal compliance by the Responsible Person.
Why is it a failing on the Fire Authority to have NOT inspected all care homes in the first 12 months of the Order coming into force? Do you not think that there are premises out there that pose a far greater risk that should be inspected/
The responsibility to ensure the premises are safe lies with the Employers / owners of them, not the Fire Authority
I have no argument with this point either. My difficulty is down to how the change was managed, communicated and implemented. As others have said on this forum several times, in drafting the guidance documents issued under the RRO the Government recognised there would be significant cost implications for businesses providing care and for the small B&B operator.
I just felt moved to try and balance the argument because I think some postings indicate unrealistic expectations.
From the point of view of the private care home owner, in most brigade areas they have been receiving annual inspections from the fire officer since at least 1984. This is no longer an automatic process for all the reasons pointed out by Johno67 and Baldyman- and rightly so. You only have finite resources. The fire risk in care homes should be pretty well controlled after all these years and there are new uncharted waters to look at.
The legal duty and responsibility sits with the RP - the law is absolutely clear.
But the changes were pretty significant and not clearly set out or publicised. As an RP when you have been receiving annual visits for years by an expert officer who has assessed the physical fire precautions in your care home and given you a clean bill of health "all conditions satisfactory" it is unlikely that having completed your own fire risk assessment, even if astute enough to pick up on the changes hidden away within the guidance document you will have confidence to see the need and justify substantial changes.
You are more likely to await the usual annual visit by the inspector and ask their advice. Will that visit come? Have we informed owners of the change in enforcement? Do we need to? Have we updated out Memoranda of Understanding with CSCI so their inspectors are aware of our new enforcement policies and can inform the RPs?
If when we do visit we have reasonable expectations of compliance and apply the Enforcement Management Model I am happy.
I have visited three care homes this week, all were aware of the new order, two of the three had carried out their own risk assessment and the third has asked me to do it on their behalf following a visit from CSCI. None had had a visit from the fire officer in the last 12 months. None had till then seen the need to make any changes to physical precautions or procedures as a result of the Fire Safety Order.
-
TW
Heres the HSE version of the Enforcement Management Model
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/emm.pdf
The Better regulation website is at
http://bre.berr.gov.uk/regulation/
-
The significant changes affecting care home owners- such as defend in place and its implications, the requirement for self closers on bedroom doors in the former "protected areas" a need for evacuation plans based on clearing a zone within 2.5 minutes are hidden away in a 160 page document and were largely unannounced. The changes and publicity were purposefully low key for political reasons and the guides issued at the last possible moment.
Thanks for those links, (more info I was not aware of), but it was the above guide I was intrested in and was it Health Technical Memorandum 05-01: Managing healthcare fire safety.
-
OK Tw
The document is the guidance for residential care premises issued by the DCLG.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firesafetyrisk5
The reference to the evacuation of sub compartments within 2.5 minutes is on page 70, the reference to delayed evacuation by increasing the fire resistance of bedrooms to 1 hour and providing extra staffing ("defend in place" seems to be adopted as the term in common use) is on page 71, and the need for self closers on all doors protecting corridors is on page 85 and on 125.
There are other very significant changes such as dead end areas, fire resistance of walls lining corridors between the new guidance and the previous in force until 31 September 2006.
-
Thanks Kurnal I have that one, I must get a round to reading it, I am glad it was not HTM 5-01 at £75 a throw I am not that interested.
-
There is a very balanced arguement throughout this thread.
In relation to responsible persons not knowing about the change, didn't the Government send out letters to all businesses in the UK to inform them of the change or am I mistaken?
Basically, the Government should have run a full on advertising campaign, other that a few adverts on Radio 4 or whatever it was, to raise awareness.
I can't speak for other IO's but prior to The Order coming into force, I informed all persons I dealt with of the forthcoming change ... and the steps to take to ensure compliance. If they have chosen not to act, is that my fault?
One year on from the introduction of the legislation, I don't feel alot has changed. There are still hotels that have insufficient detection to protect relevant persons, there are still care homes that do not have suitable and sufficient numbers to implement the emergency procedures and there are literally thousands of premises which haven't even been looked at.
If I own/operate a business, it is my responsibility to find out what legislation I have to comply to. Simple really.
-
For the last X years FRS did not enforce it in resicare, even with the workplace regs. fire authorities have worked with CSCI ( or what ever they were called that month) and not enforced it, they have advised CSCI who have for political reasons have left things to drift. Most CSCI inspectors are shall we say delicate, and moved on from responsibility for a home, to another home usually for personal child care reasons.
The CLG told FRS to prioritise resicare and hospitals, so if they have not audited in the last 12 months they are failing.
The consultants are all telling them different things, except they all say you should have me back in 12 months ( yum yum).
Where the FRS have audited , some are making it up on the hoof, some are stating it is satisfactory, even when it has not even heard of the green guide, little red fire engine guide or a girls guide !
There are a lot of responsible owners who have tried to take charge of their fire precautions in their homes but have been told one thing by consultants another by FRS, and they do not know if they are on their a**e or their elbow, yes there is also bad ones who will employ the poor consultants who tell them what they want, and the consultants take the money and run. Or even owners who do not bother at all and still can get a satisfactory audit from either group. And FRS who are then the villains ( in some cases deservedly) for trying to sort something out.
As to the comment on the pay rise for FRS ! What planet are you on ? that was engineered to destroy the fire service
( standards of fire cover, attendance times etc.) and bring in the IRMP, if you do not believe that, read the guides and legislation. Which now means if we target resicare , hospitals, which are high political and community loss ( see paragraph 2) we can, with onerous dodgy 2.5 minute etc. guidance, we can get suppression by stealth and close fire stations.
It has always been the case that deaths in domestics are not a political problem, deaths in commercial under 6 in number do not create a political outcry. But multi deaths in a care home that have a minister involved or lose an hospital and bu**er up target times for operations, dear oh dear, then it needs sorting !
Stop pointing fingers, ( not that I have ! ) and with a combined voice of 'concientous' professionals, we could get things uniform and fair, but the more I read these forums, I realise there is 60% in it for their bank accounts only, and 20% in it for politcal reasons only and 20% ( generous) actually want it right.
Sorry for last section on getting it right , still in dream world !