Fire alarm proposals for nursing homes

[Rosjes]

In a nursing home, what are the dB(A) requirements at 1). Bedhead and 2). Elsewhere throughout building?
Thanks in advance!

[The Colonel]

As I understand it, Bedhead 75db, other areas 65db or 5 db above back ground sound level

[Allen Higginson]

I thought that as nursing homes were 24/7 that,due to the nature and condition of resident, that thr 75dB at bedhead was not applicable. Common sense says that it's not advisable to be blaring out the fire alarm within te sleeping areas = 80YO with heart condition is a sure fire spare bed in the morning.

[Benzerari]

I thought that as nursing homes were 24/7 that,due to the nature and condition of resident, that thr 75dB at bedhead was not applicable. Common sense says that it's not advisable to be blaring out the fire alarm within te sleeping areas = 80YO with heart condition is a sure fire spare bed in the morning.

I share this idea, we are in charge of many hospitals and nursing homes, and all the new refurbished wards now have I/O flashing units instead of sounders and bells fitted at bed heads, only corridors have sounders... also the system is monitored any way for any fault or fire conditions by AMX software in switch board office and security offices, in addition to the 24/7 presence of nurses around there, the bed head as I said have now I/O flashing units... so in case of a genuine fire, patients are not going to run away on their own any way…

[Ricardo]

In a nursing home, what are the dB(A) requirements at 1). Bedhead and 2). Elsewhere throughout building?
Thanks in advance!

Under BS 5839-1, you can drop SPL in bedrooms to 65dB(A) if the alarm signal is not intended to wake sleeping people (as it becomes a day time risk in effect).  SHTM 84 allows lower levels as I recall.

[messy]

I have just had a look of some brief notes from a healthcare job a couple of years back and found some remarks about the AFD  system installed there:

The fire alarm system was designed to alert staff (not designed to wake patients) and had sounders set at 45- 55dB(A), or 5 dB(A) above the notional/ambient noise level.

During the design stage it was agreed to assess each specific location with an aim that it was preferable to install a large number of 'quiet' sounders, rather than a few very loud sounders to prevent noise levels in these key areas becoming too loud

Alternatively visual alarm devices (no more than 130 flashes a minute and fitted with low level sounder to alert staff - 5db(A) I think) were provided as an alternative to alarm sounders in areas where an audible alarm was clinically unacceptable (ie ITU and neonatal which are permanantly manned and fairly quiet locations).


This sytem was deemed HTM compliant

[Ricardo]

Messy
That all sounds logical to me, would your paperwork, and this particular job have recorded these SPL's as an accepted variation to BS 5839-1:2002, which was also accepted by all relevant parties, and that it met with your HTM?

[Ricardo]

I notice that the res care guide for England and Wales in Section 2 says the following about SPL's,

In sleeping areas, to ensure that people are woken, a sufficient sound level should be achieved at the head of the bed (i.e. 75dBA). This will usually mean fitting a sounder in each bedroom. Where this is not desirable, e.g. because this might cause alarm to people who are dependant on staff to help them escape, then a sound level of at least 45dBA should be available throughout the premises to alert staff and others who are awake. Where staff sleep on the premises, a sound level of 75dBA should be provided at the bed head in staff bedrooms.

[messy]

Messy
That all sounds logical to me, would your paperwork, and this particular job have recorded these SPL's as an accepted variation to BS 5839-1:2002, which was also accepted by all relevant parties, and that it met with your HTM?

Yes, that was exactly the case. The Trust's Fire Consultant proposed the system/variations and recorded it on the Fire  Risk Assessment. Following a site meeting, demonstrations & scrutiny of the entire fire safety strategy, we (LA Fire Service) were more than happy with it and the Trust's Chief Executive later signed it off as HTM compliant.

Not all my colleagues were convinced and a sizeable 'code hugging' minority of dinosaurs had to be won over!

The tricky issue was the low volume of the sounders - 5dB(A) I believe- which were attached to strobes. However, the end result was that the safety of service users & other relevant persons was protected in a balanced way by the installation of a AFD system which would give early detection and alarm, but would have a minimal clinical effect on the most vulnerable patients especially in the event of UwFS.

Everyone went home happy (for a change!!!)

[Ricardo]

Messy
Not all my colleagues were convinced and a sizeable 'code hugging' minority of dinosaurs had to be won over!
Everyone went home happy (for a change!!!)

I do love a happy ending, your comments above remind me so much of my own beloved CH colleagues.

[Redone]

Reminds me of a social education centre I attended that had a false alarm,  a service user ripped the sounder off the wall, wouldn't heed advise to install system at reduced volume.