FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Mushy on March 21, 2008, 09:07:04 AM
-
I remember when I was in the job, there was a policy of keep the residents behind fire resisting construction and await the brigade, the theory being that the old dears could get hypothermia if they were out in the snow waiting for the brigade to arrive and this has got me thinking.
If you guys were doing an inspection/fra of a hospital, what would you be saying with reference the operating theatre? Would you be happy to have a stay put policy written into your risk assesment? maybe only move if there was a known fire on the same floor?
-
There is confusion out there both with enforcers and RPs between stay put and progressive horizontal evacuation. I have come across many care homes that say they have a stay put policy....when actually the emergency action plan involves evacuating residents to an alternative fire compartment within the building...that is not stay put.
Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.
The CLG guide suggests that if you are going to leave residents within their rooms, the rooms should be 60 mins FR and each resident will be accompanied by a dedicated carer. I don't know of many care homes that have that many employees.
In the case of hospitals if designed to HTMs the operating theatres are likely to be adjacent to another theatre in a different compartment. The design will make sure that there are no hazard departments adjacent to very high dependency areas etc. and pressurisation will prevent the theatres being affected by smoke.
So in that case, yes stay put until you really have to move. It is not a good idea to evacuate someone immediately to the car park when they are in the middle of a heart transplant.
-
Thanks for that philb
slip of the keypad when I used the terminology 'stay put' for EPH... and the staff out and residents in policy would be horrendous
I have done a iid (old money) in a single operating theatre (none adjoining) which was on the ground floor and the recovery room was in the theatre itself, so the patient was not necessarily on the op table...and the exit route to the final fire exit door from the rear of theatre was ok if you were walking, not so if on a push bed/ stretcher...although there was an alternative route which was through the theatre entrance doors and out another fire exit....which would be a bit dodgy if the fire was the entrance side of the theatre
I suppose worst case scenario with the front escape route blocked would be to carry them through the rear of theatre fire exit...hardly perfect but maybe necessary in that case
-
T
Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.
.
I have never come across this approach before - It's absolutely incredible!
I might find it amusing if it wasn't so disturbing
-
T
Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.
.
I have never come across this approach before - It's absolutely incredible!
I might find it amusing if it wasn't so disturbing
I have im afraid and it scares the living hell out of me.
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Quite so Chris...and most of us would agree that thankfully the law has changed.....but in my experience many managers of care homes believe that if there is a fire it is not their job to get people out. In my opinion ....they are wrong.
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod
-
The biggest thing I find is people are confused about the term "evacuation" and "rescue"
Firefighters are paid to rescue people because they have the correct training PPE etc to do so.
Care workers are paid to evacuate people (without putting themselves at risk)
Firefighters dont evacuate, care workers dont rescue
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod
On what basis?
-
The arguement care home managers put to me is "I cannot place my employees at risk"
Whilst we would not expect them to don fire kit and BA they must be trained, and present in sufficient numbers, to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safety of all relevant persons.
Yes of course if there is a fire in a room, in my opinion, it may not be reasonable for employees to enter. However the building should be provided with adequate measures e.g. FR construction, AFD to enable a suitable emergency plan to be implemented without total reliance of the fire service.
That may involve relying on assistance from off duty employees as the numbers on duty are rarely sufficient.
-
Firefighters would, have and do put theselves at risk to rescue others. However as the points have been made here demonstrate, the RP has to have an evacuation strategy that involves exiting the premises at some stage dependent on the severity of the fire. They may well have a defend in place strategy, simultaneous evacuation or a PHE strategy but that can not and must not rely on rescue by fire personnel. An RP in Barnet got a 150K fine for not having such an evac plan because the fire that occurred put people at risk of death or seroius injury. Evca down to RP rescue is a firefighter task, they do not match.
-
Firefighters would, have and do put theselves at risk to rescue others. However as the points have been made here demonstrate, the RP has to have an evacuation strategy that involves exiting the premises at some stage dependent on the severity of the fire. They may well have a defend in place strategy, simultaneous evacuation or a PHE strategy but that can not and must not rely on rescue by fire personnel. An RP in Barnet got a 150K fine for not having such an evac plan because the fire that occurred put people at risk of death or seroius injury. Evca down to RP rescue is a firefighter task, they do not match.
Have you got details of the case? cheers
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod
On what basis?
CSCI required residents be taken care of and also the bluff and pursuation act
-
What is CSCI?
"Bluff and persuasion"....hmmm this is what I was thinking. Rightly or wrongly, if the law didn't afford shopping centre customers, school pupils and home residents any specific protection, I'm wondering how someone who's role is an enforcer, could "not allow" things that they did not "like".
-
http://www.csci.org.uk/
-
What is CSCI?
"Bluff and persuasion"....hmmm this is what I was thinking. Rightly or wrongly, if the law didn't afford shopping centre customers, school pupils and home residents any specific protection, I'm wondering how someone who's role is an enforcer, could "not allow" things that they did not "like".
Well we were able to do it off the back of CSCI requirements
Would you want a friend or relative stuck in a care home where the carers didn't assist in their evacuation. No.
Its not just cos " we didnt like it" Chris we knew it was something that could potentially lead to loss of life.
-
It is case law. A fire in a care Home in Barnet in West London. The District Judge allowed 2 areas, 1 was for no FRA and the other for no Evac Plan. The fine was 150K per offence reduced by a third due to a guilty pleas. Therefore, 200K plus costs, you should be bale to pick up details on Google.
-
The worst case of bad practice I have encountered was in March 2005 in a small home providing "care" in the community - it was home to 4 or 5 younger and middle aged men with mental health problems. When the Government decided that community based care was the best way forward for many people, some national and some local service providers modified private dwellings in order to provide this care. I was aked to give fire safety training to one large organisation operating a chain of these homes. Their clients did present challenging behaviour and could be unpredictable. The home in question was domestic standard with LD2 alarms and fire doors to all rooms.
Their policy in a fire was for the carers to lock the service users in their rooms and evacuate themselves then call the fire brigade. They said their risk assessment was that it was too hazardous to disturb the service users due to their unpredictable behaviour.
They thought it fine to allow the fire to develop with the unfortunate service users locked in the building and probably exposed to fire and smoke, for the service user to be faced with a firefighter they had never met before, probably breaking down the door and due to BA be unable to communicate with the frightened and desperate service users. They had not thought it through from the firefighters viewpoint at all.
I phoned the company H&S manager there and then and tried to point out the folly of their procedure. The manager noted my concern and said he would contact me to discuss the problem. He never did and I was never asked to do any more training for them. I dont know what their current arrangements are.
-
One for an anonymous tip off to the enforcing authorities.....
There are sadly too many places in all areas of industry that happily ignore their responsibilities and have crazy situations like the above because they know that unless they are very very unlucky they will get away with it.
-
What is CSCI?
"Bluff and persuasion"....hmmm this is what I was thinking. Rightly or wrongly, if the law didn't afford shopping centre customers, school pupils and home residents any specific protection, I'm wondering how someone who's role is an enforcer, could "not allow" things that they did not "like".
Well we were able to do it off the back of CSCI requirements
Would you want a friend or relative stuck in a care home where the carers didn't assist in their evacuation. No.
Its not just cos " we didnt like it" Chris we knew it was something that could potentially lead to loss of life.
Would I want a friend or relative stuck in a care home where the carers didn't assist in their evacuation - daft question, of course not (well, except 1 particular individual, but let's not make this personal!)
But that isn't the point. My point is that prior to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, I am not aware of any legislation that created a duty to protect service users, school pupils or shopping centre customers from fire. Now that was something that I didn't like, and my customers (who tended to be the owners of schools and public buidings) would receive advice from me to the effect that they ought to consider such risks, but I can't see how someone who's role is that of an enforcer of legislation can force people to abibe by their moral judements instead of legallly backed arguments. But please do tell me if I have got something wrong.......
-
But that isn't the point. My point is that prior to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, I am not aware of any legislation that created a duty to protect service users, school pupils or shopping centre customers from fire. Now that was something that I didn't like, and my customers (who tended to be the owners of schools and public buidings) would receive advice from me to the effect that they ought to consider such risks, but I can't see how someone who's role is that of an enforcer of legislation can force people to abibe by their moral judements instead of legallly backed arguments. But please do tell me if I have got something wrong.......
Quite correct Chris
under the previous legislation a school for example could only have been prosecuted if the dying children impeded the means of escape for the teachers. Thankfully the Fire Safety Order has changed things but many care home managers are not aware of or complying with the legislation.
-
This is the Barnet case mentioned above. I have reproduced it in full as it's a great example to use to convince RPs that perhaps a small investment in time and money, may pay off in the long term.......
Successful prosecution following fire investigation
Press release: PR013/07
Date: 26 February 2007
An investigation by officers at the London Fire Brigade has resulted in the successful prosecution of the owners of a nursing home in Barnet following a fire in May 2005.
Park Care Homes Limited, who owned and operated Ravenscroft Park Nursing Home in Barnet were fined £200,000 at Harrow Crown Court on Friday 16 February for contraventions of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
When fire crews arrived at the incident they found smoke coming from the first floor windows of the three storey building. Firefighters wearing breathing apparatus discovered the fire in the basement and managed to stop it from spreading to other floors, but heavy smoke had spread throughout the entire property.
During the hearing the court were presented with statements from firefighters who attended the incident describing their actions and the difficulties they faced in evacuating people due to locked doors and smoke logged hallways. Fifty six people including twelve members of staff had been in the premises when the fire started.
The Defendants had pleaded guilty to 13 Summonses. However, the Judge was of the opinion that the first two offences that ‘The risk assessment was not suitable or sufficient’ and that ‘Appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious imminent danger to persons at work at Ravenscroft Park Nursing Home were not established’ adequately demonstrated the seriousness of the offences and effectively comprised within them all the elements of the other 11 offences.
Barnet Borough Commander Nick O’Reilly said: “This prosecution comes as a timely reminder of the importance of having both a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment and Emergency Plan at the introduction of the new Fire Safety Order 2005. The new order put the duty of fire safety squarely on the shoulders of the responsible person and this judgement indicates the consequence of getting it wrong.
“Nine people were rescued by fire crews following the smoke logging of the building caused by fire safety contraventions. Although there were no serious injuries 14 residents were taken to hospital for check-ups. A suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment and Emergency Plan might not have prevented the fire but as the Judge agreed it would have reduced the effects of the fire causing less risk to both the occupants and the fire crews.
“I would like to thank all of the officers and personnel who made this prosecution successful, and remind those responsible for properties of the need to carry out a full and comprehensive risk assessment and emergency plan.”
Note to editors:
The Defendants pleaded guilty to 13 Summonses on 21 November 2006 and the matter was transferred to Harrow Crown Court for sentencing. The Summonses dealt with the following contraventions under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997:
1.The risk assessment was not suitable or sufficient;
2.Appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious imminent danger to persons at work at Ravenscroft Park Nursing Home were not established;
3.The door to room 212 was locked with the resident inside;
4.The rear and final fire exit (the full height iron gates) from the basement was secured with a combination padlock;
5.The fire extinguisher found on the second floor did not have a pin or security tag and the test label was damaged;
6.The fire extinguisher found outside room 202 on the first floor was tested on 15 October 2003 and did not have security tag;
7.By virtue of the fact that the basement double doors had been wedged open prior to the fire, large volumes of smoke entered the basement corridor compromising escape from all parts of the basement;
8.The fire door leading to the laundry in the basement did not have a self closing device;
9.The smoke damper at the base of the laundry chute doors in the basement was defective and wedged open;
10.The corridor in the basement was being used for storage and thereby restricted the width of the escape route from the basement.
11.The final exit door from the kitchen was not maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair in that the bots securing the door were difficult to open;
12.The door leading to the kitchen was locked with a digital lock;
13.The only exit from the garden was via a gate that was locked.
On 16 February 2007, the Crown Court handed down the following Judgment:
1.In relation to Summons 1 the Defendant is to pay the amount of £100,000.00;
2.In relation to Summons 2 the Defendant is to pay the amount of £100,000.00;
3.No orders in relation to Summonses 3 – 13;
4.Defendant to pay the Prosecutions costs of £30,366.28;
5.All money’s to be paid within 28 days.
-
Good to see fines of the magnitude that will attract the attention of business owners. But I am also sad that it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that prosecutions and large fines only follow fires. They didn't have a suitable assessment of risk before the fire occured, but I can't imagne them getting hit with a £100,000 fine for that. I see plenty businesses who have not got a suitable assessment of risk, but they are not all getting £100,000 fines.
-
The RR(FS)O is a piece of reactive legislation, just like any other piece of H&S legslation, it is difficult to prove that not asssessing risk can have an effect prior to a fire but afterwards it is reasonably easy. The offences are serious injury or death, paraphrased, easy if someone is injured or dies buy not easy tp prove before. This is demonstrated in the level of fines for proactive enforcement, in the 1 to 2 K region and as stated above after.
-
What is CSCI?
"Bluff and persuasion"....hmmm this is what I was thinking. Rightly or wrongly, if the law didn't afford shopping centre customers, school pupils and home residents any specific protection, I'm wondering how someone who's role is an enforcer, could "not allow" things that they did not "like".
Well we were able to do it off the back of CSCI requirements
Would you want a friend or relative stuck in a care home where the carers didn't assist in their evacuation. No.
Its not just cos " we didnt like it" Chris we knew it was something that could potentially lead to loss of life.
Would I want a friend or relative stuck in a care home where the carers didn't assist in their evacuation - daft question, of course not (well, except 1 particular individual, but let's not make this personal!)
But that isn't the point. My point is that prior to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, I am not aware of any legislation that created a duty to protect service users, school pupils or shopping centre customers from fire. Now that was something that I didn't like, and my customers (who tended to be the owners of schools and public buidings) would receive advice from me to the effect that they ought to consider such risks, but I can't see how someone who's role is that of an enforcer of legislation can force people to abibe by their moral judements instead of legallly backed arguments. But please do tell me if I have got something wrong.......
No I take your point, but what I was trying to get across was that there was a mechanism whereby CSCI would act as a safety net. If the care home ignored our report (partic the bit about evacuating service users) we would complain to CSCI who could look at reviewing or revoking their license.
I guess it was abit like a schoolboy (the fire authority) running to his mommy (CSCI) and telling tales but it made sure we could ensure service users were considered in the escape plan.
Certainly school children though and public in shopping centres was a different kettle of fish as you correctly point out because there wasn't such a safety net.
-
Good to see fines of the magnitude that will attract the attention of business owners. But I am also sad that it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that prosecutions and large fines only follow fires. They didn't have a suitable assessment of risk before the fire occured, but I can't imagne them getting hit with a £100,000 fine for that. I see plenty businesses who have not got a suitable assessment of risk, but they are not all getting £100,000 fines.
Thats right. Hefty fines only seem to be awardes following fires where people were either seriously put at risk, injured, or worse. Hopefully we will see a change in that with larger fines awarded against repeat offenders in particular.
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Surely they could be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act!
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Surely they could be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act!
Possibly
The workplace regs partly consisted of the Man. Health Safety A Work Act which could be read in such away to include relevant persons.
-
Met a fire officer on site last year as the fire evac procedure was so poor, specifically night staffing levels, he said he was going to close the home, I agreed with him whole heartedly, interested to see where this would go.
Two days later received a phone call, to much trouble, was putting the file back, retiring soon, didn't need the hassle.
Improvement notice received for a few items... door requiring adjustment etc.
CSCI, Met them on site on several occasions, they won't close a home for a poor fire procedure. Rather close a home because of the lack of on suite facilities, even though the residents cannot use them as they are to infirm! I find these inspectors full of themselves. The last one complained to me that residents when questioned could not provide details of the fire procedure, which was true enough, I then asked the residents what they had for breakfast that day... they didn't know that either, there's a surprise!
If CSCI were willing to close homes over fire procedures, this would have happened by now, never even seen a note on the practicalities of the fire procedure for the premises, when it is obvious attention is required.
Fire services up and down the country could open this can of worms in the care industry... but what's the point? My old brigade are not exactly busting a gut to inspect these high life premises!
14 residents perish at Rosepark, any tangible improvements promoted in the industry? These people contribute no more to the economy, they are a burden, occasionally a large loss of life fire will happen, a lot of hand ringing will take place, the owner/manager may take a beating, then we'll all move on.
-
Ahh, but sprinklers will save everyone!!!!!!!
-
It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.
Surely they could be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act!
My point was about fire safety legislation. Yes, section 3 covers the general public in the general health and safety sence, but does not provide the same specific requirements that the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regs did to employees.