Are H&S advisors over stepping the mark?

[wee brian]

They have to replace fire extinguishers when they are used. They ask what they have been used for and compare this with the national fire stats.

Its about as reliable as the stats produced using FDR1 forms.

However  the NHS keep their own stats and this shows that Nurses put out more fires than Fire fighters do. This is a more reliable system but produces similar figures to the industry figures.

I wouldnt worry too much about the exact numbers but it is clear that fire extinguishers do get used a lot and that not having them would be a mistake.

[Brian Catton]

I am pleased that the H and S Advisor is not employed in our NHS Facilities Consortium. If we told 7000 staff in 250 buildings not to use PFE why would we have them in the premises at all. As far as training every member of staff is concerned we try to cover that by including PFE training in our annual fs talk.
Imagine giving practical training to all. 10 persons per session. 700 sessions, 200 working days. 3.5 sessions per day. I cannot fully agree with the member that said training is not necessary but we have to be sensible. We are going to train staff according to a training needs analysis (as soon as the DOH  change the present mandated fire safety training regime) This will mean analysing where the fires are most likely to occur (historical evidence) and training the staff in those areas.
In the meantime I believe that instructions on the equipment is not sufficient and recommend the user signs above each extinguisher.
We had an incident recently where a nurse successfully extinguished a blaze in a microwave oven in the middle of the night on a ward. She unplugged it and used a fire blanket. Job done. She remembered the theoretical training we had given to her. The only injuries I can remember in ten years (hospital treatment for smoke inhalation) occurred when four nurses tackled a fire using a hose reel. Thankfully all hose reels in patient areas have now been removed.

[messy]

They have to replace fire extinguishers when they are used. They ask what they have been used for and compare this with the national fire stats.

Its about as reliable as the stats produced using FDR1 forms.

However  the NHS keep their own stats and this shows that Nurses put out more fires than Fire fighters do. This is a more reliable system but produces similar figures to the industry figures.

I wouldnt worry too much about the exact numbers but it is clear that fire extinguishers do get used a lot and that not having them would be a mistake.

All extinguisher supliers need to sell and what better way than manipulating stats to suit their marketing and sales needs. (obviously I am not suggesting a fine company Chubb do this..ahem)

So I agree, NHS stats are probably more reliable, indeed if anyting they may well underplay the actual situation as I have known many an incident in NHS premises not be properly reported (mainly due to staff not knowing the system)

[wee brian]

I think we are all in agreement that fire extinguisers are a good idea.

Brain C makes a good point about training. we can't realisticly put everybody through a practical course but theoretical training is a good start with practical stuff for those most likely to need it.

Over time you find people move around so eventually the word does spread. I did some about 10 years ago and I have worked for two other employers in that time.

[AnthonyB]

Not just Chubb actually - FETA statistics have been collated for over a decade via all FETA member companies.

Fire Service figures are not truthful either - they can only count fires they have attended - the many fires extinguished quickly by PFE that do not result in a brigade attendance are not recorded in their figures which can also give false results.

[wee brian]

Are the stats on FETA's web site? - I couldnt find them

[Gasmeter]

The figures are in the 'Joint Protocol on Portable Fire Extinguishers, produced by CACFOA, FETA & the LGA; its available for download in PDF format at www.fire-uk.org.

[Gasmeter]

This is the exact link:  http://www.fire-uk.org/PDF%20DOCS/FETA-CACFOA-LGA%20Protocol.pdf

[wee brian]

Cheers

[Mike Buckley]

Nice debate but back to the first point. The problem, as I see it, comes from the way H&S is  being used or abused particularly in liability and litigation. If someone who is not trained to use PFE is injured whilst doing it all hell breaks loose and the first thing you get is letters from the no win, no fee lawyers claiming that the company was negilgent in not training the person to use the PFE, they hadn't had the manual handling training, the process of fighting that particular type of fire had not been Risk Assessed and the assessment had not been made known to the employee. Hence the instruction has to go out if you are not trained, don't use it.

At the end of the day I think that the insurers have a lot to answer for where they pay out for small claims without fighting. The employee looks at it from the angle they can get a holiday out of the claim, the lawyers get their share and the premiums go up.

[Chris Houston]

At the end of the day I think that the insurers have a lot to answer for where they pay out for small claims without fighting.

I think that's both harsh and unfair.  

Think about it, why would any insurance company pay out if they thought they could defend it.  Obvioulsy they wouldn't.  They pay out when the insured party hasn't provided the evidence needed in court to defend a claim (or of course, if paying out is the correct thing to do, after all insured parties are sometimes negligent.)

[Mike Buckley]

They pay out when they consider it will cost them less to pay out than to fight it.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Back to the point of persons tackling fires .......

Even if appropriate training has been given to employees, they should only tackle a fire "if it is safe to do so and without putting themselves at risk" ...... down to their own risk assessment.

Training is given in a controlled environment where lack of intervention will not have drastic effects. When the crunch comes and the person is faced with a small but growing fire, they may decide that it's not worth trying to put out and evacuate.

Can they be forced to fight the fire? No, they can't.

How would it stand in court in a subsequent claim?

[Gasmeter]

If an employer makes a 'reasonable' effort to train staff in first aid fire fighting, that is sufficient under their FRA, then surely that's all that can be expected.

[Mike Buckley]

It comes back to the original point that if an employee has been given the appropriate training on first aid fire fighting then the "if safe to do so......" instruction will stand. However if an employee has not been given appropriate training then the instruction must be not to attempt to fight the fire and evacuate.

I agree that trained employees can't be forced to fight the fire as the training should have emphasised the personal risk assessment aspect.

What would happen to a claim in court if an trained employee was injured fire fighting I don't know. My best guess would be that, provided no one had attempted to influence the employee's risk assessment and there were no other prosecutions, the arguement may well revolve around the adequacy of the training given and the competence of the trainer. However the only real answer will come when there is a court case.