FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Pete M on December 04, 2007, 12:30:47 AM
-
Can anone tell me why PHE is frowned upon in all circumstances other than hospitals?
Not a trick question - just looking to poll opinions.
-
What about care and nursing homes ?
The principle is based upon having a trained and disciplined staff, with an occupancy that generally can be controlled and moved as required by those staff, in a managed way.
Not many other premises in todays society have this.
-
PHE is generally used because of difficulties in moving infirm/vulnerable patients. i.e. People who would possibly be put at more danger by being outside.
I think it is a bit like stay-put (Or delayed evacuation, as the guides like to call it), more of a last resort due to other difficulties/impossiblities, and the building has to be of the right standard to allow it. (And not just used because you don't have enough staff and don't want to address any difficulties properly)
At the end of the day it is down to risk assessment and we should look at each case on it's own merits. i.e. You might have a school or some premises for seriously handicapped/disabled people. If the building can support PHE, then it may be a viable option, with a good reason for implementing it.
-
We usually accept PHE in our res care premises, which includes an assessment of the vulnerability of the residents out in the snow on a cold January morning. The registration bodies require them to have 'last ditch' alternate accommodation for emergencies, but these are usually other res care premises, and the impact on them makes their use undesireable unless no other option exists.
I have also agreed PHE in a new community school for the part that looks after the special needs children. Admittedly the staff/pupil ratio is no worse than 1 to 2, but I did need evidence of the 'robust management procedures' (what would we do without them) before i accepted the PHE.
Civvy is right, there are a number of establishments who's night staff levels would put a strain on any type of evacuation.
-
You can use it in other buildings but its not usually economic
-
We were called in recently to rectify a situation that had been designed by the world’s largest fire engineers that relied on PHE for disabled evacuation. This works well in theory but in this example it meant that whilst most people could turn their back on a fire to escape persons requiring assistance had to travel up to 30m towards the fire before reaching relative safety.
BMR Associates
Any problems or replies then ring us for advice.
-
Visited two hotels with disabled accomodation on the upper floors last week that still leave people in the stairwell for the fire service, sort of PHE, both said the fire service were happy with that arrangement...
-
we know of premises that during the fire strike would not let disabled in because there was no one available to get them out. there is no guidance anywhere that say it is the job of the fire srevice to evacuate disabled persons so i am surprised if they have said it is ok. also they are not doing the responsible person any favours as it will be him in court not them when things go wrong.
-
Yes redone this is still unfortunately widespread. Some local officers are not yet up to speed. Trouble is the clients listen to guys in the red trucks rather than the consultant.
Following a risk assessment in a public assembly building I drew up an emergency evacuation plan for them with refuges and identifying the need for trained staff to assist persons in the refuge. Local fire officer said thats rubbish - leave the wheelchair users in the refuges till the fire service arrive. We will deal with them. I made a phone call to the brigade on that one and received an apology.
Tried to persuade another client to install dry risers in an historic 6 storey Mill in the North West. All going well till local station were invited for familiarisation and operational planning visit. No need for risers they say- they have never had them in 100 years so no need to install now. I have asked client to request a visit by a higher ranking fire safety officer who may have an inkling about what operational pre planning is all about.
Bmr- the RRO guidance is very clear that it is the duty of the Responsible person to make an effective plan for the evacuation of ALL relevant persons.
-
kurnal
that was my point, the fire service are not doing the RP any favours
-
I agree with what has been put forward so far. In reality if the officer in charge turns up at any premises and the RP informs him/her that there are persons still in the premises they will do their best to get them out. However, you can not have a written fire emergency plan that states that you will move disabled persons into a refuge (with or without a “buddy”) and leave them there until the fire and rescue service arrive.
I have seen such procedures and also that the RP has said the fire service are ok with it? There is a lot of guidance which states that this is not the case. BS 5588 Part 8 Code of Practice for Means of Escape for Disabled Persons has been with us since 1999, also BS 5588 Part 12 – Managing Fire Safety. More recently we have a supplementary guide to the HM Government guides “Means of Escape for Disabled People” which I guess spells it out:
Section 1.1 Legal overview
“The Fire and Rescue Service’s role in fire evacuation is that of ensuring that
the means of escape in case of fire and associated fire safety measures
provided for all people who may be in a building are both adequate and
reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of each particular case.
Under current fire safety legislation it is the responsibility of the person(s)
having responsibility for the building to provide a fire safety risk assessment
that includes an emergency evacuation plan for all people likely to be in the
premises, including disabled people, and how that plan will be implemented.
Such an evacuation plan should not rely upon the intervention of the Fire
and Rescue Service to make it work”
One more very important point to throw in. I see many PHE plans in res. care homes etc where they are operating such a policy. However, many do not have intumescing strips or smoke seals fitted to the separating compartments i.e. bedroom doors, cross corridor doors, doors onto escape routes etc. and the fire and rescue service have visited and agreed a PHE strategy, maybe because this is how its always been? In my view the PHE plan then falls down as it should be based on moving occupants horizontally, or vertically away from the greatest point of danger to the nearest safe compartment where smoke spread will be checked. Any thoughts...............
-
I think people often forget that the fire service may be on strike at the time of their fire, or might be attending another fire, or delayed for a number of reasons.
-
Our local F Station will attend, evacuate from the refuge, and then send an officer round to issue an improvement notice requiring us to set up a means of evacuation. They are not seeking out RPs with no plans to clear refuges without brigade assistance.This near enough verbatim the phone conversation we had.
The next problem is in our Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan for the non -mbulatory do we go for "Evac Chairs". The "Disabled Lobby " don't seem to like them. There is a training problem. Transferring from an existing chair to an evac. chair is but one problem.
But is there a better option?
-
Dynamic Risk Assessment for operational officers is about saveable life and saveable property. Therefore, no one should assume, and quite rightly it is the RP's job to sort out evacuation of all relevant people, that the FRS will go in to get people. The DRC after the last industrial action wrote an article with regard to this telling RP's that it is there reponsibility.
-
Our local F Station will attend, evacuate from the refuge, and then send an officer round to issue an improvement notice requiring us to set up a means of evacuation. They are not seeking out RPs with no plans to clear refuges without brigade assistance.This near enough verbatim the phone conversation we had.
The next problem is in our Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan for the non -mbulatory do we go for "Evac Chairs". The "Disabled Lobby " don't seem to like them. There is a training problem. Transferring from an existing chair to an evac. chair is but one problem.
But is there a better option?
A few options Martin, limit to ground floor only, Albac mats, evac lifts, adequate staffing levels - whatever that number is, sprinklers - reduce the need for speedy evac?
Or society should just accept fires will happen, people will die, if you what more staff, it costs, we'd rather pay less and hope when it happens, it happens to someone else. We're all wise after the event, never been to a care home fire where the staff didn't give it their best shot, I feel managers today, especially in local authorities have no idea of the impact of current fire legislation on their procedures...
-
In a res care home providing the FRA is detailed enough and not just the tick box type then, depending on the location of the fire to the refuge area there may be no need to evacuate at all. where possible you should PHE into a compartment where it is possible to futher progress into another compartment should the need arise. in Martin's case if the stairs are lobbied then your FRA could state that disabled evac from the refuge will only take place as a last resort after all you do not discount a staircase if it is lobbied. But this does not mean that you can just abandon a non ambulant person in the refuge. With regard to smoke seals and intumescent strips these are not the panacea that most people think. The ability of a door to hold back heat and smoke depends on how well it sits in it's frame, a good fitting door with an inch rebate will hold back heat and smoke better than most of the new doors i have seen recently with seals and strips fitted. Just because it is old fahioned does not mean it is bad, although i can't convince my wife of that...
-
There can be other problems and user-resistance to the use of evacuation chairs, Martin. The supplementary guide for the means of escape by disabled people states:
Disabled people may not feel confident using these
chairs and it is not always possible for wheelchair users to transfer into an
evacuation chair or to maintain a sitting position once seated in one. Therefore,
evacuation chairs should not be considered as an automatic solution to the
escape requirements of wheelchair users.
It is unlikely that an evacuation chair will be of much use unless both the user
and the operator are well trained and familiar with the piece of equipment. It
is essential that when they are purchased a suitable training system is also
implemented. Regular practices should also take place. In most instances,
these may not need to include the disabled person, although some may
wish to practise being moved in the evacuation chair. It is more appropriate
for the people who are trained to operate the evacuation chair to take it in
turns during practices rather than involve the disabled person. This will also
increase their confidence in using the equipment. Using an evacuation chair
may put the disabled person at risk from injury, so it is best to limit their use
by disabled people to the real thing.
If the premises doesn't have a an evacuation lift (or fire-fighting lift) you could look into whether an existing lift could be converted for this purpose in accordance with the BS.
-
Incidentally, I see that Health Technical Memorandum 05-03: Operational provisions Part J: Guidance on fire engineering of healthcare
premises was published yesterday.
-
Thanks for that Ken.
You have described very clearly all the drawbacks to evac chairs. I work for an LA and as part of our DDA activities we area making more of our buildings accesible. Some of our local managers are in danger of buying evac chairs (£6oo a go) as some sort of talisman to fend off inspecting fire officers.
I am looking at risk assessing use of existing lifts as means of escape though I suspect I am on a bit of a loser with that idea.
Ps Apologies for straying away from Phased Horizontal Evacuation.
-
Whilst we all agree that evacuation chairs have many disadvantages they do have a considerable role to play in many buildings in the absence of any other reasonably practicable solution.
Yes they should be engineered out of all new build in the ideal world (although the new ADB recommends wheelchair refuges here there and everywhere without regard to how they may be used) but this is far from an ideal world and the shifting sands of standards and policies make evac chairs the only realsitic solution to most of the problem in many buildings.
Take one of my clients as an example- victorian town hall in which a hydraulic and platform lift were installed in the early 90s to give access to the first floor. Consultation took place with fire authority and building control and refuges were created in protected areas (30min). At the time the fire authority were happy to take responsibility for the removal of persons from refuges and their response to the building regulations consultation recommended changes to the final exit door hardware to give them access from outside the building direct to the refuge. This is no longer the policy in 2007- quite rightly so- but where can we go from here?
Our response has been to install evac chairs and train staff/ premises supervisor in their use. From surveys of building users we think that this strategy will work for 90% of visitors to the building 80% of the time. Otherwise we would have to upgrade the fire protection in the building to allow defend in place strategy- but even then we will still need a plan for ultimate evacuation.
Is it acceptable to say to a very ill person who for health reasons cannot be transferred from their heavy powered wheelchair (some of which weigh over 200kg) that they cannot visit a public function the upper floors due to Fire safety restrictions? Personally I think it is but the press and politicians would have a field day.
Bit short of ideas otherwise, happy to risk assess the use of lifts but found it not to be possible in most situations.
We come down to stark choices with much of the existing building stock- of refusing access to a small minority of people from the upper floors or rebuilding the place both of which are non starters.
I would have thought that for many local authority buildings the low turnover of staff and availability of trained fire wardens would make evac chairs a reasonable compromise where a service cannot be provided in an accessible location.
-
Perhaps the authorities should insist that all new multi floored building are equipped with evac lifts instead of a normal passenger lift.
-
How many? Would you need one for every storey exit?
-
i believe cfoa are actively looking at the use of passenger lifts in the early stages of evacuation to address these very problems.
-
Well that fills me with confidence! CFOA are up there with chocolate tea pots and concrete life jackets.
-
I do feel that, when designing for lifts in 'managed institutional/assembly' type new buildings and extensions thereto, the norm ought now to be for them to be at least evacuation lifts. It's certainly cheaper at that stage.
-
I'll say it again - how many do you want . If you have one where does it go???
It sounds like a good ida until you think about it.
-
It seems like a good idea to me when I do think about it Wee B. The number and location are design issues to be considered at the time with Building Control or the AI - just like when we decide whether we need conventional lifts or fire-fighting lifts at the design stage. Here is an example: We commissioned a sports and conference centre, decided it needed one lift and, in view of the likely nature of non-ambulant occupants being present above Ground level and the fact that the premises would be managed, decided upon a lift to evacuation standard. Naturally refuges were also designed in for each of the escape stairways for the (unlikely) eventuality of the lift not being accessible in the event of fire.
-
Thats the bit that worries me - nto that I have aproblem with your solution. But if I need two storey exits but I only provide one evac lift. Where do I put the lift.
If the assumption is that there wont be a fire then why am I providing stairs and lifts????
-
Thats the bit that worries me - not that I have a problem with your solution. But if I need two storey exits but I only provide one evac lift. Where do I put the lift.
If the assumption is that there wont be a fire then why am I providing stairs and lifts????
Let's not forget that even when lifts are provided there must be reasonable measures to evacuate persons by other means in case the lifts are unusable.
Surely if your building will be used by persons who cannot negotiate stairs unaided your risk asessment would point you in the direction of evacuation lifts. How many and where will come down to what is reasonably practicable.
In a building with 200 disbled persons one lift each within 10m of everyone is not reasonably practicable.......equally in a building measuring 100m x 100m one lift probably would not demonstrate that all reasonable measures have been taken.
-
Ah. Thats where the problems arise. What are reasonable measures? Back to the passengers on the Clapham Omnibus and M'Lud.
In deciding what is reasonable is it not common to measure one against ones peers? And if M'Lud did this, even in the aftermath of a disaster, is he likely to find Mrs Postlethwaite wanting for not providing adequate evacuation lifts in her building? Especially as it could have been built fully in accordance with Building Regulations and subject to all consultations with every statutory authority along the way? I think not. Look at the Hillsborough Disaster. The football club were not found wanting for failing to provide exits forward to the pitch although this would have saved many lives. The club were measured against current standards and their peers and not individually castigated for this.
You cannot expect anyone to install evacuation lifts retrospectively unless as part of a very significant refurbishment. But put someone behind two fire doors and one hours walls and floor away from the fire, accompany them and keep in communication and then when the time is right offer them the necessary assistance to select use the route out of the building least likely to harm them, taking into account all hazards including fire, falling, or injury caused by being manhandled. This may be a standard passenger lift, a fire appliance, an evac chair, a dining chair or carry them in their own wheelchair.
-
You cannot expect anyone to install evacuation lifts retrospectively unless as part of a very significant refurbishment.
Yes I totally agree Kurnal, sorry I came in late in this debate. I wasn't suggesting that evacuation lifts should be fitted retrospectively but they should be considered at the design stage.