Supported Bungalow - Delayed Evacuation

[keithflint]

I would be grateful for any thoughts or advice on this scenario.

I have recently completed an FRA survey on a supported bungalow which houses 4 physically disabled "service users". The bungalow has a central corridor of which is a kitchen, lounge, bathroom, toilet four SU bedrooms and a nightstaff bedroom. Only one staff member is present over night.

The kitchen is separated from the rest of the bungalow by fire resisting walls and doors. MOE is via the kitchen or via a second exit off the corridor.

The bedrooms do not have FR construction or fire doors.

One residents bedroom is fitted with a hoist and I was told he requires two staff members to get him into his wheelchair. The residents PEEP (for nightime) currently relies on delayed evacuation with rescue by the F&RS, as there is only one staff member available over night.

Has anyone assessed a similar scenario and what advise was given? My initial thoughts are that the bedroom would need to be upgraded to FR construction to support a delayed evacuation policy. I am told that employing two overnight staff is not an option.

Many thanks in advance.

[William 29]

MASSIVE can of worms this one, hence probably why you may not get too many straight answers!

Some points to kick it off:

Fire Safety Order applies as we know as it's a place of work and service users are unrelated, blah, blah...
There is no formal written national fire safety guidance on supported/assisted living type premises etc. (some fire authorities have had a go)
However do they live and operate like a family unit would?
Is the risk any greater than that of a comparable domestic bungalow with mum, dad, and 2 kids with disabilities where they can't self evacuate?
Was the Fire Safety Order ever intended to apply to such premises even though it does by virtue that someone is employed? (read the RRO carefully and you will find the answer)
What about same situation.....bungalow with service users, unrelated and a support worker comes in for 3 hours a day to help with dressing, personal care, meals etc. Does the RRO still apply??

The fire service seem to have a big issue over these premises types and you will get huge differences in approach over the Country, some "require" the full shooting match, all doors FD30s including self-closers (which rather nicely stops them moving around their own home) full part 6 interlinked AFD, emergency lighting(!) and while we are there a few fire exit signs and thumb turns on the final exit doors as keys are unacceptable?

There are 1000's of these property types, what did we do with them before 1st October 2006??

Just a starter for 10   

 

[Owain]

Would it be possible (as it's a bungalow) to have escape doors on the bedrooms directly to the outside, and with a suitable ramped exit and wheeled bed could the person who needs the hoist be evacuated in their bed by one staff member? I don't know if it's feasable under manual handling for one staff member to move an occupied hospital bed.

Of course employing a second staff member is an option, just one they'd rather not pay for.

[Dinnertime Dave]

There are 1000's of these property types, what did we do with them before 1st October 2006

Used the Housing Act. Suggest we still do.

Your right William they are a can of worms. I have come across these owned by an individual who rents them out to 3 or 4 individuals, all with separate tenancy agreements, they then pay for support from a separate company. Locally we have sat down with the care provider and the housing officer and come to an acceptable safe premises. As far as Enforcement is concerned the housing officer has taken the lead using the Housing Act. 

[William 29]

There are 1000's of these property types, what did we do with them before 1st October 2006

Used the Housing Act. Suggest we still do.

Your right William they are a can of worms. I have come across these owned by an individual who rents them out to 3 or 4 individuals, all with separate tenancy agreements, they then pay for support from a separate company. Locally we have sat down with the care provider and the housing officer and come to an acceptable safe premises. As far as Enforcement is concerned the housing officer has taken the lead using the Housing Act. 

So what fire safety provisions are they enforcing then? I think some FA's take the lead on this as the say the RRO is the primary legislation? It's different where ever you go to be honest.

[kurnal]

It is and I get the impression the local fire officers tend to make it up as they go. Different standards even within the same brigade. If housing officers are taking the lead on enforcement Dave which guidance are they using? lacors?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Yes, lacors, treat it as a shared house.

Whatever guide you use as long at the end of the process the premises is safe and everybody is in agreement then is that "better regulation"

[kurnal]

The Lacors guidance states that it does not apply in shared houses where care is provided?

I agree the right standard is what matters, not the source of guidance.  To me the main thing is fire prevention measures at night,  full detection LD1,  opening windows and decent door at least on the room from which the evacuation may be considerably delayed. Whether its right and appropriate to rely on the fire service for the evacuation of this individual is another moot point. It probably needs beefing up in that regard, a half way house might be  a call to a response team or local security firm to assist.

[William 29]

LACoRS is not the correct guide for these types of premises, I use my copy to put under the wobbly table leg in my office.

Kurnal my point is even with full AFD and escape windows etc the one staff member would not have the time to get the service user out of bed, into the hoist, into the wheel chair etc. So at what point do we accept that the risk has been reduced to ALARP and leave it at that?

The white goods I bet are under a PAT programme, there is a no smoking policy? A bedtime routine is in place, items are turned off that can be and all doors (solid notional doors) closed before the staff member retires to bed. Other than sprinklers or additional staff what else could be done to reduce the risk further? I think what some housing officers and fire officers are trying to achieve is zero risk and that is the issue that causes conflict.

This will only get sorted with a determination or a test case in Court.

[kurnal]

Agreed William. Funny but I was posting very similar comments to yours in another thread on a similar topic as you posted yours.
I assume you like me are looking at firenet whilst taking a break from writing reports on a Saturday night when we should be out on the town? Is there any hope for us consultants?

[William 29]

Yep sad I know, but we are very busy at the moment! :-)

[Dinnertime Dave]

What I think we need to recognise is that there are a number of different business models out there. Again it comes down to definitions of care and support.

The scenario in original post makes me uneasy. Is it a care home or not. I think it probably is, but this is easy to find out - Is the premises registered with CQC or the provider?

It goes over the magic number of 4 and as such if it is a care home it should have a higher standard of fire precautions. The premises as described doesn't sound suitable for delayed evacuation because of the lack of FR. The EP should not be reliant on the fire service for evacuation.

My scenario has always had less than 4, the residents receive support, the premises is not registered with CQC but the provider is. The residents attend day centres or other activities during the day and having met them them, they are more than capable of evacuation with minimal assistance. The care provider (support provider) is of the opinion that the premises are domestic and using kurnal's frequently used analogy if I employ a cleaner and a gardener it doesn't turn my house into a place of work. The premises has from memory an LD3 fire alarm, FR door to the kitchen, EL to staircase. No signage, fire blanket in the kitchen. These were enforced by the housing officer because we agreed that care isn't provided.

We could have challenged the domestic premises "defence" but why? All we would have done is changed words on paper. The fire precautions would not have changed greatly.

[keithflint]

Sorry I'm late coming back, but thank you for all the replies so far. The responses give me a few things to take up with the responsible person.

[nearlythere]

Is it a standard bed or one which can be wheeled? If the latter could be bed be used to move the resident?