Author Topic: Residential Care Homes  (Read 16945 times)

Offline Pip

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2007, 11:51:06 AM »
I would also add that, should the worst happen and there was a death in the home through smoke inhallation, your client could get a severe bashing in a civil court, as the burden of proof is less, and the financial penalty potentially huge.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2007, 12:08:44 PM »
The determination ref is DOE 45/3/06 - it wont be on-line though. Its mentioned (not by ref though) in the determination that PIP found (para 11).

It does say something about ensuring doors are shut at night by staff etc.

Offline Pip

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2007, 12:30:07 PM »
It would be interesting to know the different circumstances between the two determinations.
wee brian-can you explain why the new 'ADB' would now reverse that decision? is it because it now mentions availability of swingfrees?or is it a process thing?

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2007, 12:54:28 PM »
I think I would be tempted here to put it to the architect how he feels his design ensures that you (the client) can comply with :-

 Articles 4(2) (a), (c) and (f) (ii) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which talk about mitigating the spread of fire, and protecting and securing the means of escape at all times.

If the doors are open when fire occurs does he think staff can close them in time?

If he does I'd suggest that he might witness a fire drill at the premises to see if it works.

And if or when it doesn't work ask the architect how he intends to overcome the problem

I also think a FRA would have grounds to pursue the architect if anything did ever go wrong! Perhaps be worth putting that to him as well.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2007, 09:55:42 PM »
Reasonable & Adequate are not fixed things, they change with time.

40 years ago insisting on smoke alarms in every new house would have been crazy. Now it would be bonkers not to ask for one on every floor.

Hopefully we learn from past mistakes and take advantage of improved technology.

All of the care home decisions recognise the need to close doors and the need to allow freedom of movement its the available technology that has changed.

Offline Markbr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • http://www.holdfire.com
Residential Care Homes
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2007, 12:03:36 PM »
There is a is a huge amount of confusion in this area. I have just been part of a 2 week roadshow with the Registered Nursing Home Association. I was staggered by the mix of Nursing homes that either did not have closers on bedroom doors or thought that wedging them during the day was acceptable, so long as the wedges were removed at night.

I think it would be really helpful if a clear policy was issued to all residential care homes insisting they fit Document M compliant closers, intumescent strips and cold smoke seals to to all bedroom doors as a minimum requirement to get their licence.

I would like to say and hold open devices or swing free's too but I 'm strugging to cope with demand for my systems already without added imputus!