Fire Risk Assessments on Individuals?

[Geoff]

Hi folks,

This is the first time I've come to play on here so be gentle with me! LOL!

I'm the fire safety advisor for a housing association and we had an incident in one of our sheltered housing schemes the other day caused by a chip pan fire.  The fire safety officer came round after the incident and stated that there was to be a fire risk assessment needed for the building and the same needed for each individual within the scheme.  

The scheme has only recently joned our organisation and they have never had an FRA done and I have that programmed in for this month already, so please no comments on that!  What I am really after is your thoughts on the need for FRAs for individuals!  This is classed as an independant living scheme for the active elderly, i.e. people with little or no support needs.  It is also classed as an HMO and the residents have individual tenancies and we as an organisation take on the usual maitenance of the fixed systems, gas, water, electrical and the like.  All else is theirs as they are domestic dwellings!

I've never heard of this need for individual FRAs for people and cannot find any reference to it anywhere.  Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I would dearly like your thoughts on this as I could be looking at a couple of thousand assessments needing to be carried if this is a nationwide phenomenen.

Hears hoping for good news.

[PhilB]

The simple answer is no, there is no need for individual FRAs for each person.

Certain parts of the HMO are subject to the order and the responsible person will have to carry out a fire risk assessment for those parts. This would be the common parts . The assessment must consider all relevant persons and identify any persons considered to be especially at risk. However to carry a fire risk assessment for each individual would be a tad onerous. I had a similar enquiry from a manager of a residential care home.

The domestic parts are not covered by the order but are subject to the Housing Act and each dwelling should be assessed using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

[jayjay]

It is right that the RRO does not specificaly require a fire risk assessemnt for an individual.

However I was recently asked to provide an fire risk asssessment for a charitible housing association on an individual who had a history of fire setting and had threatened to set fire to the block of flats where she was housed.
Although I could not provide an assessment on the mental state of the person and the likelyhood of them starting a fire. I provided an assement on what would be the consequences if they started a fire within their accomodation or the common areas.

This assessment was needed for a court apperance when the housing association proposed to refuse housing to the individual.
The Judge accepted the assessement and housing was refused.

So. Where persons are known or likely to have fire setting tendancies, and this can some times happen in schools, it is in my opinion right to produce a risk assessemnt on an individual. Organisations such as Social Services or the Probation Service regularly produce risk assessments on individual so the inclusion of likely fire tendancies is essential.

In my fire training to schools and residential care premises I do advise supervisors and staff to produce an individual fire risk assessment where they have doubts or concerns regarding any person they suspect of having fire setting tendancies or in the case of elederly smokers, difficulty in using matches or lighters.
If the premises fire risk assessements "significant findings" identifys individuals as a possible cause of fire then the details should be recorded.

With regard to an individuals civil rights etc. in this situation I have no idea but I would still feel the need to record such concerns.

[jokar]

I just need to repeat what Phil has said, there is nothing in the Fire safety Order that requires an FRA for an individual and nothing that a member of a FRS can enforce on an individual or his/her domestic dwelling.  As regards JayJays comments above on assessments for individuals, I accept that it can be done but it is dangerous ground to make comments on individuals regardless of the circumstances, Civil Liberty comes to mind and Human Rights.

[kurnal]

Where care is provided, in a care home,sheltered housing or care in the community, and subject to the Care Standards Act then it is essential for the carers to produce a care plan for the individual - if I recall section 5 of the Care standards Act covers H&S matters.  This is essentially a risk assessment and it is absolutely right to include behavioural issues such as fire setting within the care plan but the findings are confidential between the carer and the service user, and the enforcement agency/ courts if it turns pear shaped.

It is the duty of the carer to have regard to the safety of others who may be affected by their work (HASAWA) - eg other service users and persons sharing the building.  If they care for someone who has mental health issues relating to fire then if offering to provide the  caring service they have a duty to manage it safely.

The RRO sits outside this and it would not be legal or appropriate to try and use the information obtained under a care plan under the fire safety order, as Jokar suggests.

[AM]

Agree with you, Kurnal. However, this isn't perfect. I dealt with a care home that had a small bedroom fire because a reading light fell into the occupants sock drawer. They had a personal risk assessment done and it identified that, becasue of the occupants mental health there should be no electrical items in the room, so TV, radio, heaters etc were taken out. However, there was a 'human rights' issue, where the reading lamp could not be removed. The fact that the occupant was nearly blind was by the by!

[jokar]

Just to go a little further on this then.  Under the new 5 step approach in the Guides, Item 1 is to identify the fire hazards.  If an assessment of an individual indicates that he/she is a fire hazards due to fire setting behaviour should this be included in the FRA.  In addition, in item 2, people at risk, should that person be included here as well as others who may be placed at risk because of the behaviour.  Item 3 of the template is about reducing the risk or coping with it in some way, therefore what control measures could be applied for fire?  I note the comments made by AM above within this thought process.

[messy]

I agree with Jokar that persons at particular risk have always needed to be considered in FRAs, but not individually!!!

However this can be useful, indeed, necessary

In mental health, service users are often treated using a bespoke individal care plan. The plan is devised during a care plan assessment by doctors, social workers and other professionals.

I have been involved at a number of such premises, where management have been wise enough to agree to consider the risk of fire posed by an individual during the that assessment. (thereby - in effect- partially reviewing the FRA due to changed circumstances)

For instance, the following areas would be considered: 1) The risk of that individual starting a fire, or 2) that individual being severely psychologically effected if a fire occured (and thereby may be difficult to evacuate).

On one occasion, a 'rubbish hoarder' in a single staircase hostel was identified as a 'fire risk' during such an assessment, as he would not keep his room door closed. He was subsequently moved to the top floor as not to cut off the escape route of others (as no other hostel would take him)

This simple approach was a nightmare to achieve as the medical staff saw this part of the assessment as 'non clinical'. It was only when I massaged their huge egos by suggesting that only they had the necessary skills to consider a patients mental health background, did they agree it was indeed a 'clinical assessment' and not not soley a fire risk (thereby an NHS Estates) problem.

[Redone]

Welcome Geoffbmcd,

I'll offer my bit on the issue and maybe expand it a bit, on an area not to far from yours, HEP's.

The RRO guidance seems to have set up the care industry for a fall... the need to produce an evacuation plan to empty the building without external assistance.

As mentioned Section 2 of the 5 part FRA - Identify People at significant risk;  

Take worse case, early hours, minimum staffing, Then you find a lot of people at risk; residents that need hoists, wheelchairs, residents under medication, bed bound, very poor mobility, blind, deaf, confused, agitated, violent... NEEDING assistance.

I guess they are at risk if they can't get out.

With the best will in the world fires are still going to happen

However as long as you do/have the following items from the guide everything will be fine…

Page 18 Residents’ room doors left open as long as equipped with suitable door closer.

Page 20 Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans for the residents.

P60 Locate less able residents on lower floors and reduce the size of compartments.

P70/76    Evacuate residents from the compartment found to be on fire to an adjacent protected area using available staff in 2 ½ minutes.

P71 Delayed Evacuation:  The guide does give an option which is interesting.  It is of creating protected bedrooms with 60 minute fire-rating on doors, partitions, etc for less mobile residents who would not be expected to be part of a delayed evacuation during the alarm for specific reasons, With the stipulation that a carer would have to stay with each resident in this category throughout the duration of the emergency, therefore this member of staff(s) would be over the required staffing level to run the establishment.  Lot of residents fit this category!  If the room is above ground, should the glazing be Pyro for insulation ?

P 72 FRA to show numbers of staff required to carryout the emergency plan.

So, L1 fire detection, addressable panels, repeat panels, self closers, compartmentation size to match staffing levels, preferably single story, saves on work required to bring the lift up to speed  (if it’s possible), fit sprinklers… ha.

Just a matter of time before we see the first court case.

Currently involved wth three I/O's who are looking to prosecute over staffing levels at homes that will close if served with the notice.

Only this promise has kept them away, the've told me!  The LA couldn't take the residents in as they are in exactly the same boat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the homes, but this result was obvious.

Most residential homes are actually nursing and nursing homes are part EMI, but not registered as such.  It's very rare to find a genuine 'Residential home'.

[Geoff]

Many thanks for your thoughts they have pretty much run in the direction I was leaning and have been very helpful.

I agree with those of you who say we should take the consequences of any behavioural/mental health issues that an individual may have into account when doing an FRA but we can only be guided by information we get from the professional care staff or similar.  I'm certainly not competent to decide that sort of thing!

Just one thought running on from Redone's comments has anyone come across any confilicts between what the RRO states needs to be done and the Care Standards Act?  Including the staffing level issues that seem to be coming along!

[PhilB]

There shouldn't be a conflict.

The Care Home Regulations make requirements for fire safety issues and require the registered person to consult with the fire authority.

The fire authority should remind the registered person of the need to comply with the fire safety order, if they do the fire authority do not need to get involved. They can audit those premises they identify as needing to be audited in their risk based inspection programme. If the home complies with the care home regulations it should comply with the order.

Incidently the Care Home Regulations are the firs that I have seen that make an explicit requirement for records of training and maintenance to be recorded.

Under the fire safety order it is implied in article 11 but not explicit.

[Geoff]

Thanks Phil.

Totally agree with you that there should be no conflict.  However if you take the point Redone made regarding the delayed evacuation and the need for a member of the care staff to stay with the service user until they are able to be evacuated (if the room has been made upto 1 hour protection and all the rest of it).  Now depending on the category of the home CSCI generally require a minimum of 3 waking night staff (I'm using homes for older people as an example), if you have an alarm activation it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could all have to stay with a resident who is unable to evacuate to the next safe area by themselves.  That may be a bit of an extreme example and indeed it is a bit simplistic but I do see it as a possible conflict between regulations.

Now I know that it is an issue of managing the risk and if more staff are needed to cover that risk then get them but the potential on costs of this are incredibly high and could indeed put a lot of homes out of business.  

I suppose I'm just a bit fed up of the lack of joined up thinking between different sets of legislation!  Oh well time to stop dreaming and come back to the real world!

[PhilB]

I think the point is Geoff that the new guidance for res care in my opinion is very poor. As you correctly point out it would not be reasonably practicable to provide enough staff for a stay put policy if you followed the new guidance.

[Geoff]

Totally agree with you on everything you have said, I'm just grumpy today! Lol!