Suppression So No Self Closers!

[AFD]

I think we all are clear here ' a freeswing' is a self-closing device, just with 100% flexibility built in.  We all know that fire resisting smoke stopping doors are a pain in the neck, particularly in resi care.

Residents cannot open them in day to day use, and they and staff want doors open for different reasons, so you cannot manage out the door being open without the assistance of some thing like a 'freeswing'.  

The residents are in a position of choices to have their door open or ajar, and they pay the bill, it is where they ,and CSCI will demand it.

And staff will be staff for residents care perspective, or to give themselves an easier life pushing trollies through, they will wedge it.   So a freeswing or similar is required, and as my original point cold smoke control is required.  

That is not code hugging, it is basic principle fire safety.

[slubberdegullion]

The new ADB 2006 para 3.52 page 43 does actually recommend that where sprinklers are installed that self closers may be omitted from bedroom doors, and allows a larger number of bedrooms in protected areas but goes on to point out that doors need then to be manually closed whilst residents are asleep.

It would be interesting to know the rationale behind this recommendation.

I've got a feeling that the recommendation found its way into ADB following the outcomes from the BRE tests on residential sprinklers.  Some of their tests looked at tenability levels in adjoining spaces with doors open and found that in many of the sprinklered cases conditions were not unfavourable.

And, personally, I'd rather have sprinklers and no self closers (but with, of course, a policy of shutting all doors at night) than self closers and no sprinklers.

Stu

[Clevelandfire]

Sprinklers are all well and good but what real benefit can we expect in a care home ?

Sprinklers dont control smoke and more often than not they cant save the person in the room of origin

AFD is still king with self closers.

Yes self closing doors can be propped but sprinkler systems valves can be shut off, detector heads can be covered etc etc.

[AFD]

You cannot have a policy of shutting bedroom doors.

The residents live there, it is their home and can have the doors as they want. They pay for that priveledge and CSCI defend their choice.

In homes with mental health issues staff want the doors open so they can hear and see the residents.

As well as this all homes are on minimum staffing levels at night, so do not say they will shut it if they hear the alarm you may have less than 4 staff to a 60+ bed  multi storey unit, and they are too busy checking for UWFS to be closing doors !

it is self closers that are required and to work they must have some form of control eg. freeswing.

Too many fire officers and consultants have agreed totally unachievable 'managed policies' for an easy life and return financial work.

[Paul2886]

You cannot have a policy of shutting bedroom doors.

The residents live there, it is their home and can have the doors as they want. They pay for that priveledge and CSCI defend their choice.

In homes with mental health issues staff want the doors open so they can hear and see the residents.

As well as this all homes are on minimum staffing levels at night, so do not say they will shut it if they hear the alarm you may have less than 4 staff to a 60+ bed  multi storey unit, and they are too busy checking for UWFS to be closing doors !

it is self closers that are required and to work they must have some form of control eg. freeswing.

Too many fire officers and consultants have agreed totally unachievable 'managed policies' for an easy life and return financial work.

AFD:
The rights of a resident to have their fire door held open extends to the adjacent residents who also have a right to be protected should a fire start within a neighbouring room. CSCI do not defend that particular choice unless the doors are held open by an approved device.

[AFD]

Exactly ! they must have the device !

So who as to provide it, not the resident, not CSCI, not the FRS. it is the owner , the Responsible person !  

CSCI will not let you evict someone who wants their door open, don't kid yourself.  To protect the others the responsible person must provide what the suitable and suuficient FRS as shown , a device , that looks after everyone.

[kurnal]

I agree AFD. It is the answer, it is the Responsible persons job to provide it.

From 1985 to 2006 we have all been telling the Responsible Person to create protected areas comprising up to 12 bedrooms and not to put self closers on bedroom doors.

Then came the U turn and knee jerk reaction to Rosepark  when we suddenly turn 20 years best practice guidance upside down and blame those moneygrabbing care home owners  for their reluctance to invest a further minimum £500 per room on swing free closers, new fire alarms etc - at very least £20k- in the average home. Effectively overnight.  

Meanwhile theres not many self closers or detectors or smoke seals or fire dooors or fire resisting partitions in the sleeping accommodation at the fire service college, and you can bet if they hadnt closed all the county council care homes down (because they couldn't make any money) they would have continued to lag way behind the private sector.

[AFD]

Many fire safety practioners (without a profit incentive) in those days , never believed in open fire doors.

The original concept of residential care as an industry started in the 60's and 70's when the welfare state kicked in, the standards applied were the standards found of that time i.e. old lathe and plaster, bits of supalux nailed onto the back of doors, tap tap and a knock tested doors, 25mm rebates . etc. etc.

Many fire authorities in the 90's realised that the figures of fires in residential care and the casualties were rising, and may be, before tomb stone law became the way, that a change was needed.

In the old days the most fire risk in a bedroom was bed side lamp.  Now its tv's, videos, DVD's, computers, hair straighteners and dryers, etc.etc. with all the other comforts of home creating a fire load.

Many brigades saw this,  and said a change was needed to those old standards of the 60-70's ( green draft guide 1982 what a joke ).  and adopted the unpopular in England and Wales HTM84. And tried to ugrade to the current standards of the time.

Now we have risk assessment and modern standards.  Knee jerk, do not make me laugh ! I think you have taken a fee in the past and now the chickens are coming home  to roost !

[kurnal]

Well not really AFD but I was hoping for a response.

No, wearing one of my former hats as  res care liaison officer for a brigade till comparatively recently, trying to make some sense of the green guides and local policies and to develop local MOAs,  having to report to the local Social services committee on the standards and progress in the county council owned homes and at the same time had my guys out enforcing much higher standards in the private sector.

Then meeting the private sector home owners at liaison meetings and taking the flak. Later along came the NCSC and then CSCI, sorting out and agreeing standards along with peers within the ever changing regions and again trying to smooth varying standards down into one levelish playing field.

And finally as customer of a care home where my Dad in Law  has been a resident for three years now, on a self funding basis as he whittles down his savings- I dont mind that except that the Social services funded residents are paying a heck of a lot less. And No - they havn't got self closers on their bedrooms yet. And No I have never done a risk assessment for them either- part of a national chain doing everything in house. If they dont put swing frees on my dad will hate it. Just as many of you  brigade guys when at Moreton sit in your room with the door ajar.

In my risk assessments I recommend self closers on bedroom doors and would prefer swing frees over standard wedged self closing doors. But that really is a major investment and its only fairly recently  that market conditions have improved  for the owners- many have had a very hard time of it for a number of years after the early boom years of the 80s.  So sympathies go both ways.

[Tom Sutton]

and adopted the unpopular in England and Wales HTM84.

Were can you get hold of the above document? I have the Scottish and Northern Ireland version but not the above.

[AFD]

Sorry I missed the punctuation " wales, HTM 84.  

To pre-empt your come back, The fire engineering 'guidance' document developed by the department of health for use in the UK, but dropped on change of political agenda, but still a valid improved 'guidance' document for residential care.

Where it was adopted does not matter, all guidance documents are not 'a legal act' they are documents providing practical guidance on how to achieve something, they have no legal status, but they can be classed as showing an attempt to comply with a certain act if issued for it ie the RRfsO documents, but you can use others.

Many in this country for 'mist systems' are quoting American standards is that illegal ?