FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lingmoor on May 23, 2008, 11:26:48 AM
-
Hi,
when I was in the fire and rescue service I remember there was a policy in which the elderly people stayed within a fire resisting comapartment until the staff had located the source of the alarm and if the panel was registering a fault then the residents would stay in the building and the fire service would already have been summoned. This would not be a 'stay put in your room' policy, but all together, say in a community room, this would enable quick evacuation should a fire be discovered and also alleviate the necessity for elderly people to go out in inclement weather initially.
I also came across unbelievable scenarios where EPH staff would think it was ok for disabled people to stay in a 'refuge' til the fire service arrived to rescue them, even if the place was on fire!!
What I want to know is, since I left the job some time ago, if these policies have changed within fire services or what your experiences are in your particular service and what is your thinking on evacuation of elderly persons homes. Thanks
-
Hi Lingmoor
The procedure you desribe is known as phased evacuation, and is acceptable.
As you correctly point out however leaving less abled residents in refuge awaiting rescue is not.
Unfortunately this is still a common problem on my local patch. That siad the message that the fire service effects "rescues" and does not initiate or assist in "evacuation" is slowly filtering through. Unfortunately there has always been confusion with those terms amongst care home operators and their staff.
Im afraid that in care home with 30 residents the Commision for Social Care Inspection (CSCI)allows a staffing ratio of 2 staff on duty at night. I dont think that is a sufficient number to deal with a phased evacuation properly / effectively.
-
Hi,
when I was in the fire and rescue service I remember there was a policy in which the elderly people stayed within a fire resisting comapartment until the staff had located the source of the alarm and if the panel was registering a fault then the residents would stay in the building and the fire service would already have been summoned.........
Lingmoor, do you mean fire and not fault?
-
Being cynical the staff evacuate the residents to a refuge and the fire service resces them from there when the flames start licking round their nether regions.
Seriously, the RRO calls for emergency procedures to be followed in the case of fire and for the information to be given to all employees. If the emergency procedures and or the information is unsatisfactory then the Fire Authority should take action. At the end of the day when we start carrying the bodies out, some lawyer will be standing up and saying "The Fire Service visited and knew about it and did nothing".
Fine the CSCI will be quoted as allowing an inadequate staffing ratio but the FRA will also get a kicking for not highlighting the issue. Cover your backs.
-
Fine the CSCI will be quoted as allowing an inadequate staffing ratio but the FRA will also get a kicking for not highlighting the issue. Cover your backs.
We do Mike but its not quite as easy as that
As a Fire Authority we cannot comment on staffing levels / numbers.
We can make CSCI aware we have concerns of course, but thats all we can do.
-
We definately should comment on staffing levels - just not sure how many is enough.
-
We definately should comment on staffing levels - just not sure how many is enough.
I agree... just haven't got the legislation
-
Agreed you can't say exactly how many are needed, but you can comment that there are not enough and you can comment that the evacuation plan is inadequate..
-
Why can't the FRA comment on staffing levels?
The FSO gives the RP responsibility for all relevant persons. Their emergency plan must allow for everyone to be evacuated in case of serious and imminent danger (fire), they must have people nominated and trained to carry out an evacuation, so why can't the FRA say for example 'in this case 2 people is unreasonable'?
Certainly under the Workplace Regs the FRA's were more restricted as it only covered employees (unless the employees were prevented from getting out by some other unfortunate soul), but not the FSO, surely?
Page 72 of the Res Care FS Guide says:
'Your risk assessment should identify the number of staff you need to carry out your emergency plan. It follows that where there is a need for staff intervention to carry out your emergency plan, then staff numbers at all times must be sufficient; you should be able to demonstrate to the enforcing authority that you always have sufficient staff to effectively carry out your emergency plan without the assistance of outside agencies (e.g. be a fire drill)'
Pretty succint I think.
Anyway remember you need to get them out of the sub-compartment within 2.5 minutes so they are going to need hundreds of members of staff!!!!! rofl
-
Why can't the FRA comment on staffing levels?
The FSO gives the RP responsibility for all relevant persons. Their emergency plan must allow for everyone to be evacuated in case of serious and imminent danger (fire), they must have people nominated and trained to carry out an evacuation, so why can't the FRA say for example 'in this case 2 people is unreasonable'?
Certainly under the Workplace Regs the FRA's were more restricted as it only covered employees (unless the employees were prevented from getting out by some other unfortunate soul), but not the FSO, surely?
I don't think that the RP, who has ownership of the RA, is going to admit to being understaffed.
-
Why can't the FRA comment on staffing levels?
The FSO gives the RP responsibility for all relevant persons. Their emergency plan must allow for everyone to be evacuated in case of serious and imminent danger (fire), they must have people nominated and trained to carry out an evacuation, so why can't the FRA say for example 'in this case 2 people is unreasonable'?
Certainly under the Workplace Regs the FRA's were more restricted as it only covered employees (unless the employees were prevented from getting out by some other unfortunate soul), but not the FSO, surely?
I don't think that the RP, who has ownership of the RA, is going to admit to being understaffed.
Absolutely right
It isnt as simple as you think - we've been trying to do this for years now. It gets very political and the brigade normally ends up backing down!
-
I agree that in a lot of cases that the RP won't admit to being understaffed, but it is up to the FRA to challenge that.
Retty, I agree, same old problem, however the powers are there and use of them will vary from FRA to FRA.
-
If care needs can be met with two staff, is it reasonable to expect additional staff on duty just in case theres a fire?
Fire brigades had the chance to influence care home design many times in the past both in the formulation of the old draft guide and the current RRO guidance. What matters is not how many staff there are but how realistic are the expections that are placed on the staff that are available.
Why, in full knowledge of staffing levels that have been largely unchanged since the 1984 care legislation, are fire brigades now saying that two staff are insufficient and 12 bedrooms too many? Why wasn't this flagged up before now?
-
Under the FP Act care homes were not designated so FRA's could only use section 10 to prohibit, so we carried out inspections as agency work, and under the Workplance Regs only the employees were covered.
The powers are there under the FSO and I believe some Brigades are using them to address this issue
It is clear in the CLG guidance that they should have sufficient trained persons on duty at all times to carry out their evacuation plan (please see my quote above).
I don't think it's reasonable to say that because they haven't been needed in the past that they shouldn't be there.
However I agree it should be based on what those members of staff can reasonably do within the time available.
-
I agree that in a lot of cases that the RP won't admit to being understaffed, but it is up to the FRA to challenge that.
Retty, I agree, same old problem, however the powers are there and use of them will vary from FRA to FRA.
Johno
How can the FRA challenge that? If I was a RP and got assistance from someone to do my RA and it said that more staff was needed I would just copy the RA and leave out or change the bits I didn't like. Who would know?
It is the RPs FRA afterall.
-
Sorry nearlythere, meaning FRA Fire & Rescue Authority
-
If care needs can be met with two staff, is it reasonable to expect additional staff on duty just in case theres a fire?
Fire brigades had the chance to influence care home design many times in the past both in the formulation of the old draft guide and the current RRO guidance. What matters is not how many staff there are but how realistic are the expections that are placed on the staff that are available.
Why, in full knowledge of staffing levels that have been largely unchanged since the 1984 care legislation, are fire brigades now saying that two staff are insufficient and 12 bedrooms too many? Why wasn't this flagged up before now?
Care needs and fire safety needs are totally different things and can not be compared
The RRO guides do try and address this problem and I believe CFOA were very vocal in their veiws towards minimum staffing levels in care homes.
Due to the restrictions placed on us by the FPA 71 and the Workplace Regs we couldnt really make comment before the inception of the RRO
And though we want to we still cant really comment now. Its very hard to get staffing levels increased. If care staff can evacuate a compartment within 2.5 mins (comes from RRO guide) and have someone available to meet the fire brigade on arrival with just two members of staff, particularly if bed ridden service users are involved then they must be superhuman. Even if you recongised the guide was wrong and allowed an 8 minute compartment evacuation you still end up urinating into the wind.
You know as well as I do that politics come into play CFOA told the government of these concerns but they went unheard because they were reluctant to crate too much financial burden it would create on care homes.(and yet these establishments charge their residents £300 to stay there)
Care home owners make money and pay their staff peanuts.
Plus many carehomes used to be run by councils and brigades wont enforce on local authorities because the Cheif Officer and Cheif Exec are often members of the same masonic lodge or golf club and the political fallout would be to severe.
So whilst the legislation is sort of there to do something about this (its still very tenuous at that despite what Johno says) Briogades wont because politcally they wont get anywhere.
-
Thanks everyone for your replies, it's an interesting debate this one and just goes to show how we all can have different views on the same piece of legislation.
Righteo then, I've been looking through the RRO guide for care homes and it mentions 'progressive horizontal evacuation' where staff members assist in moving residents to an adjoining protected area or sub compartment, away from the origin of fire.
It goes on to mention 'delayed evacuation' where in exceptional circumstances, residents that are unabled to be moved for medical reasons can 'stay put' in their rooms as long as its 60 minutes fire protection and they have a carer with them.
Now, in normal progressive horizontal evacuation, when the residents are moved to another sub compartment, there has to be enough room for them and the residents that are there anyway. Would it be that they all assembled at the head of the stairs (if on an upper floor) or in the corridor outside the bedrooms? Would everyone have to be together, or could the residents that are already accomodated in the sub compartment that is unaffected, stay in their room even though it's not 60 minute protected? It could be said there is little difference in them being in their bedroom or in the corridor outside of it.
I think I would want them all together for ease of getting them out if need be, especially if there are limited staff on at night
-
Yes lingmoor in the first instance evacuate only those at greatest risk of fire- those in the same protected area or fire compartment. thats all that can be realistically achieved in the first stage of PHE.
Dont overlook the need for supervision for those persons evacuated from their rooms- if you put them at the head of the stairs they will need supervision in case they fall- and in the early stages you cant spare the staff to supervise them.
Staff need to focus on those closest to the fire, furthest from an exit, easiest to rouse if asleep, least likely to be agressive,those who are most ambulant, least likely to need need supervision- in other words focus on making the maximum number of people safe in the shortest possible time.
-
Due to the restrictions placed on us by the FPA 71 and the Workplace Regs we couldnt really make comment before the inception of the RRO
Why not? The workplace Regs only covered staff granted but Staff still had care duties to perform and so needed to be in the building longer than your average employee so the evacuation procedures should have been considered. Just as in a shop you took account of the numbers of customers present under the workplace regs and considered them in the calculation of exit width necessary for staff to evacuate.
You know as well as I do that politics come into play CFOA told the government of these concerns but they went unheard because they were reluctant to crate too much financial burden it would create on care homes.(and yet these establishments charge their residents £300 to stay there)
Care home owners make money and pay their staff peanuts.
Plus many carehomes used to be run by councils and brigades wont enforce on local authorities because the Cheif Officer and Cheif Exec are often members of the same masonic lodge or golf club and the political fallout would be to severe.
So whilst the legislation is sort of there to do something about this (its still very tenuous at that despite what Johno says) Briogades wont because politcally they wont get anywhere.
I dont accept your comments about masons and golf clubs. The fact is that social services were both game keeper and poacher under the previous legislation and dual standards were rife. The standards imposed by social services inspectors in the private homes were far higher than in the council run homes.
If theres so much money to be made how come nearly all council run homes have been closed due to heavy losses?
-
So whilst the legislation is sort of there to do something about this (its still very tenuous at that despite what Johno says) Briogades wont because politcally they wont get anywhere.
Interested to see why you think its tenuous?
-
Due to the restrictions placed on us by the FPA 71 and the Workplace Regs we couldnt really make comment before the inception of the RRO
Why not? The workplace Regs only covered staff granted but Staff still had care duties to perform and so needed to be in the building longer than your average employee so the evacuation procedures should have been considered. Just as in a shop you took account of the numbers of customers present under the workplace regs and considered them in the calculation of exit width necessary for staff to evacuate.
You know as well as I do that politics come into play CFOA told the government of these concerns but they went unheard because they were reluctant to crate too much financial burden it would create on care homes.(and yet these establishments charge their residents £300 to stay there)
Care home owners make money and pay their staff peanuts.
Plus many carehomes used to be run by councils and brigades wont enforce on local authorities because the Cheif Officer and Cheif Exec are often members of the same masonic lodge or golf club and the political fallout would be to severe.
So whilst the legislation is sort of there to do something about this (its still very tenuous at that despite what Johno says) Briogades wont because politcally they wont get anywhere.
I dont accept your comments about masons and golf clubs. The fact is that social services were both game keeper and poacher under the previous legislation and dual standards were rife. The standards imposed by social services inspectors in the private homes were far higher than in the council run homes.
If theres so much money to be made how come nearly all council run homes have been closed due to heavy losses?
Kurnal my brigade would run a mile if you tried to enforce on staf numbers using the workplace regs ... they hadnt got the balls to follow the issue thru and challenge it - why? because there weren't so many private homes back then - there were more state run homes - whatever you enforced on private homes you had to follow thru on the state run homes and that was too political
If you read again you will find we're saying the same things Kurnal
Masonic or golf club shannigans aside game keeper and poacher activities and the collusions or reluctance aside from principal officers of the fire service you cant tell me your time as fire officer you werent told to back away from enforcing on local authority run establishments becuase I know you would be fibbing. Either that or your brigade was one of the few who would enforce on local authorities.
Yes care homes cost too much money for local authorities hence why they closed all of their homes. £350 a week on a home full of 30 residents - you do the maths
Thats 500,000 a year coming in.... half of that will be profit for the privateer
Local authorities however arent run to make profits. Whatever it costs is taken from their social or welfare budgets. residents dont have the choice now of state run care -0 they have to pay for it privately or if not privately part funded!
Why do you think standards were higher in private care homes that state run one? again we are back to authortiy vs authority and the reluctance to enforce for political reasons.
-
So whilst the legislation is sort of there to do something about this (its still very tenuous at that despite what Johno says) Briogades wont because politcally they wont get anywhere.
Interested to see why you think its tenuous?
Have you been able to comment on staff numbers?
-
A few issues I think. Long before the WP Regs, FRS could and some have made comments/recommendations when they were consulted under the Registered Homes Act.
The fire safety order requires the RP to ensure that there are procedures in place for serious and imminent danger, i.e an emergency plan.
and the RP must nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from the premises.
If they can do that with a ratio of 2 staff to 50 residents they are complying with that duty, if they cannot they are failing in that duty.
In that case a risk assessment carried out by the RP or his consultant cannot be suitable and suffcient and should be challenged.
and an Enforcemnt Notice could be served requiring measures to be taken, why can't that include increased staffing levels?
-
Have you been able to comment on staff numbers?
I have in the past under the Workplace Regs and have managed to persuade a care home to provide an extra member of staff of a night for exactly that reason. Not under the FSO as I don't work in that particular area now.
You make a statement saying the legislation is very tenuous. The politcal aspects of Brigades aside, I ask again why do you see it as tenuous? I'm a bit concerned that my interpretation of the Guide and the FSO are inaccurate, I also noted that Retty said that we haven't got the legislation to address it?
-
That's how I see it Phil, plus:
Page 72 of the Res Care FS Guide says:
'Your risk assessment should identify the number of staff you need to carry out your emergency plan. It follows that where there is a need for staff intervention to carry out your emergency plan, then staff numbers at all times must be sufficient; you should be able to demonstrate to the enforcing authority that you always have sufficient staff to effectively carry out your emergency plan without the assistance of outside agencies (e.g. by a fire drill)'
-
I still think the emergency plan angle is to tenuous.
Its my personal opinion that if you ever pushed for that and it went to court I think the fire authority would loose. You are right that it is partly brigade reluctance or politics that play apart in this as well but even still I dont think the spirit of the emergency plan will stretch to being able to comment on staffing levels and possibly a clever defence barrister would argue that its not our job to set staffing ratios it is that of CSCI and that if CSCI are happy with two people on at night whats the probolem.
Then bring into play the previous legislation which tied our hands in enforcing numbers the defence barrister might say " but you never commented on numbers before...why now?"
Jono with respect you say you pursuaded care homes to increas staff - i dont doubt that - but i wager you did that using the Bluff and Pursuasion Act and were lucky to have compliant punters who went a long with it. Have you actually enforced on it though to the stage of issuing an enforcement notice for instance ?
The other thing too is that I have in the past asked care home owners to prove they could cope with just two people on at night.
Quite often they will say " prove that we can't". My brigade wont allow us to get the punters to do a drill at night for us to witness at it may 'disturb the service users' and been seen as 'picking on the private care home sector'.
My boss has categorically said that if their FRA / EP says they can cope with the staff they have on at night then we must accept that until proven otherwise. What she is saying is until there is an incident and someone is hurt.
That doesn't sit easy with me. But I suppose its a new regime, a new way of doing things , knock them off if something goes wrong rather like the HSE, but I thought we were here to prevent accidents before they happen not point fingers and smack bottoms after something has gone wrong.
Perhaps its just my dissapointment and skepticism iof my own brigades unwillingness to take the bull by the horns, Jono / Kurnal perhaps your brigades have got it right and are using the legislation properly and are being proactive.
-
Hi all, sorry I've been away and only just read some of your replies
I asked a question earlier but I'd like to ask it in a different way
If progressive horizontal evacuation has taken place, what is your opinion on residents that are already accomodated in the sub compartment that is unaffected staying in their room even though it's not 60 minute protected? It could be said there is little difference in them being in their bedroom or in the corridor outside of it while they await full evacuation if necessary
If you don't think that is viable, what would your horizontal evacuation plan be from upper floors where they may not be a communal area for them all to go?
-
Leave them where they are unless you have to move them.
Most fires are small ones.
-
I agree, I think you are better leaving them in their rooms.
However, you still need to be ready to move them again should the fire break out of the room or origin, be that a bedroom, store etc. You also need to bear in mind that it may take some considerable time to move the most dependent service users so you may need to start preparing as soon as the first stage/phase of the evacuation has taken place. Also, the corridor is likely to be full of those evacuated from the sub-compartment of origin.
Although I agree that most fires are small and will be put out with little fuss, I still believe that you need to be prepared for the worst case scenario, i.e. the fire service have a couple of large fires going on at the same time and it may take 30 mins + for the first pump to arrive. I know this is very rare (I can hear the tuts from our more rural brothers and sisters already) but you can guarentee that when it does happen it will happen to the worst prepared home.
Also take the evacuation through to its ultimate conclusion, i.e. the building needs to be evacuated completely. You must get them out of the cold and wet asap and into alternative shelter, otherwise on a cold February night you may loose some to hypothermia etc. (but I'm sure this will be in the home's plan anyway).
-
I don't know why the question of an RP being able to increase their staffing comes up. Staffing levels are dealt with by the government and CSCI and the landlord wouldn't be able to increase their staffing unless the government changed its funding policies
This does not include the privately run cash cow type home
-
I don't know why the question of an RP being able to increase their staffing comes up. Staffing levels are dealt with by the government and CSCI and the landlord wouldn't be able to increase their staffing unless the government changed its funding policies
This does not include the privately run cash cow type home
The staffing levels are dealt with by CSCI purely on a care basis, there is no consideration of evacuation in the case of fire.
The messages on this thread have been concerned with the ability of the home to evacuate everybody in case of fire, which may require more people than is needed purely for care purposes.
For example a care home with 15 service users may reaquire only 1 member of staff at night for care purposes. This may be increased should there be an outbreak of sickness for example.
I would suggest that the 1 person may not be capable of carrying out an evacuation of the home unaided in case of fire.
For everyone, if you think that this type of incident is unlikely to occur, please have a look at the following link which details the Redcar Care Home Fire (the subject of a previous thread by jayjay) http://ts10.gazettelive.co.uk/2007/06/care_home_fire_barrier_defecti.html