FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jayjay on November 20, 2009, 12:27:36 PM
-
For those interested in this incident the Fatal Accident Inquiry is underway in Motherwell.
Snipits of information are starting to appear in news articles. ( Do Google News on Rosepark)
Not surprising are details of a number of bedroom doors having defective self closers.
Those who do not advocate self closers on bedroom doors in care homes should follow this inquiry.
Witness reports state that fire and smoke did spread down the corridor.
-
Are you suggsting the problem was the lack of closers or that the doors were open?
-
The homely atmosphere approach. Don't forget that for a lot of people care homes are their homes and guidance of the day suggested that doors could be without closers to allow people to see and speak to each other.
-
No doubt the enquiry chairman will make recommendations which will lead to homes being required to revert to institution style and turned into virtual prisons for the residents with every room being treated like an isolation ward. Can't see sprinklers being recommended as this will put many homes out of business with health trusts having to find accommodation for many thousands of elderly people.
-
here we go the cries of "prisons" "residents cant talk to one another" "institutionalised" and "isolation" are back again.
Well shock horror stand back in amazement lets keep it in context shall we. What about another thread which is running concurrently where most people agree fire doors should be in the closed position in the event of a fire. There are several ways to achieve this by something dead clever and magic called risk assessment. Free swing devices, hold open devices ever heard of those? Sorry of course I was forgetting care homes cant afford stuff like that on the pitence they get from pensioners who have had to sell their own homes to afford to be able to go into care can they. WHat about if theres aenough staff they close the doors in the event of fire what about doors only have to be closed at night.
-
I think you will find that Scotland have already absorbed the idea of sprinklers in care homes and Cleveland you are right swing free closers work very well and are a useful addition to the care home package. Depends on the evacuation strategy of course and what actuallt fits the resident type.
-
Course we have to bear in mind that persons in residential care have to eat, the staffing levels are nearly one to one and, despite what many seem to think, the owners and employees need a wage to live on.
Are there many residential homes around which survive on dedication, free labour and charitable donations?
The reason why elderly care was turfed out to the private sector was that the trusts did not want to be burdened with the expense of having to provide it.
-
Nah I dont buy into that Nearlythere. i accept there are nursing homes out there who do rely on donations and the like, the vast majority dont but like to plead poverty. I spoke to one care home owner who told me quite openly that the business was very lucrative. They may pay their staff low wages ill accept that but the top brass make a tidy penny and can afford to pay for upgrades and improvements if they wanted to. I remeber the days when CSCI used to weild their axe on poor performing care homes, it made the bosses spend some cash they were always able to find it somewhere.
-
Nah I dont buy into that Nearlythere. i accept there are nursing homes out there who do rely on donations and the like, the vast majority dont but like to plead poverty. I spoke to one care home owner who told me quite openly that the business was very lucrative. They may pay their staff low wages ill accept that but the top brass make a tidy penny and can afford to pay for upgrades and improvements if they wanted to. I remeber the days when CSCI used to weild their axe on poor performing care homes, it made the bosses spend some cash they were always able to find it somewhere.
It's quite a lucrative little number running a food shop C3, Tescos, Sainsburys, Morrisons etc. but you never hear of them being lambasted for taking advantage of people's need to eat food.
-
No they just buy their stuff from the cheapest source and the smaller farmers go out of business because they can't compete with the factory fams!
-
Nah I dont buy into that Nearlythere. i accept there are nursing homes out there who do rely on donations and the like, the vast majority dont but like to plead poverty. I spoke to one care home owner who told me quite openly that the business was very lucrative. They may pay their staff low wages ill accept that but the top brass make a tidy penny and can afford to pay for upgrades and improvements if they wanted to. I remeber the days when CSCI used to weild their axe on poor performing care homes, it made the bosses spend some cash they were always able to find it somewhere.
It's quite a lucrative little number running a food shop C3, Tescos, Sainsburys, Morrisons etc. but you never hear of them being lambasted for taking advantage of people's need to eat food.
Yeah and if my auntie had nuts she'd be my uncle. It aint quite the same argument. You made out care homes were cash strapped, I simply told you that aint the case Nearlythere.
-
It's lucrative if you are running a home for relatively wealthy types who had a big house etc. The other end of the business isn't quite so profitable, but just as necessary.
You can't just regulate the posh ones so you have to keep affordability in mind.
-
Wee Brian, it may be different in Scotland, but in England when Mr. Average who has worked all his life, and owns his own regular sized house ends up needing residential care, he or his family have to pay about £400-600 per week, for a tiny room, with a few minimum wage 'carers' milling around. This often involves selling the persons house that they have been working all their life to pay off, and then just watching that pot of money dwindle away. Once the person has no more money left, that 400-600 is paid for by the state.
It is not just the homes where the wealthy go where it is a lucrative business. (Not in England anyway)
-
Wee Brian, it may be different in Scotland, but in England when Mr. Average who has worked all his life, and owns his own regular sized house ends up needing residential care, he or his family have to pay about £400-600 per week, for a tiny room, with a few minimum wage 'carers' milling around. This often involves selling the persons house that they have been working all their life to pay off, and then just watching that pot of money dwindle away. Once the person has no more money left, that 400-600 is paid for by the state.
It is not just the homes where the wealthy go where it is a lucrative business. (Not in England anyway)
It isn't the homes which require the sale of the house Civvy. It's the Trust. One thing you can be sure is that the elderly will get better treatment in a private home than a Trust hospital. Trusts are very good at ensuring others comply with any care regulations.
-
Hi NT
I'm not sure I understand your comment about Trust Hospitals.
In England hospitals dont provide passive care in the way Nursing and residential homes do. (Patients obviously do convalesce in hospital but it is only normally for shorter periods of time).
If long term, non surgical care is required patients are normally admitted into rehab centres, hopsices, or nursing and residential care homes whom provide palliative and other non emergency medical care as required.
In the old days most local authorities and primary care trusts used to operate their own nursing and residential care services, if that is what you mean, however many have now closed down and the resources are instead provided by the private sector.
As Civvy points out many residents have to shell out over £400 + per week (not a month) thats twenty grand a year from one resident. Translate that to a 40 bed care home and youre looking at over £800,000 + per year before tax and overheads.
It is a growing sector, and just goes to show that there is obviously profit to be made, for instance one private care organisation I know of has just opened 5 new care homes in the Midlands alone. Considering the current financial climate you might say that is very silly...or is it because they know they will make a bob or two I wonder (?)!!
-
And if that home has 40 staff on mimimum wage as many of them do thats £500,000 per year on wages alone. Plus the cost of employing someone is reckoned to be double the wage bill so we are already making a loss of £200,000 ;)
-
40 staff? :o :o 40???
Are you talking nursing homes here or residential care homes Prof?
-
No just adding to the sweeping generalisations and assumptions being made on this thread.
All homes are different and some are more profitable than others. It depends so much on the sector they are in , the needs of service users, whether service users are self funding or social services funded, required staffing levels. We all focus on the resi homes with two carers at night.
Take a look at staffing levels in the day time- its a very different picture. The big chains will cherry pick the service users providing the best income leaving the smaller operator to cater for the rest, picking up the crumbs and being told by social services the maximum they can charge, whilst those attracting self funding clients tend to charge £150 per week more.
-
I've consulted in the care sector for over two years now. Ive dealt with both the small operators and the big national players. In that time I've never met a poor care home operator. Those that do claim to be running at a loss are either telling porkies and dont want to spend their cash or are basically inept at running a business. They cut the cloth to suit. Client charges do vary but operators dont run homes just for the love of it. Alot of doctors are getting in on the act running a care home brings in a tidy second income and boosts the retirement fund. You mention staffing levels during the day yet the level of staff on duty can be deceptive during shift changes and other parts of the day .Occassionally outside groups will come in to do various activities, some of which are at no cost to the homes and are funded by external groups of volunteers. Ok the big fish do charge the most and get the creme of the crop, but say as you will with whats left over the smaller operators still get their fair bite of the cherry and the higher the level of care provided the higher the charge is to the client as youd expect. So no its not a sweeping statement to say the industry is lucrative, the facts and figures speak for themselves.
-
Client charges do vary but operators dont run homes just for the love of it.
Of course they are run as a business. Because looking after the elderly and infirm is something they can do.
Just the same as ex F&R Service types go on to fire consultancy, because it is something they can do- well, most of them.
Do you have a problem with BUPA C3? All those nasty business persons taking advantage of peoples illnesses.
-
I dont think anyone is saying that care home operators are being ruthless or taking advantage of the elderly or those in need. If these organisations can provide excellent levels of care and at the same time make money from it then good luck to them.
But there is this perception that the industry isn't profitable, yet it is. There will always be exceptions - the voluntary sector who run homes from bequests and donations spring to mind - but if you look at the industry as a whole it is a succesful and growing sector.
-
I dont think anyone is saying that care home operators are being ruthless or taking advantage of the elderly or those in need. If these organisations can provide excellent levels of care and at the same time make money from it then good luck to them.
But there is this perception that the industry isn't profitable, yet it is. There will always be exceptions - the voluntary sector who run homes from bequests and donations spring to mind - but if you look at the industry as a whole it is a succesful and growing sector.
They have to be profitable like any other business otherwise they would fold.
Do homes which are run through contributions and donations not have a wages bill each month or are they staffed and run by 65 + retired volunteers?
I don' know of any home, or business for that matter, which is run at a loss.
As C3 says "Those that do claim to be running at a loss are either telling porkies and dont want to spend their cash or are basically inept at running a business".
-
*slaps forehead* I give up. Is the bar open yet?
-
Can someone tell me the way to the the fire safety forum please?
;D
-
*slaps forehead* I give up. Is the bar open yet?
Likewise MR. Likewise.
-
Thats what we have been saying all along Nearlythere no wonder Retty needed a drink. Crikey lol.
-
Does anyone have any details of the original charges made against the operators of Rosepark?
-
Have the findings been published yet?
-
The enquiry being started I have assumed the prosecution has been abandoned. Am I wrong in thinking that?
-
Does anyone have any details of the original charges made against the operators of Rosepark?
Hi Nearlythere
hope this is useful, sorry no link just all this text,
SUMMARY OF DECISION
Her Majesty’s Advocate
V
THOMAS WILLIAM BALMER, ANNE BALMER,
ALAN THOMAS BALMER and BALMER CARE HOMES LTD.
21st February 2007
Today at Glasgow High Court Lord Hardie dismissed the charges against Thomas William Balmer, Anne Balmer and Alan Thomas Balmer due to the way in which the charges on the indictment had been framed by the Crown Office. The Crown accepted that these individuals were not employers and that the charges specified could only have been committed by employers. However, Lord Hardie emphasized that it was still open to the Lord Advocate to prosecute these individuals on appropriate charges.
Lord Hardie made the following statement explaining the decision.
“During the course of the past two days I have heard detailed submissions and the citation of authority. In the available time I have been unable to prepare a full opinion giving detailed reasons for my conclusion but I shall issue such an opinion in due course. In the interests of all parties, however, I have decided that it would be appropriate to indicate my views.
On 19 February 2007 the accused appeared at a preliminary hearing at Glasgow High Court in respect of an indictment containing various charges alleging breaches by the first three accused of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulations, including the Management of Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 as amended, the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. The first three accused are charged with 12 charges as individuals in their capacity as partners of the firm of Rosepark Nursing Home, also known as Rosepark Care Home 261 New Edinburgh Road, Viewpark, Uddingston (“Rosepark”) and as employers. At the residential care and nursing home operated by Balmer Care Homes Limited at Croftbank House, Old Mill Road, Uddingston Balmer Care Homes Limited is alleged to have breached the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 as amended. In some instances it is alleged that there were several breaches of certain Regulations and statutory provisions.
Challenge to the relevance of the indictment
Charges 13 and 14 are directed against Balmer Care Homes Limited in respect of its business at Croftbank House in its capacity as an employer and counsel for that company did not challenge the relevance of these charges.
Each of the first three accused challenged the relevance of the 12 charges libelled against that accused. The basis of the challenge is that each charge is prefaced by the accused “being partners in the firm of Rosepark Nursing Home, also known as Rosepark Care Home, and carrying on the business or undertaking of a residential care and nursing home registered to provide care and nursing for up to 43 residents in the categories of frail elderly, elderly with mild mental illness, terminally ill and young physically disabled at Rosepark and being employers in terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.”
Although the submissions on behalf of the accused and the Crown covered a range of authorities, there was a substantial measure of agreement. In particular, the following facts were agreed:
1. At the date of the alleged offences the first three accused were the only partners of Rosepark carrying on the business specified in charges 1 to 12 inclusive.
2. The statutory provisions in HSWA and the various Regulations specified in the charges impose duties on employers.
3. The partnership was the employer in terms of HSWA.
4. Following the fire at Rosepark on 31 January 2004 in which 14 residents died and 4 residents were injured there was a police investigation.
5. On 28 February 2005 the partnership was dissolved.
6. On 1 March 2005 the partners transferred the business to Rosepark Care Home Limited, a company of which the first three accused were the directors.
7. The Petition initiating the criminal proceedings was raised by the Crown in November 2005.
8. The Crown could have indicted the partnership if it had still been in existence.
9. It was not competent to indict the now dissolved partnership.
In these circumstances it was submitted that as the partnership was the employer, no criminal liability attached to anyone because the partnership has been dissolved (R v
Wakefield [2004] EWCA Crim 2278), the partners are not vicariously liable for the criminal acts of the firm and criminal liability cannot be transferred from the partnership to them (British Airways Board v Taylor [1976] 1 WLR 13).
In response the advocate depute disavowed any attempt by the Crown to impose vicarious liability on the partners but maintained that the Crown relied upon its power to indict an existing partnership. In such an event there was nothing to prevent the Crown from including the individual partners in the indictment in their capacity as partners of the firm.
Superficially the charges are relevant because they allege that each of the first three accused were employers in terms of the HSWA. It was a matter of agreement that the status of an employer was necessary for the commission of the particular offences specified in the indictment, although if the Crown considered that the commission of an offence by an employer was “due to the act or default of some other person” that person may be charged and convicted of the offence (section 36 HSWA). The Crown does not rely upon this section and is unable to do so as long as the Crown maintains that the accused had the special capacity of employers. If that special capacity did not exist the Crown could consider whether any or all of the individual accused ought to be
charged by virtue of section 36 with charges identical to some of those libelled in this indictment.
However in view of the admission on behalf of the Crown that the partnership was the employer of the employees at Rosepark, it cannot be maintained that any of the individuals comprising the first 3 accused were employers. The contract of employment was with the firm. The basis for the Crown asserting that the individuals were employers was founded in the law of partnership. Although employees could have had recourse to the assets of the individual partners if the firm had failed to pay debts due to them, it is quite a different matter to attribute personal criminal responsibility to partners for the criminal acts of the firm. One consequence of such a course of action might be to expose individuals to periods of imprisonment whereas the limit of their liability for offences committed by the firm would be a financial penalty. Moreover the advocate depute stated in terms that the Crown was not seeking to impose vicarious responsibility upon the partners for the alleged criminal acts of the firm.
The dissolution of the firm is fatal to any charge against it but it does not necessarily end the prospect of proceedings against individual partners. I have already referred to section 36 of HSWA. If, as was suggested in submissions, the Crown is seeking to attach criminal responsibility to the accused as partners of the now dissolved firm, any future indictment should make that clear. While it may seem inappropriate to permit people to escape criminal liability and at least the prospect of substantial financial penalties by taking steps to dissolve the firm after a criminal investigation is underway, it is essential that any allegation of criminal liability against partners of a dissolved firm is well founded. Moreover, if prosecution has been rendered impossible by the actions of others in the course of a criminal investigation, such actions may give rise to a charge of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice, assuming the essential ingredients of that charge exist.
In relation to the allegations that the first three accused gave false information to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (charges 1 and 2) and that the third accused gave false information to James Reid, who was preparing a risk assessment for Rosepark (charges 8 and 9), it appears from the submissions of the advocate depute that some of these may form the basis of a charge at common law of fraud or attempted fraud or a statutory offence of a contravention of section 33 (1)(k) HSWA. If that is so, such charges should be libelled if it is intended to lead evidence about these matters in order to give the accused fair notice.
In all the circumstances I have reached the conclusion that the indictment as framed against the first 3 accused is irrelevant because the Crown acknowledges that the individuals were not party to the contracts of employment of the employees at Rosebank and were therefore not employers. Accordingly I shall dismiss the charges against each of the first 3 accused as irrelevant.
I wish to emphasise for the benefit of the relatives of those residents who perished in the fire and the injured residents and their relatives that this decision does not signal an end of proceedings against the accused. It is a matter for the Lord Advocate, acting in the public interest, to determine whether further action should be taken against any or all of the first 3 accused and, if so, on what charges”.
-
For those interested in this incident the Fatal Accident Inquiry is underway in Motherwell.
Check out http://news.scotsman.com/roseparknursinghomefire/Inquiry-into-nursing-home-fire.5575580.jp if it’s not ended then it must be close.
Any further prosecutions seem unlikely check out http://news.scotsman.com/roseparknursinghomefire/Rosepark-Nursing-Home-fire-Blaze.5297724.jp
-
The Rosepark inquiry is still on going and could be for a few months.
A number of Press reports have been published which seem to indicate considerable failings on a number of partys. Do a google on Rosepark as the Scotish Media seems to be putting out almost daily reports.
-
Please see the Article below, a wake up call for many Risk assessors about what to include in an FRA.
Rosepark care home blaze: 'Serious shortcomings' were not included in report, inspector tells FAI
Feb 17 2010
A FIRE risk assessment at a nursing home where 14 residents died in a blaze uncovered "serious shortcomings" that were not recorded, an inspector admitted today.
Giving evidence to an inquiry into the fire at the Rosepark Nursing home in Lanarkshire six years ago, John Reid said his report a year before the tragedy had not included key findings that had caused him "concern".
As well as the 14 deaths, four residents were injured when the blaze broke out in a cupboard at the home on January 31, 2004.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry is trying to establish the full circumstances of the tragedy, prevent a similar fire from happening again and establish if any precautions could have been taken to avoid the deaths.
Mr Reid was employed on a retainer basis by the home's owners, Thomas, Alan and Anne Balmer, to carry out Health and Safety inspections and offer recommendations for improvements in January 2003.
But while the report given to the Balmers warned that the controls in place were not adequate to reduce the risk of a fire, he omitted information that could have helped prevent, or lessen, the impact of the fire.
These included failing to include the residents of the home in a list of people who might be at risk in the event of a fire, failing to check and record the documents relating to staff fire training and fire procedures, and failing to record that fire doors to residents' bedrooms had been propped open and the safety catches disabled.
He said he had noted and raised the issue with the Balmers but was told the residents became distressed when the doors were left shut, adding that he had been "concerned but understood why they had done it".
Mr Reid told the inquiry, at the Gospel Literature Outreach Centre in Motherwell, that he had not been aware of the home's policy of investigating a fire alarm sounding before calling emergency services.
He said, had he known, he would have told the Balmers it was "not a suitable procedure" and that staff should have been told to dial 999 immediately.
He also admitted that he was "unaware" of, and hadn't checked, two fuse boxes, although he had checked that the main fuse box for the care home was securely locked.
The problems came to light during an inspection of the home in which fire exits and extinguishers, staff training and other fire risks were checked.
Mr Reid told the inquiry that while he hadn't documented his concerns, all of the issues had been discussed verbally with the Balmers during the inspection.
He told the inquiry: "There were serious shortcomings, that should have been documented, left out.
"I won't say that because they weren't recorded they hadn't been considered, but they should have been in there.
Under questioning from Crown Counsel James Wolffe QC, he admitted that failing to inspect documents detailing what training and information staff had been given in the event of a fire meant he could not have "a sufficient base for answering in the affirmative questions about sufficient and adequate safety training, undermining the basis of his later advice".
He also agreed with the Advocate Depute that "any risk assessment which did not address risks to the residents could not be a sufficient and suitable risk assessment".
Mr Reid also told the inquiry he was unaware of two key documents produced by the Home Office and the Scottish Health Service that specifically addressed fire risks in residential care homes.
The inquiry, before Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart, is expected to last between four and six months.
An attempt to prosecute the home's owners, Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer, over alleged safety breaches collapsed in 2007 after a judge dismissed the charges.
A fresh indictment was served in 2008, but those charges were also dropped.
-
So we now have two conflicting report on the reasons why the FRA may not have been adequate?
The 2007 decision implied that false information may have been given by one of the partners to the assessor.
The article above seems to suggest that the assessor was aware of the relevant information but did not record it in writing or make formal recommendations relating to it.
Which is correct? It does still beggar belief IMHO that there can be a tragedy of this magnitude with what seem now to be obvious failures in the management of the premises and yet no-one can be held accountable...
-
Please see the Article below, a wake up call for many Risk assessors about what to include in an FRA.
Rosepark care home blaze: 'Serious shortcomings' were not included in report, inspector tells FAI
Feb 17 2010
A FIRE risk assessment at a nursing home where 14 residents died in a blaze uncovered "serious shortcomings" that were not recorded, an inspector admitted today.
Giving evidence to an inquiry into the fire at the Rosepark Nursing home in Lanarkshire six years ago, John Reid said his report a year before the tragedy had not included key findings that had caused him "concern".
As well as the 14 deaths, four residents were injured when the blaze broke out in a cupboard at the home on January 31, 2004.
A Fatal Accident Inquiry is trying to establish the full circumstances of the tragedy, prevent a similar fire from happening again and establish if any precautions could have been taken to avoid the deaths.
Mr Reid was employed on a retainer basis by the home's owners, Thomas, Alan and Anne Balmer, to carry out Health and Safety inspections and offer recommendations for improvements in January 2003.
But while the report given to the Balmers warned that the controls in place were not adequate to reduce the risk of a fire, he omitted information that could have helped prevent, or lessen, the impact of the fire.
These included failing to include the residents of the home in a list of people who might be at risk in the event of a fire, failing to check and record the documents relating to staff fire training and fire procedures, and failing to record that fire doors to residents' bedrooms had been propped open and the safety catches disabled.
He said he had noted and raised the issue with the Balmers but was told the residents became distressed when the doors were left shut, adding that he had been "concerned but understood why they had done it".
Mr Reid told the inquiry, at the Gospel Literature Outreach Centre in Motherwell, that he had not been aware of the home's policy of investigating a fire alarm sounding before calling emergency services.
He said, had he known, he would have told the Balmers it was "not a suitable procedure" and that staff should have been told to dial 999 immediately.
He also admitted that he was "unaware" of, and hadn't checked, two fuse boxes, although he had checked that the main fuse box for the care home was securely locked.
The problems came to light during an inspection of the home in which fire exits and extinguishers, staff training and other fire risks were checked.
Mr Reid told the inquiry that while he hadn't documented his concerns, all of the issues had been discussed verbally with the Balmers during the inspection.
He told the inquiry: "There were serious shortcomings, that should have been documented, left out.
"I won't say that because they weren't recorded they hadn't been considered, but they should have been in there.
Under questioning from Crown Counsel James Wolffe QC, he admitted that failing to inspect documents detailing what training and information staff had been given in the event of a fire meant he could not have "a sufficient base for answering in the affirmative questions about sufficient and adequate safety training, undermining the basis of his later advice".
He also agreed with the Advocate Depute that "any risk assessment which did not address risks to the residents could not be a sufficient and suitable risk assessment".
Mr Reid also told the inquiry he was unaware of two key documents produced by the Home Office and the Scottish Health Service that specifically addressed fire risks in residential care homes.
The inquiry, before Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart, is expected to last between four and six months.
An attempt to prosecute the home's owners, Thomas, Anne and Alan Balmer, over alleged safety breaches collapsed in 2007 after a judge dismissed the charges.
A fresh indictment was served in 2008, but those charges were also dropped.
Where can we follow the progress of the enquiry Jokar?
I am interested to know who their advisor, John Reid, is and what his credentials are.
-
The article is from The Scotsman.
-
If you want to follow the enquiry, which is expected to last a few more months, set up a news alert in Google. On the google site select News in the search Box enter "Rosepark" this will bring up a list of all news stories containing a reference to Rosepark. At the bottom of this page will be a link to creating an email notice of all articles relating to Rosepark. This method can be used for news feeds on any subject.
This will provide almost daily reports (mainly the Scotish media) as mentioned above many of the points being covered in the inquiry are very relevant to the Fire Safety Community.
Staff training and procedures, fire resiting doors, compartments, are all ares wher comments have been made.
-
Link to several articles
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/googlesearch.aspx?Keywords=rosepark
davo
-
Jokar
I dont think we should get too concerned by the range of questions asked, this is an enquiry, lots of questions are bound to be asked and its the recommendations that are made at the end that will ultimately count.
I cannot ever see the relevance of naming residents in the fre risk assessment or the emergency plan, its their needs that are important. I agree it is important to confirm that the Care home has sufficient contingency plans in place to ensure names and summary care plans, medication lists etc are available in case of a mass evacuation to another location or hospital
-
The line of questioning only shows the level of understanding of fire safety by the court jesters. Each side, especially the defence, will be throughing s@*t all over the place hoping some will stick in the right place.
The point made was made:-
"He also admitted that he was "unaware" of, and hadn't checked, two fuse boxes, although he had checked that the main fuse box for the care home was securely locked." #
What would he check the fuse box for? You can't really pull fuses in a nursing home can you?
-
Well no you cant but that is isnt the point being made nearlythere. A good assessor should be looking at electrics very closely. Electrics are our biggest cause of fires in non domestic dwellings. As for pulling out fuses im not sure why an assessor would do that as it will tell you very little. A good look at plug sockets cables and any signs of breakages or blackening is what you look for. All this and the owners still havent been brought to book. Im glad Scotland has got its priorities right.
-
Surely the assessment was carried out under the FP Workplace Regulations. A regulation introduced to primarily safeguard employees and run parallel with existing regulations including the Care Standards Act.
The general view at the time was that as all occupants were already protected by existing fire regulations. The Government being forced to introduce the FP Workplace Regulations would be given breathing space before they needed to address revising standards for all. Why therefore, the comments on fire safety standards for the residents. These were already controlled by the authority enforcing the Care Standards Act. Why were deficiencies not highlighted and dealt with under these regulations.
I do feel that a nursing home risk assessment should only be carried out by a person with suitable background and experience in fire safety and risk assessments. However some of the comments at the enquiry appear to be unhelpful and way off base. Concerns of the assessor relating to the residents should have been raised with the proprietor under separate cover perhaps with a copy to the enforcing authority. There comes a time when we have to make decisions that cannot be ignored. I have been in a similar position fortunately however not on a regular basis and yes the clients concerned did not ask me back a second time.
-
Yes of course Steve. Pre the current Fire SafetyLegislation. Thats a cracking good point!
-
Well no you cant but that is isnt the point being made nearlythere. A good assessor should be looking at electrics very closely. Electrics are our biggest cause of fires in non domestic dwellings. As for pulling out fuses im not sure why an assessor would do that as it will tell you very little. A good look at plug sockets cables and any signs of breakages or blackening is what you look for. All this and the owners still havent been brought to book. Im glad Scotland has got its priorities right.
Plug sockets cables ain't the fuse box.
-
I think the relevance of not checking the fuse boxes may be more to do with where they were rather than their physical condition.
Allegedly there was bedding stored in the same cupboard which may (should) have warranted comment at the time.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/fire-safety-rules-ignored-at-home-1.1008678 (http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/fire-safety-rules-ignored-at-home-1.1008678)
-
I am concerned about reference to electrics. Yes assesor should spot/comment if storage of materials etc is increasing risk of electrical ignition or fire spread. However inspection of fuse boxes?
I would be recommending inspection of fixed electrical inspection in line with IEE 17th edition. (Also portable appliance inspection regime.) If there is current inspection inspection report and any changes have relevant NICEIC report my risk assesment just says keep up the good work.
It seems in parts of the enquiry there are hints of going beyond this and actually getting into inspecting the electrics which is something I am not competent to do.
-
I am concerned about reference to electrics. Yes assesor should spot/comment if storage of materials etc is increasing risk of electrical ignition or fire spread. However inspection of fuse boxes?
I would be recommending inspection of fixed electrical inspection in line with IEE 17th edition. (Also portable appliance inspection regime.) If there is current inspection inspection report and any changes have relevant NICEIC report my risk assesment just says keep up the good work.
It seems in parts of the enquiry there are hints of going beyond this and actually getting into inspecting the electrics which is something I am not competent to do.
I would look at a fuse box and electrical board just to see the general condition of the components and cabling.
I would normally check for :-
Signs of burning, charring or deterioration of cabling and components.
DIY electrics.
Removal of wire tags.
Proper identification of circuits which control fire safety measures.
Safety light in vicinity.
Old wiring.
General condition.
Apart from all this I would always ask for evidence of fixed electrical inspections in line with IEE 17th edition. If this had not been done within the recommended inspection period I would recommend an immediate inspection and implimentation of a periodic service schedule.
I did carry out a FRA of a church hall recently and as the place was empty I did pull fuses to check operation of safety lighting. Apart from some saftey lighting not working when general lighting circuit was isolated I did find a fuse holder where the fuse was obviously blown as copper wire had been used to bypass the fuse.
-
I am concerned about reference to electrics. Yes assesor should spot/comment if storage of materials etc is increasing risk of electrical ignition or fire spread. However inspection of fuse boxes?
I would be recommending inspection of fixed electrical inspection in line with IEE 17th edition. (Also portable appliance inspection regime.) If there is current inspection inspection report and any changes have relevant NICEIC report my risk assesment just says keep up the good work.
It seems in parts of the enquiry there are hints of going beyond this and actually getting into inspecting the electrics which is something I am not competent to do.
Hiya Martin
No one would expect a risk assessor to be a qualified electrician, but the type of things Nearlythere lists above is something that can be reasonably checked by an assessor to give an indication of the general state of the electrical supply / appliances in the property.
Annual checks are all well and good, but its what happens in between those checks, the cleaners traps a power cord in her hoover damaging it for example, someone bypasses a burnt fuse as NT found, a portable appliance has been brought into the premsies which wasnt present during the last round of PAT tests.
So the checks Nearlythere undertakes are things we can reasonably expect an assessor carry out.