FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: AFD on February 15, 2008, 09:23:20 AM
-
I see that Kent fire and Rescue service have awarded a building ( resi care I think) a special fire safety award for fitting suppression. The owner thinks it is good because they say he does not need self closers on his fire resisting doors. My understnding is that although suppression is fantastic and will compensate for many areas, I still believe that there needs to be cold smoke control, so even if you have none fire rated doors and older construction eg. lathe and plaster. The suppression would compensate for that, but cheap self closers and smoke sels would still be needed to keep escape routes clear of smoke, and in resicare keep it out of other rooms where there are frail people sleeping eg. Rosepark ( are the final results of that enquiery out yet ?). It also helps the heat in the room build up quicker to actuate the suppression. What are your views on this ?
-
What sort of "suppression".... do you mean along the lines of FM200 or Inergen or some kind of sprinkler system ??
-
Sprinklers , in this case I think it was actually mist.
-
AFD:
I totally agree with your comments. The suppression system would need an established fire to become activated which would therefore bleed its products into the corridors and other areas. In care homes it is vital that containment of a fire and its products is maintained owing to the removal of residents from the compartment and sub-compartments by staff members. The RA should reflect this and people need to realise that there is nothing carried by BA wearers to protect those being rescued from inhaling hostile contaminants. For this reason I believe closing device are absolutely essential
-
I hope someone from Kent FRS can give us there reasoning for this, to educate us all. I thought it might provoke a few more comments from the fire safety community.
-
I have recently read that although sprinklers are not mandatory for res care homes in England and Wales, certain design freedoms in res care have, since 2007, been accepted under the guidance that supports the relevant building regulations: an example is that bedroom doors need not be automatically self closing.
However in Scotland since the tragedy at Rosepark, the Scottish Building Regulations stipulated for the first time,
that all new build res care homes need to be protected by an automatic fire suppression system, and all bedroom doors in such places also need to be automatically self closing in action.
The last I ever heard about the Rosepark enquiry was that the PF had appealed the decision re the charges being dropped against the owners, and it was likely that an appeal would be held at some stage in the future, and that possibly, in the long term, once criminal proceedings are completed, there might well be an inquiry.
see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6383845.stm
-
We must assume the silence from Kent FRS means it was a career developing decision by a none fire safety trained middle manager, to be seen to be encouraging suppression in his patch without the full package. It does not help the profession or the fire service credibility at all ! Come on Kent FRS speak up ! or is this web site for fire safety professionals only ?
-
It's a Charlie publicity stunt surely. As Rosepark quite clearly demostrated self closing devices whether held open or not are necessary to save life in these type of premises.
-
I serve in Kent Fire & Rescue and am a new member to the forums so forgive my amateurish first attempt at posting but.....firstly i do not know the details of the building etc but the approach that appears to have been taken here should be applauded. The belief that fire doors with self closing devices in a residential care home actually provide unquestionable protection is misguided. Fire precautions are only as good as the management attitude and understanding of fire safety. The functionality of the fire precaution measures put into the building must also be matched to the functional use of the building or they will not be used. Residents in a resi -care home generally are frail and self closers hamper their daily activities. In addition they do not generally like to be in their rooms with the door closed so what is generally found on inspection is doors wedged open...... For these reasons the new approved document B identified that where fire doors may cause an obstacle to residents other self closing hardware can be considered such as free- swing door closers!!! These freeswing devices do close the doors on actuation of the fire alarm. So in this case it appears that it is a good solution. In addition the same document states that where a sprinkler system is fitted 'fire doors to bedrooms need not be fitted with self closing devices'. If the management of a resi -care home could prove effective management linked to risk assessments and procedures it may be permissible not to have any closers at all ..... i bet that would cause a few posts on this site!!
This is my view only and i have not been paid by Charlie to say it.... well i have been paid by him but not for this....you know what i mean
-
MSD:
Hmm, I spend a lot of my time in care homes undertaking fire awareness training and RA's. My time in fire safety in the KFB made me think along your lines of thought but to get out there in the real world makes you realise that code hugging and staff training may not be enough. It relies on early detection, staff knowing how to use the time of any fire alarm actuation and containment enhanced by closing devices. There are alternatives to wedging doors open so I don't see that item as a problem. I don't care what the regs say regarding relaxation as they often don't consider the types of persons that require protection such as the elderly frail. Whilst sprinklers may have a very important function lets remember that their actuation is when a fire is probably developed, then it may be too late to enter the compartment to make rescues.
Sorry but the words 'browny points' comes to mind regarding Mr C
-
Do we not consider that the tpye and style of evacuation has a part to play here? If the defend in place scenario is utilised then surely we want the doors to rooms closed by a device perhaps connected to the FA system. If it is PHE then surely we wan the fire doors to the compartment to close. It just seems a misguided attempt to have sprinklers fitted, they might keep the fire size down but the smoke will spread and cause panic in a care facility.
-
What's the point in having a fire door that doesn't self close? It may as well not be there.
-
The new ADB 2006 para 3.52 page 43 does actually recommend that where sprinklers are installed that self closers may be omitted from bedroom doors, and allows a larger number of bedrooms in protected areas but goes on to point out that doors need then to be manually closed whilst residents are asleep.
It would be interesting to know the rationale behind this recommendation.
Swing free self closers to bedrooms are the ideal answer but it isnt always so straightforward- the requirement for the installation of self closers has come about as U turn in National policy and there is often a limit to the number of devices that can be easily connected to an existing fire alarm system. In addition in a 40 bed home the cost will probably be around £20k in a single hit. Dorgards could be installed for about £5k.
Sometimes quality of life for the service users is a major consideration. Many do not like to feel closed in their room- in these cases the care home owner has no choice but to install the swing free closers. Its always surprising how service users views can differ from those of us who think we are looking after their best interests. One of my clients recently installed showers and jacuzzi as a result of an opinion survey of residents families. The service users themselves- all elderly people- generally are not used to showers and think they are being drowned and panic in the jacuzzi thinking that they are being boiled alive. The new equipment is very little used.
-
I see that Kent fire and Rescue service have awarded a building ( resi care I think) a special fire safety award for fitting suppression. The owner thinks it is good because they say he does not need self closers on his fire resisting doors. My understnding is that although suppression is fantastic and will compensate for many areas, I still believe that there needs to be cold smoke control, so even if you have none fire rated doors and older construction eg. lathe and plaster. The suppression would compensate for that, but cheap self closers and smoke sels would still be needed to keep escape routes clear of smoke, and in resicare keep it out of other rooms where there are frail people sleeping eg. Rosepark ( are the final results of that enquiery out yet ?). It also helps the heat in the room build up quicker to actuate the suppression. What are your views on this ?
Where is this reference?
-
would this be it?
http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/KFRS/pageid/518/offset/0/releaseid/787/Press/Press.html
I think MSD is correct. There are self closers, they are just 'free swinging'.
-
I think we all are clear here ' a freeswing' is a self-closing device, just with 100% flexibility built in. We all know that fire resisting smoke stopping doors are a pain in the neck, particularly in resi care.
Residents cannot open them in day to day use, and they and staff want doors open for different reasons, so you cannot manage out the door being open without the assistance of some thing like a 'freeswing'.
The residents are in a position of choices to have their door open or ajar, and they pay the bill, it is where they ,and CSCI will demand it.
And staff will be staff for residents care perspective, or to give themselves an easier life pushing trollies through, they will wedge it. So a freeswing or similar is required, and as my original point cold smoke control is required.
That is not code hugging, it is basic principle fire safety.
-
The new ADB 2006 para 3.52 page 43 does actually recommend that where sprinklers are installed that self closers may be omitted from bedroom doors, and allows a larger number of bedrooms in protected areas but goes on to point out that doors need then to be manually closed whilst residents are asleep.
It would be interesting to know the rationale behind this recommendation.
I've got a feeling that the recommendation found its way into ADB following the outcomes from the BRE tests on residential sprinklers. Some of their tests looked at tenability levels in adjoining spaces with doors open and found that in many of the sprinklered cases conditions were not unfavourable.
And, personally, I'd rather have sprinklers and no self closers (but with, of course, a policy of shutting all doors at night) than self closers and no sprinklers.
Stu
-
Sprinklers are all well and good but what real benefit can we expect in a care home ?
Sprinklers dont control smoke and more often than not they cant save the person in the room of origin
AFD is still king with self closers.
Yes self closing doors can be propped but sprinkler systems valves can be shut off, detector heads can be covered etc etc.
-
You cannot have a policy of shutting bedroom doors.
The residents live there, it is their home and can have the doors as they want. They pay for that priveledge and CSCI defend their choice.
In homes with mental health issues staff want the doors open so they can hear and see the residents.
As well as this all homes are on minimum staffing levels at night, so do not say they will shut it if they hear the alarm you may have less than 4 staff to a 60+ bed multi storey unit, and they are too busy checking for UWFS to be closing doors !
it is self closers that are required and to work they must have some form of control eg. freeswing.
Too many fire officers and consultants have agreed totally unachievable 'managed policies' for an easy life and return financial work.
-
You cannot have a policy of shutting bedroom doors.
The residents live there, it is their home and can have the doors as they want. They pay for that priveledge and CSCI defend their choice.
In homes with mental health issues staff want the doors open so they can hear and see the residents.
As well as this all homes are on minimum staffing levels at night, so do not say they will shut it if they hear the alarm you may have less than 4 staff to a 60+ bed multi storey unit, and they are too busy checking for UWFS to be closing doors !
it is self closers that are required and to work they must have some form of control eg. freeswing.
Too many fire officers and consultants have agreed totally unachievable 'managed policies' for an easy life and return financial work.
AFD:
The rights of a resident to have their fire door held open extends to the adjacent residents who also have a right to be protected should a fire start within a neighbouring room. CSCI do not defend that particular choice unless the doors are held open by an approved device.
-
Exactly ! they must have the device !
So who as to provide it, not the resident, not CSCI, not the FRS. it is the owner , the Responsible person !
CSCI will not let you evict someone who wants their door open, don't kid yourself. To protect the others the responsible person must provide what the suitable and suuficient FRS as shown , a device , that looks after everyone.
-
I agree AFD. It is the answer, it is the Responsible persons job to provide it.
From 1985 to 2006 we have all been telling the Responsible Person to create protected areas comprising up to 12 bedrooms and not to put self closers on bedroom doors.
Then came the U turn and knee jerk reaction to Rosepark when we suddenly turn 20 years best practice guidance upside down and blame those moneygrabbing care home owners for their reluctance to invest a further minimum £500 per room on swing free closers, new fire alarms etc - at very least £20k- in the average home. Effectively overnight.
Meanwhile theres not many self closers or detectors or smoke seals or fire dooors or fire resisting partitions in the sleeping accommodation at the fire service college, and you can bet if they hadnt closed all the county council care homes down (because they couldn't make any money) they would have continued to lag way behind the private sector.
-
Many fire safety practioners (without a profit incentive) in those days , never believed in open fire doors.
The original concept of residential care as an industry started in the 60's and 70's when the welfare state kicked in, the standards applied were the standards found of that time i.e. old lathe and plaster, bits of supalux nailed onto the back of doors, tap tap and a knock tested doors, 25mm rebates . etc. etc.
Many fire authorities in the 90's realised that the figures of fires in residential care and the casualties were rising, and may be, before tomb stone law became the way, that a change was needed.
In the old days the most fire risk in a bedroom was bed side lamp. Now its tv's, videos, DVD's, computers, hair straighteners and dryers, etc.etc. with all the other comforts of home creating a fire load.
Many brigades saw this, and said a change was needed to those old standards of the 60-70's ( green draft guide 1982 what a joke ). and adopted the unpopular in England and Wales HTM84. And tried to ugrade to the current standards of the time.
Now we have risk assessment and modern standards. Knee jerk, do not make me laugh ! I think you have taken a fee in the past and now the chickens are coming home to roost !
-
Well not really AFD but I was hoping for a response.
No, wearing one of my former hats as res care liaison officer for a brigade till comparatively recently, trying to make some sense of the green guides and local policies and to develop local MOAs, having to report to the local Social services committee on the standards and progress in the county council owned homes and at the same time had my guys out enforcing much higher standards in the private sector.
Then meeting the private sector home owners at liaison meetings and taking the flak. Later along came the NCSC and then CSCI, sorting out and agreeing standards along with peers within the ever changing regions and again trying to smooth varying standards down into one levelish playing field.
And finally as customer of a care home where my Dad in Law has been a resident for three years now, on a self funding basis as he whittles down his savings- I dont mind that except that the Social services funded residents are paying a heck of a lot less. And No - they havn't got self closers on their bedrooms yet. And No I have never done a risk assessment for them either- part of a national chain doing everything in house. If they dont put swing frees on my dad will hate it. Just as many of you brigade guys when at Moreton sit in your room with the door ajar.
In my risk assessments I recommend self closers on bedroom doors and would prefer swing frees over standard wedged self closing doors. But that really is a major investment and its only fairly recently that market conditions have improved for the owners- many have had a very hard time of it for a number of years after the early boom years of the 80s. So sympathies go both ways.
-
and adopted the unpopular in England and Wales HTM84.
Were can you get hold of the above document? I have the Scottish and Northern Ireland version but not the above.
-
Sorry I missed the punctuation " wales, HTM 84.
To pre-empt your come back, The fire engineering 'guidance' document developed by the department of health for use in the UK, but dropped on change of political agenda, but still a valid improved 'guidance' document for residential care.
Where it was adopted does not matter, all guidance documents are not 'a legal act' they are documents providing practical guidance on how to achieve something, they have no legal status, but they can be classed as showing an attempt to comply with a certain act if issued for it ie the RRfsO documents, but you can use others.
Many in this country for 'mist systems' are quoting American standards is that illegal ?