FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Paul2886 on February 23, 2013, 07:16:20 PM
-
Your views would be appreciated if you provide fire training for care homes.
I would like to know how you would address the following during such sessions.
My local FA will not be responding to 999 calls generated by AFA’s unless a fire can be confirmed or there are signs of a fire. This is both during the day and night from April 2013. The problem might be, for instance a detector in a roof space being activated and even with a remote indicator linked does not confirm a fire. The staff, even during the night from April 2013, are expected to confirm the integrity of the alarm before any fire engine is sent.
Does that mean that they get a step ladder and lift the loft hatch to take a look? What about the remote indicator at the head of a lift that has illuminated? Possibly just two staff on duty at night periods.
Suggestions have been made to silence the system and see if it reactivates....that won’t work........try resetting and see what happens.......that won’t work.
I have a possible solution by reconfiguring the detection system in such places but would like your views. Thanks all.
-
My opinion is as follows
1-Alarm sounds
2- Staff report to muster point
3- Call fire brigade tell them of alarm and that it is being investigated.If they dont want to come thats their decision, but the care staff will have a clear conscience.
4- Send staff to location to carry out search
5- If any signs of smoke, smells of burning, flickering lights, unusual noises call fire brigade again to confirm signs of fire
start moving persons from risk areas.
6- If no signs of fire double check the panel and confirm the whole of the right zone has been checked. Check again including using the steps if necessary.
7- Then reset the panel, if it sounds again go back to step 4 or if it resets satisfactorily record it as an unwanted alarm in the log book, and report to engineers. Make further call to fire service to inform them of what has been done.
8- Increase vigilance until it is clear that othing untoward was happening
-
Thanks Kurnal for your reply and always respect your opinions. All sounds ok accept if it won't reset. Still no signs of a fire and in a large roof space for example. I do not see too many problems where a detector head is easily accessible to check (red lights) but its those blighters in out of the way places such as lofts etc that may cause problems.
-
Pauley, Make it clear also in the 999 call that the premises are a care home and there are vulnerable persons at risk. It might help with the weight of attendance but if it does not it will give the FRS less to hide behind at the inquest and civil action when it all goes horribly wrong.
-
Thanks Colin, have discussed that scenario with them and assured there will be no engine sent unless signs of a fire or confirmation. They will attend however to sheltered accomodation where the call may be received from a call centre as no checks will be possible
-
Pauley, are you saying they will go to sheltered, where people should be safe to stay in their own flats, but not to care homes, where people arent safe to stay in their own bedrooms. My advice by the way was not flippant. You need to lumber them with a major liability if they dont attend in which, by virtue of the recorded 999 call, it will be demonstrable that control were warned of the vulnerability of the residents, the number of staff on duty and the dangers of investigating without the knowledge that the FRS are on the way.
Incidentally, in the new BS 5839-1, the advice will be given that, in the event of a fire alarm actuating in a care home, there should be no delay in summoning the FRS pending an investigation.
-
Hi Colin, In answer to your question then 'yes' as there will be no one to investigate if an alarm is dealt with by a remote call centre. Obviously no one available to investigate.
I made the very point that you made about vulnerable people but it appears they will stick to there forthcoming procedures come April where it extends to night periods as well. I hope its all been thought through by the powers that be as this is going to cause problems. I provide a great deal of training to care homes and it leaves me concerned about the pressures placed upon possibly two carers tending residents on a busy night and having to face these added pressures.
It worries me that when I spoke to FSO recently they mentioned that if you 'silence' the system and it goes off again then it can be confirmed as a possible fire and they will attend. We know that even if there is a fire certain types of systems can be silenced and will stay that way until the products of fire spread to an adjacent zone.....scarey stuff when you hear things like that
-
Pauley
The Rosepark FAI concluded that
CHAPTER 44(5): EARLY INVOLVEMENT OF THE FIRE BRIGADE
In RP5 I have made findings that the following would have been reasonable precautions:
RP5.1 An immediate call to the Fire Brigade when the fire alarm sounded and, to that end:-
5.1.1 An Emergency Procedure which provided for an immediate call to the Fire Brigade; and
5.1.3 Automatic transmission of a signal to the Fire Brigade in the event that the fire alarm was activated
Nationally FRS are trying to reduce unwanted fire signals (see CFOA guidance on unwanted fire signals)
Im not convinced that a policy of treating an AFA from an unoccupied office building at night in the same way as an AFA from a residential care home at night is a good idea. With a large number of FRS following this sort of policy there is a great deal of scope for someone to get caught out.
-
Hi Kml,
Quite agree and possibly not thought through properly but the powers that be. Could it be that the people making these decisions have no in-depth experience in such matters with heads turned towards budgets. We all know the importance of reducing unwanted fire signals which we all try to help with, but this is causing a lot of concern in my area in the care homes.
Scenario: 30 elderly and vulnerable bed-ridden residents in a nursing home......1 nurse who happens to be an agency nurse and 1 carer.....3.00am the fire alarm sounds and a remote indicator indicates a detector in the loft......999 call made......no reponse from FRS as not confirmed....no obvious signs of fire so a step ladder is collected from the basement.....15 minutes later the nurse lifts the loft hatch to take a peep....the rest I'll leave to your imaginations as it doesn't bear thinking about. Of course there will be a lot of occasions when checks can be made which the fire training should encompass.
The people making these decisions need to understand a bit more about how fire detection systems function in silence and reset modes and realise they don't always resound on silence and won't reset until that reason for it activating has been removed.
-
Call challenging to AFAs by the bean counters throught the F&RS is a sad direction that will one day end with a large litigation case, and it is plain to see what direction it will come from.
We are in the world of risk.......if it happens well then we might have to go to court and pay for it.....but if it does not happen money in the bank.
Have I got this risk mixed up with making money or protecting life?
So all new care homes must have a sprinkler system.........when will the F&RS want to know if it is a real fire that activated the sprinkler alarm or a fault in the system?
I do hope the goverment is going to make all care home staff understand and speak english ( I see doctors must soon be able to do this) so when they are talking to the 999 control room operator, in a calm manner explaining that it is a real fire, that they have spent the last ten minutes investigating and that they thought the fireman were already on the way because the fire station is only 2 miles away (well thats what the risk assessment said) oh sorry cant chat any more the dementia clients are all over the place because of the fire alarm going off and we only had three staff on duty........byeeeeeeee.
Cynical well yes but how near to real life?
By the way I am up for Colin as Director in Chief of a private F&RS so long as he gives Kel the job of Assistant Director in Chief HR ;D
-
Scenario: 30 elderly and vulnerable bed-ridden residents in a nursing home......1 nurse who happens to be an agency nurse and 1 carer...
Paul, I think that it highly likely that the RP is failing in his duties as indicated in Art 15 (1) (b) in the scenario you describe above.
-
Yes Bruce but there are many thousands of care homes with up to 40 residents and two care staff on nights. They work to staffing needs criteria as set out in the Care Standards Act.
If compliance with Article 15 requires more staff specifically to implement the emergency plan why are the enforcers not banging the drum? Are they content to pick them off one by one as and when a tragedy occurs? Would there be an outcry if they were more proactive?
Let us remember that the normal expectation is for staff to evacuate those residents at risk using PHE and in a well designed care home with small evacuation zones this may not be too onerous. Reducing the size of the evacuation zone may be a more viable solution than employing more staff! Especially when many Local Authorities set the fee levels that they pay for socially funded residents at a level below that which is viable for the home, and the shortfall is met by charging self funding residents a premium to subsidise those on social funding.
-
Does the thought of two care staff on at night does concern me? Yes very much so, but alas it is the norm. You simply won't get care home providers to employee more staff at night. Its just not viable, although some providers run at a tidy profit, but thats a different debate for another day.
When you consider that out of those two members of staff one will be calling fire service initially, and then may have to break away from an evac to allow fire crews into the building (if they respond) you can see the pressure two staff are under.
I cannot see any logic behind this particular authoritys refusal to respond to life risk. I can undertsand an empty factory / office building being call challenged, but not sleeping risks.
On the flip side I've heard others argue that RPs out there need to get their houses in order, that they should implement additional compartmentation, or install sprinklers, for example, if they do not have the staff to carry out an evacuation in an appropriate amount of time. To me that argument holds no water, particularly in the current climate.
In addition to loss of life, what about loss or partial loss to buildings? We all know how fire can impact on communities, jobs, loss of essential services, local economy etc
-
To me that argument holds no water, particularly in the current climate
So.............. local authority FRS are expected to subsidise poor wage paying private sector employers?
And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?
Doesn't seem fair on the local tax payer
-
And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?
Not if the Control Room is doing its job!
I remember an excercise for the HMI where we had the first attendance and make up at the exercise and when the fire alarm went off in another part of the building Control still got the PDA there in time without taking any of the appliances from the exercise.
-
And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?
You've missed the points being made
-
And whilst a fire crew are chasing yet another false alarm someone somewhere is in need of rescuing?
Doesn't seem fair on the local tax payer
And if my auntie had a beard she'd probably be my uncle. No one is arguing that false alarms are underisable or tie up the fire service's time.
But being realistic you won't get a care home to throw cash around installing additional measures or employing extra staff particularly during the current financial climate. And my personal opinion is that sleeping risks must not be call challenged full stop. You could reduce the pre-determined attendance maybe, but not sending any appliances at all is, in my view, not good enough.
-
Retters as always you speak some sense. Call challenging of calls from care homes will one day lead to another disaster, adnt eh FRS will not out of it well.
-
Call challenging in care homes should not in my view be undertaken. However back to my point in relation to Art 15(1)(b) if insufficient resources are available e.g. only 2 staff on at night, no facility to call on additional local resources etc. this should and does get enforced by some FA's, I know a large care home costed an additional member of staff and concluded that it was cheaper to reduce the number of occupants in the sub compartment, thereby leaving a vacant bed space, than employing the additional staff member when a candid risk assessment concluded that safe PHE could not be achieved with the number of staff present at night. As we know all courts can vary but in my personal experience they do tend to take a dim view of profit before safety.
-
You've missed the points being made
Really ? Why? :-\
Are the posts on this thread not saying a fire appliance should respond to all FA activations regardless of what causes the activation ? Are they not saying this is because employers of staff at these premises will not provide sufficient staff to keep a safe eye on residents and check on their well being in the event of a FAS activation?
If so I may have missed the point.
Suggestion .... how about a call is made to the FRS. They dispatch a fire appliance, or a car, or a motorbike "whatever" to check on the premises ...at normal road speed. The resources responding can be redirected to a real incident if required by the FRS control. Bit like the ambulance service do. Or perhaps they don't respond at all. Bit like the police in regards to burglar alarm activations.
-
No your'e missing the point, that's not what's being implied. Read the threads from the beginning. My point is not that they should just attend when a fire signal is generated but when done so by an inaccessible detector head such as in loft spaces and maybe the head of lift shafts when verification is going to be difficult for staff.
How would you address this during a fire training session.
I think the comments made by Kurnal and Colin are sound and worth considering. I am addressing this by recommending that these inaccessible areas are served by two detectors each linked to individual remote indicators so if both remotes are illuminated it is probably a problem that should encourage a 999 call. The FRS will respond to a 'double knock' surely. Thanks yout replies are appreciated
-
I believe this problem cannot be looked at in isolation. FA engineers, Fire Risk Assessors and the RP must work together to reduce unwanted alarms. However, there obviously comes a point where a FRS has to be called. Should be called! It is morally right they are called! ... and there may be negligence on the part of the RP if they are not called! This may be when there are obvious signs of fire, (flames, visible smoke etc.); clues there may be a fire (smells of burning or spurious sounds along with a head activation etc.); or possibly electronic multiple detections of fire. However if it is the latter, then the FA engineers cannot let the problem continue if there is no fire detected. For obviously if the problem continues there is either a smouldering undetected fire, or the system is at fault, or there is a problem with the RA allowing some spurious agent to activate the system.
Don't forget there are many less fire appliances now than there were. Don't forget there are many less fire control staff than there were. AND there will be many, many less in the coming years. The recession is not just affecting private industry and RAs should not rely on a stretched public sector to prop up failing systems of work or engineering. The FRS should be the last resort not part of a RA.
However, there may be other ways of working that can allow investigation by FRS (trained) staff whilst maintaining emergency cover?
*discuss*
-
The answer is simple, FRS attend every call and then charge for those that are not fires. Then the debate with regard to cost benefit analysis can be conducted properly. This will focus the mind of the RP who in turn will get the FA engineer to ensure that the design, installation and maintenance of the system is done properly and the system is effective. Either that or bash the local MP to ensure that FRS are served by a proper budget that will allow those extra applinances and staffing levels to attend everyhting without recourses to any thoughtful process.
-
Sam,
It is a Catch 22 situation, less calls means less fire appliances needed, the answer cannot be to reduce the number of calls.
A major part of the issue is the way people look at the fire service. it was explained in the way of a corner shop, the usual indicator is the number of pots of strawberry jam which the shop sells, and if it sells out that is fine.That is not the way the fire service has to operate it has to make sure there is always a pot of strawberry jam available to be sold.
It does not matter if there is a job like Buncefield in progress with a large number of fire engines attending, a house fire 3 miles away from Buncefield will still need fire appliances to turn up in the usual attendance time.
We don't want to go down the line of the ambulance service and the NHS where casualties are left waiting for an ambulance or on trolleys in corridors, and it does happen there is a news story in the East Midlands where an old lady fell over and was lying on the ground outside for 3 hours before the paramedics turned up, she is now in hospital with a broken hip and some fractured ribs!
As far as the unwanted fire signals go, the firms who maintain and look after their alarm systems so that there is a minimal number of unwanted signals should be encouraged and the firms who do not should be penalised. The correct answer cannot be to discourage the good firms because of the rogues. In police terms it is like throwing everyone in prison because that way you can be sure to get the crooks in prison!
-
The answer is simple, FRS attend every call and then charge for those that are not fires. Then the debate with regard to cost benefit analysis can be conducted properly. This will focus the mind of the RP who in turn will get the FA engineer to ensure that the design, installation and maintenance of the system is done properly and the system is effective. Either that or bash the local MP to ensure that FRS are served by a proper budget that will allow those extra applinances and staffing levels to attend everyhting without recourses to any thoughtful process.
Unfortunately nothing is absolutely black and white as to the cause of every 'false alarm' so surely we continue do everything possible to reduce the level of false alarms AND provide enough resources so that the FRS attend every call, 'just in case'. If you asked Joe Public if he would be prepared to pay whatever was needed for this service, I'm convinced he would say yes. Obviously, Joe Public would prefer that the cost of providing the service was met by making savings elsewhere. I guess he would like those savings to be made from reducing benefit payments to immigrants, local and national government officials and any 'poor' countries with their own space programmes.
-
Maybe there's a solution! ;D
What if, whenever there was a fire alarm activation that could not be readily investigated, the care home staff called a private fire fighting company. The private company wouldn't need all the resources of the fire service, but would have just enough to ensure an initial investigation and fire fighting response. If they attended and found that additional resource was necessary, they could make a 999 call to the FRS and then withdraw upon their arrival.
The private fire service would deal with all those nasty unwanted fire calls, and would charge the care home appropriately for their services. This would leave the FRS to respond to real emergencies and do the fire safety things they do. :)
There is a potential downside though, the number of calls sent to the FRS may reduce to the level whereby the need for local resources may be questioned with the result that the local fire station loses appliances or changes to retained. This may mean that the availability of FRS resources in response to a 999 call by the private company may not be assured resulting in the care home provider having to consider the potential of the greater risk. Perhaps the private fire fighting company could provide sufficient additional resources to deal with the problem. ???
Hmmmmmm, seems that the fire service has somehow ended up privatised!!! :-X
This is all nonsense, but so too is refusing to respond to a sleeping risk involving vulnerable occupants!
-
Maybe there's a solution! ;D
What if, whenever there was a fire alarm activation that could not be readily investigated, the care home staff called a private fire fighting company. The private company wouldn't need all the resources of the fire service, but would have just enough to ensure an initial investigation and fire fighting response. If they attended and found that additional resource was necessary, they could make a 999 call to the FRS and then withdraw upon their arrival.
The private fire service would deal with all those nasty unwanted fire calls, and would charge the care home appropriately for their services. This would leave the FRS to respond to real emergencies and do the fire safety things they do. :)
There is a potential downside though, the number of calls sent to the FRS may reduce to the level whereby the need for local resources may be questioned with the result that the local fire station loses appliances or changes to retained. This may mean that the availability of FRS resources in response to a 999 call by the private company may not be assured resulting in the care home provider having to consider the potential of the greater risk. Perhaps the private fire fighting company could provide sufficient additional resources to deal with the problem. ???
Hmmmmmm, seems that the fire service has somehow ended up privatised!!! :-X
This is all nonsense, but so too is refusing to respond to a sleeping risk involving vulnerable occupants!
Of course the private fire fighting company could be developed to deal with more than just investigating and assessing so that the FRS could devote practically all its time doing other things without those pesky care homes causing such annoyances. Mind you what other things would they be doing?
Step in the interfering politician who wants to know what the FRS is being paid for if a private fire service is dealing with the fires. Modernisation needed (remember that word which actually means sacking people and getting rid of appliances).
So get rid of the FRS and use the private outfit which now becomes the FRS.
So the new FRS gets a little cross with going out to AFD going off when they shouldn't. Get in a private outfit to just investigate and assess so that the FRS can devote practically all its time.............................................................................
-
It is a Catch 22 situation, less calls means less fire appliances needed, the answer cannot be to reduce the number of calls.
Mike
That is where we are. Trust me I check the overnight stats for my FRS every day and we have never been so quiet. The whole service is now responding overnight to what one station was on a night shift 15 years ago. And that is success! Less people are in danger and therefore not calling for help. Both from fires (and other emergencies) and from rapid response large emergency vehicles proceeding to incidents . And that is reflected all over the country (ies).
However, you are right that success means appliances are being cut from every FRS. Maybe there just aren't enough to respond to AFA's and still be operationally ready for another simultaneous incident? Unless they respond in a non emergency status way and can be redeployed .... perhaps. :-\ Or send a light vehicle... perhaps? :-\
-
Maybe there just aren't enough to respond to AFA's and still be operationally ready for another simultaneous incident?
If you can't respond to an AFA and a simultaneous incident, then you can't respond to two incidents at the same time!
It is very similar to the NHS (again). The hospitals had a target for bed occupation and the hospitals were getting rates of beds being occupied for 95% of the time. What happens? A spell of freezing weather, an increase in people coming in with broken bones and then people on trolleys in corridors and scheduled operations being cancelled right left and centre.
I still argue that this new policy is a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. I agree that places who do not maintain effective fire alarm systems causing an excess of unwanted signals should be penalised but not at the cost of the places with effective properly maintained systems.
-
They way this is developing it seems to me that some people want the fire service to attend every single alarm actuation regardless how many times that premises may have had an actuation. Alternatively especially in these cash strapped days the fire service tries to force the responsible person to take responsibility for there premises. I assumed this was a basic principle of the FSO as we were long told that premises know fully well what fire precautions etc they need.
Its funny but it doesn't seem to be working like that all.
My view is a degree of call filtering/challenging to many premises is a good ideal, it will reduce the number of call outs and make the responsible person take responsibility for their premises. I do however draw the line at premises where people sleep. My view is the service should attend these then if an investigation is carried out whilst the service are on there way and it turns out they are not required, the service can be informed and turned back.
I do ask though what all the anti-fire service service posters on here suggest the service do? Just keep attending numerous false alarms and say hey ho it keeps us busy turning out wheres the issue, or do the service do something to make responsible persons take some action to make sure there system really only goes off when there is a fire? Because as people like Wiz state the systems these days are state of the art, its mainly user error that causes the call outs.
Confused Steve
-
No Steven that's not what's implied and of course people should take responsibilty for their fire alarm systems to ensure they perform in a reliable manner. If you read the original comments I made it was not implying that but asking about a typical nursing home scenario where detectors are in out of sight' places such as lofts and lift shafts. I am very pro-active during a FRA to reduce unwanted fire signals but am concerned about sleeping risks where people are vulnerable and receing end of life care with just 2 or 3 staff on duty during the night. Of course checks can be made in most case but it ruffles my feathers when I am told no engibe will be sent unless those 2 or 3 staff can confirm loft spaces etc. I ask a FSO if he wants me to tell staff to grab a step ladder at 3 in the morning to lift a loft hatch to check.....the reply: yes, if that what it takes.....so you see its not about going to check on sloopy badly services fire systems
-
I assumed this was a basic principle of the FSO as we were long told that premises know fully well what fire precautions etc they need.
You are correct this was a basic principle of the FSO, however in my view the basic principle was flawed in that it assumed a far greater knowledge of fire precautions in the general business world than actually exists.
With regard to the Fire Brigade attending, the earlier you can catch a fire the easier it is to put out and the less damage will be caused. Hence the presence of a fire detection system that will give the early warning. The problem is that there will always be unwanted fire signals from any system however a modern properly fitted and maintained system will minimise these.
The problem comes from systems which are not properly fitted or maintained. These are the premises that need to be brought into line.
Another problem is that the Fire Brigade operates a negative economy, the better it does its job the less the losses for the country in lost life, property, business etc.
-
No Steven that's not what's implied and of course people should take responsibilty for their fire alarm systems to ensure they perform in a reliable manner. If you read the original comments I made it was not implying that but asking about a typical nursing home scenario where detectors are in out of sight' places such as lofts and lift shafts. I am very pro-active during a FRA to reduce unwanted fire signals but am concerned about sleeping risks where people are vulnerable and receing end of life care with just 2 or 3 staff on duty during the night. Of course checks can be made in most case but it ruffles my feathers when I am told no engibe will be sent unless those 2 or 3 staff can confirm loft spaces etc. I ask a FSO if he wants me to tell staff to grab a step ladder at 3 in the morning to lift a loft hatch to check.....the reply: yes, if that what it takes.....so you see its not about going to check on sloopy badly services fire systems
In all fairness I agree that the fire service should attend sleeping risk premises full stop.
Yes Mike you are correct, however this leads to the question of how are these premsies brought into line?
-
Hi Paul 2886
My view is that it would be unreasonable, impractical and potentially unsafe for staff to try and investigate cause of alarm originating from a detector in a remote location, such as loft space, lift shaft etc.
I would recommend that if they can't see, hear, smell, or feel any signs of fire in progress to try for system reset. If the system won't reset, or goes off again in short succession from same detector / zone I would recommend they call the fire service.
Fire crews have the kit and caboodle to investigate further safely.
-
however this leads to the question of how are these premsies brought into line?
Officially letters of increasing unpleasantness and reducing attendance and visits by Enforcing Officers, logic if the Fire Alarm is not up to standard then what about the rest of the Fire Precautions?
Unofficially an axe through the front door at 3.00 am. 'Sorry guv the Fire Alarm was going and we thought we saw a flicker inside'
-
Hi I have only just come back to the forum, I specialise in RCP and my local fire authority (Lincolnshire) will call challenge Care Establishments between 0600hrs - 2100hrs.
They sent a circular letter to businesses in Feb 2011 stating that they would call challenge all premises, except dwellings and premises occupied by vulnerable persons.(VP's)
I rang for confirmation that VP's covered care homes and was surprised to find that they had decided to call challenge all premises except dwellings.
Coincidently they have not sent out another letter stating this, so some premises may be unaware of the policy.
I wrote raising my concerns, citing the Rosepark Care Home Fire findings re calling the Fire & Rescue service; my experiences with care homes.
I also had meetings with the Senior Officer concerned and wrote to all my care homes. I also attended local Care Association meetings to voice my concerns and to CACFOA and CQC.
I heard LF&R had an officer attending the Care Association meetings to discuss the Rosepark fire and to re-inforce their Call Challenge policy.
I also had an article printed in the IFSM journal on this matter.
Last year, following a serious fire in a Lincolnshire care home, LF&R decided not to Call Challenge Care Establishments between 2100hrs -0600hrs, and also increase their PDA to known or suspected fires to 4 appliances between these hours.
I always teach when staffing levels allow for the fire zones to be checked (by 3 persons. with 1 to report back, leaving to deal with any pending incident) before calling the F&R service.
When staffing levels are at 3 or less I recommend that they call 999 unless they know that there is not a fire. The type of fire alarm installed would need to be considered as part of the fire risk assessment, an addressable system would make it easier and quicker to check, this might influence the ability to check first.
Irrespective of the numbers of staff on duty, it is most probable that not all will be able to respond immediately to the fire alarm, e.g. hoisting, toileting or bathing a resident. This could result in only one or two reporting to the fire alarm in the first instance(especially at night). I think it unsafe practice for 1 member of staff to check, or be left alone in, a possible fire situation where residents may be at risk or need evacuating.
I would be more that willing to discuss my concerns regarding this - I realise it has been on the forum for a while.
-
The words of the Sheriff Principal may one day resonate around a courtroom when it all goes wrong. He stated that in a care home with infirm residents there should be no delay in summoning the FRS when the fire alarm operates, pending an investigation. His emphatic opinion was that any such delay would be a matter for grave concern.
When it all goes wrong, those responsible for irresponsible policies can answer in cross examination why:
1. The words of the Sheriff Principal were ignored.
2. The advice in BS 5839-1, which is equally emphatic that, in res care, there should be no delay pending an investigation (list of organisations responsible for that standard available on simple requst to BSI, and the draft went out for full public consutlation).
3. Most other FRS would attend such a call without challenge.
-
"The words of the Sheriff Principal were ignored."
Unfortunately in England the answer to this would be "who?" and judging by the response from Eric Pickles over Lakanal closely followed by "so what?" There would then be a long session of CFOs stating they were only following Government guidance and the response from the minister that a) they never gave that guidance, b) it wasn't them it was the previous government, c) if the Fire Authorities had managed their budgets better such draconian measures would never have had to be put in place and d) they would be setting up a full enquiry into the matter with a panel of their old mates, sorry persons with knowledge and experience in the field, who would drag it out so that when the report was finally pulblished everyone would have forgotten about it.
Sorry, is my cynicism showing?
-
Michael, you are forgetting the Govenrment guidance that there should not be any non- responses to AFAs. I think that many FRSs have also forgettn if they ever even knew.
-
Michael, you are forgetting the Govenrment guidance that there should not be any non- responses to AFAs. I think that many FRSs have also forgettn if they ever even knew.
I suppose it depends what "response" means. Is taking the call a response? I remember that senior spark where I worked considered a reply to a request being an acknowledgement card. Another Citizens Charter box ticked.
-
Would this count as a response?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAbJjktk7E
Soory I can't cut the first bit.
-
No nearly, it wouldnt. The DCLG report is unequivocal in its recommendations that an appliance should always be dispatched to AFAs and the lives would be lost and property more severely damaged if this was not followed.
-
Colin
Can you please provide a link or more details of the DCLG report making the recommendation.
-
Its the one that looked at FRS response to AFAs. written by Cath Reynolds.
-
False alarms !!
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/emergency-services/2013/10/17/firefighters-injured-as-engine-crashes-into-tree/ (http://www.expressandstar.com/news/emergency-services/2013/10/17/firefighters-injured-as-engine-crashes-into-tree/)