FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Ricardo on July 27, 2011, 03:29:34 PM
-
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/selfclosingdevices
-
Took me a while to read that the doors in question were fire doors, probably by assumption.
Is that the HTM84 compartmentation of bedrooms torn up?
-
So we no longer can have a homely atmosphere in a care home and the inmates (as it is now a prison) have to be kept locked in all day. Swing free is a costly remedy and the determination has nothng in it with regard to ALARP or CBA. The phrases WHERE NECESSARY has also been delted from the paraphrasing of Article 14.
So, if the CLG and the Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor wants prescriptive standrads why doesn't he tell the Givernment to tear up the RR(FS)O and go back to certification with a note to himself to cover all premises. This is not Fire Risk Assessment as there is no mention of the ignition sources, fuel or oxygen in the room of origin which will start and grow the fire which will require the room door to be closed. L1 warning and detection with an adressable panel who needs it, not so much life safety as property protection and where does it say that in the RR(FS)O
-
Took me a while to read that the doors in question were fire doors, probably by assumption.
Is that the HTM84 compartmentation of bedrooms torn up?
Not really it is saying that
"other requirements in the Health Technical Memorandum series are not complied with, for example the requirement to control ignitability of bed linen, the lack of 60 minute fire separation of the laundry room and the sighting of electrical hoists with the means of escape corridors."
-
Health and Safety has become a thing of some ridicule over the last few years due to over zealous practitioners convincing large parts of the lay population that they have to take certain, over the top, preventative actions in order to safeguard their own positions (e.g. see picture below). The lay person is always compelled to follow the advice because of a fear of criticism or prosecution.
I always hoped that fire safety would not follow the same path. My hopes have been dashed a little by this outcome.
Stu
(http://dc408.4shared.com/img/0CChDv7w/Health_and_Safety.jpg) (http://www.4shared.com/photo/0CChDv7w/Health_and_Safety.html)
-
Took me a while to read that the doors in question were fire doors, probably by assumption.
Is that the HTM84 compartmentation of bedrooms torn up?
Not really it is saying that
"other requirements in the Health Technical Memorandum series are not complied with, for example the requirement to control ignitability of bed linen, the lack of 60 minute fire separation of the laundry room and the sighting of electrical hoists with the means of escape corridors."
Yes but what the lack of 60 minute fire separation of the laundry room and the sighting of electrical hoists with the means of escape corridors has to do with self closers on bedrooms I can't quite get. Can anyone?
-
Dont see what the laundry or hoist storage has to do with self closing doors either.
I can appreciate an opinion stating that the FRA was not suitable or sufficient if failing to consider patient demographics "dimentia" etc and delay in staff response. In the world of H & S, improvement notice would be issued without prescriptive or required counter measure or corrective action being provided.
Would be more interested in the sources of ignition, combustibility of materials, furnishings etc.
where does this leave similar premises abd assessments already conducted and scrutinised without comment
-
So the Fire & Rescue service don't quote BS7273-4 when talking about fire door retainers and they only specify magnets as acceptable?!
Oh dear
Apart from that, credit to the judge for realising that the doors would be wedged if they only had S/C
-
I think this has been taken way out of context.
My understanding of the determination is simple. And I would ask you all to remember that the determination process is supposed to be an independent process - where the authority and RP dont agree they can go for determination rather than the RP simply being told by the enforcing authority "you will do as we tell you"
The care home might have won the determination if it's case were legitimate. So I can't understand why people are saying its "health and safety gone mad" because I don't think it has at all.
The downfall of the care homes argument was that it tried to "cherry pick" the best bits out of various guidance to suit it's needs.
Sir Ken pointed out that you can't cherry pick "To take sections of differing standards and use them to form one assessment is an erroneous approach as individual sections in guidance documents rely on assumptions in other sections of that document which may differ from other guidance. The responsible person’s case rests on such an approach. For example, the use of the HMT documents would require that the complete approach is adopted."
Also the care providers couldn't really demonstrate that staff would be able to shut the doors quickly enough, and Sir Ken was not convinced about the zone model they had submitted.
Most care homes Ive had involvement with either have S/Cs, magnetic hold-open devices or free swing, they may be more expensive, but not prohibitively so in the greater scheme of things.
-
Hear hear Midland.
-
..........Most care homes Ive had involvement with either have S/Cs, magnetic hold-open devices or free swing, they may be more expensive, but not prohibitively so in the greater scheme of things.
Budget estimate cost to supply and fit good-quality standard hydraulic door closers to 36 doors = £2,800 + vat
But, taking into account the standards for the building that were used to inform the design in 2003, notably the Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) 84: Fire Safety in Residential Care premises (part of the Northern Ireland Fire Code) as appropriate guidance. This indicates that self-closers are not required on bedroom doors so as to allow staff to observe residents easily and address the concern that residents could be become isolated.
Therefore, budget estimate to supply and fit 36 No. Briton 996 closers, set-up in free-swing mode, with all associated power supplies, cabling and links to fire alarm system including modifications to existing fire alarm system to meet recommendations of BS7273-4 = £ 16,000 +vat.
IF the same was to apply to, say, 3,000 similar buldings nationwide with an average of 36 doors in each building; total budget cost = £ 4.8 million.
I'm glad I'm not paying for it!
But, of course, we will all actually be paying for it in one way or another!
-
Should hospital wards now have all sleeping areas partitioned off and fitted with FRSC doors?
-
The point is still being missed. If you apply all of HTM 84 you dont need SCDS
Trouble is the care home was cherry picking parts of it. They were trying to have their cake and eat it.
-
But, of course, we will all actually be paying for it in one way or another!
You're not wrong - and that's my point. Aside from Southern Cross (who have a very bizare business model) I have never met a poor care home operator yet. And if they do own 36 homes, then they would be getting alot of operational profit.
The figures you quoted do make the SCDs sound expensive, and to the likes of us it is. But self closing devices are not that costly in the bigger scheme of things especially compared to the other stuff that is required by other regulations and consumables care homes use!
And they could just stick to mechanical self closers if they really wanted to watch the pennies!
-
Retty, There is hope for you yet. Next time I come over to dinner at Retty Towers and we send Mrs Retty to the utility room while we have the brandy and cigars, we can deliberate over how WISE this determination is.
I am surprised it even went to determination. It is a no brainer that even the DCLG could not get wrong. Nothing in the facts cited would lead me to believe that the care home in question did not need self closing devices. In fact, even the smoke and mirrors of fire engineering calculations (which is more and more what fire engineering has become) would lead me to be certain they they ARE required.
And yes, HTM 84 is wrong, it always was, still is and always will be. I hate to mention the fact, but, for donkeys years, the SCOTTISH version of HTM 84 said that you DID need self-closers and they should be swing frees. Interestingly, also there would be no debate about this under the current Scottish Building Regs, and certainly not post Rosepark.
Does anyone know who on earth thought fit to take this to a determination and which FRS was sensible enough to stand their ground on the subject. (Please tell me it was not LFEPA as I do not want my illusions about them to be shattered.)
Finally, Grand Wizard Retty, there will be poor care home operators once you and I become residents, as we will raid the drinks cabinet every evening while the staff are fiddling about doing something that would not be closing fire doors.
-
Retty, There is hope for you yet. Next time I come over to dinner at Retty Towers and we send Mrs Retty to the utility room while we have the brandy and cigars, we can deliberate over how WISE this determination is.
I am surprised it even went to determination. It is a no brainer that even the DCLG could not get wrong. Nothing in the facts cited would lead me to believe that the care home in question did not need self closing devices. In fact, even the smoke and mirrors of fire engineering calculations (which is more and more what fire engineering has become) would lead me to be certain they they ARE required.
And yes, HTM 84 is wrong, it always was, still is and always will be. I hate to mention the fact, but, for donkeys years, the SCOTTISH version of HTM 84 said that you DID need self-closers and they should be swing frees. Interestingly, also there would be no debate about this under the current Scottish Building Regs, and certainly not post Rosepark.
Does anyone know who on earth thought fit to take this to a determination and which FRS was sensible enough to stand their ground on the subject. (Please tell me it was not LFEPA as I do not want my illusions about them to be shattered.)
Finally, Grand Wizard Retty, there will be poor care home operators once you and I become residents, as we will raid the drinks cabinet every evening while the staff are fiddling about doing something that would not be closing fire doors.
Do I detect a faint but distinct aroma of stale pee eminating from the previous post?
Stage 1 has set in.
-
WISE by name perhaps but not perhaps in the nature of the determination. Your latest history book is good guidance but pot, kettle and black come to mind when you speak of other guidance. Perhaps you could get a contract to rewrite it all as you keep mentioning for hotels, where are the bodies?
-
Perhaps you could get a contract to rewrite it all as you keep mentioning for hotels, where are the bodies?
Try Rosepark http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011FAI18.pdf £16000?
-
Did the Rosepark fire start in a bedroom?
Perhaps those are the fires we should be looking at?
-
Wtih regard to the above posts:
Nearlythere: Cant understand the reference to stale pee, other than to note that, in a well run care home such aromas do not occur.
Jokar: I must have the wrong language module plugged in to my brain today, cos you have lost me too with history books, pots and kettles, etc. As for the bodies, I assume that, in terms of fire safety, you have been living on Mars for the past few years, with only temporary excursions to planet earth and had not noticed that 14 people died in a care home, representing the largest loss of life in any single fire since the King's Cross disaster.
Nearlythere: I assume that you have not botehred to read the Determination on Rosepark, which we required all of our consultants to read as essential CPD. I trust that you will not advise on fire precautions in care homes until you do, but, to answer your question, no, the fire did not start in a bedroom, but here is what the Sherrif Principal said about the open bedroom doors:
It would have been a reasonable precaution for all bedroom doors to have been closed in the event that a fire alarm
sounded. In particular it would have been a reasonable precaution for the management of Rosepark to have fitted
devices to ensure that bedroom doors were closed automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded.
In particular it should be noted:
(i) in corridors 3 and 4 (where all the fatalities occurred) only in rooms 10 and 11 were the bedroom doors closed;
(ii) in the event that there were medical or nursing reasons for leaving any particular bedroom door open, or a care
home resident reasonably wished to make a choice to have his or her door open or ajar at night, members of staff could
close all doors in the event that a fire alarm sounded, or doors could be fitted with mechanisms which would close
them automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded;
(iii) at all relevant times there were available in the market a number of technological solutions to the apparent
conflict between fire safety and other demands, namely devices that could have been fitted to the bedroom doors in
order to make sure that they would be closed automatically should the fire alarm sound;
(iv) esto the care home adopted a strategy which relied solely on the action of staff to close bedroom doors in the
event of a fire, a care home adopting such a strategy would require to address itself seriously to the training and
drilling of the staff in that regard and, potentially, whether the number of staff on duty at any time would be sufficient
to ensure that this action could be taken;
(v) If a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out at Rosepark (see Chapter 44(6) hereof) that risk
assessment would have addressed how the fire safety requirement to have doors closed in the event of a fire would be
achieved and would, in that context, have recommended the use of one of the technological devices that were
available;
(vi) the bedroom doors, if they had all been closed, would have withstood the fire in the corridor for a period of time
sufficient for the fire to die back from lack of air, so that fire penetration into the bedrooms would not, in the absence
of some exceptional circumstances causing flame impingement directly on the door, have occurred;
(vii) given that the two residents in corridor 4 who had closed doors did not, ultimately, survive, it cannot be said with
SHERIFFDOM OF SOUTH STRATHCLYDE DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
file:///C|/Users/cgoasduff.SCS/Desktop/temp/CURRENT/FAI%2018%20Rosepark.htm[19/05/2011 10:41:30]
certainty that any of the residents in this corner would have survived even if the doors had been closed. However,
closing the doors on its own would have made a significant difference to their prospects.
Had the residents in the rooms in corridor 4 apart from rooms 10 and 11 had their doors closed, their deaths might have
been avoided.
-
I had no idea that people live on Mars, most of us frequent Planet Earth! I seem to recall that the disaster at Rosepark was in part due to the staff not going to the correct area and therefore not being able to put the management plan into place.
-
Jokar, not wishing to teach you about the English language as well as history, but I think you must mean most of us "INHABIT" planet earth. The word "FREQUENT", when used as a verb, means to visit habitually, somewhere that you are not resident.
As for Rosepark, I suggest you take the time to read the findings of what was the longest running FAI in Scottish history, rather than select one particular finding, relevant though it was.
-
Wtih regard to the above posts:
Nearlythere: Cant understand the reference to stale pee, other than to note that, in a well run care home such aromas do not occur.
Jokar: I must have the wrong language module plugged in to my brain today, cos you have lost me too with history books, pots and kettles, etc. As for the bodies, I assume that, in terms of fire safety, you have been living on Mars for the past few years, with only temporary excursions to planet earth and had not noticed that 14 people died in a care home, representing the largest loss of life in any single fire since the King's Cross disaster.
Nearlythere: I assume that you have not botehred to read the Determination on Rosepark, which we required all of our consultants to read as essential CPD. I trust that you will not advise on fire precautions in care homes until you do, but, to answer your question, no, the fire did not start in a bedroom, but here is what the Sherrif Principal said about the open bedroom doors:
It would have been a reasonable precaution for all bedroom doors to have been closed in the event that a fire alarm
sounded. In particular it would have been a reasonable precaution for the management of Rosepark to have fitted
devices to ensure that bedroom doors were closed automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded.
In particular it should be noted:
(i) in corridors 3 and 4 (where all the fatalities occurred) only in rooms 10 and 11 were the bedroom doors closed;
(ii) in the event that there were medical or nursing reasons for leaving any particular bedroom door open, or a care
home resident reasonably wished to make a choice to have his or her door open or ajar at night, members of staff could
close all doors in the event that a fire alarm sounded, or doors could be fitted with mechanisms which would close
them automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded;
(iii) at all relevant times there were available in the market a number of technological solutions to the apparent
conflict between fire safety and other demands, namely devices that could have been fitted to the bedroom doors in
order to make sure that they would be closed automatically should the fire alarm sound;
(iv) esto the care home adopted a strategy which relied solely on the action of staff to close bedroom doors in the
event of a fire, a care home adopting such a strategy would require to address itself seriously to the training and
drilling of the staff in that regard and, potentially, whether the number of staff on duty at any time would be sufficient
to ensure that this action could be taken;
(v) If a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out at Rosepark (see Chapter 44(6) hereof) that risk
assessment would have addressed how the fire safety requirement to have doors closed in the event of a fire would be
achieved and would, in that context, have recommended the use of one of the technological devices that were
available;
(vi) the bedroom doors, if they had all been closed, would have withstood the fire in the corridor for a period of time
sufficient for the fire to die back from lack of air, so that fire penetration into the bedrooms would not, in the absence
of some exceptional circumstances causing flame impingement directly on the door, have occurred;
(vii) given that the two residents in corridor 4 who had closed doors did not, ultimately, survive, it cannot be said with
SHERIFFDOM OF SOUTH STRATHCLYDE DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
file:///C|/Users/cgoasduff.SCS/Desktop/temp/CURRENT/FAI%2018%20Rosepark.htm[19/05/2011 10:41:30]
certainty that any of the residents in this corner would have survived even if the doors had been closed. However,
closing the doors on its own would have made a significant difference to their prospects.
Had the residents in the rooms in corridor 4 apart from rooms 10 and 11 had their doors closed, their deaths might have
been avoided.
"I trust that you will not advise on fire precautions in care homes until you do," ????????????? What's this about? "but, to answer your question, no, the fire did not start in a bedroom," Thank you.
-
As you quite rightly state Mr Todd, a scottish disaster prolonged for the relatives because no fatal accident investigation was completed early enough and two attempts to prosecute ended in failure. However, we live and learn and educate ourselves and allow others to educate us on a daily basis and as stated by you before your special scottish education puts us english to shame.
-
What did you not understand , nearly.
Jokar, Glad you have got the message at least.
-
Only subliminally.
-
What a waste of time and effort. Who on earth was advising the responsible person.
I support the principal of the determination process however the argument used by the responsible person was in my opinion, dangerous. Any other decision would have been taking standards in such premises back thirty years.
If I remember correctly it was acceptable in the 1982 Guide to Fire Safety Standards in Existing Care Premises. However the only acceptable circumstances was, I believe bedroom doors in a protected area.
How common is this situation? Carried out an audit of two care homes recently where the owner had ignored a previous recommendation to fit
sc devices on bedroom doors. I contacted the two fire authority inspectors who had recently audited the properties and made no comment on the doors. I was adivsed that the authority was, and I quote 'soon to make a policy decision based upon the findings of a fire in a care home in Scotland'.
Still have a long way to go for consistency.
Steve
-
Zone models were involved Steven, one assumes that the RP used a fire consultant. An odd case in all respects.
-
It's still being resisted. Although HTM 84 (NI) is 16 years old, written for completely different legislation, has been superseded by guidance requiring SC to doors and that technology has improved, there are E&W care homes wishing to avoid the cost of retrofitting swing frees.
An argument proposed by some is that as all elements of HTM84 (NI) were implemented in their premises rather than the pick and choose in the determination, then they are OK.
It's not over yet!
-
Tony, I think you will find it is largely over, particularly in view of the Rosepark Determination. And, in my experience, they like the doors to be self-closing in NI>