Fire Resisting Glazing

[Steps]

My NHS Trust is primarily a mental health and learning disability service provider.  At one of our units a resident takes great care and effort in destroying all glazing in the FR construction.  Georgian wired is his favourite, he puts his fist through it, but more normally uses some kind of tool, he has been known to "post" other residents through the hole.  The situation is so serious that we have replaced all the glazing in the premises with a shatter proof material having no FR qualities at all.  The local F&R Service are not happy with our fire risk assessment and have served a notice on us under reg 5 of the FP(W)Regs.  Is there a product available with 30 mins integrity and stability in a fire situation that will also withstand the constant attention of a sorely disturbed and amazingly strong individual?

[wee brian]

Great question steps.

You can probably use some sort of laminate but it will be very thick and expensive. Talk to Pilkingtons and see what they have got.

It may be cheaper to put a steel grille over the glazing.

[jokar]

At last a proper fire safety question that needs a resolution.  The steel grille might help the individual to injure more people.  You could appeal the notice on the grounds that more people will be injured by the glazing being there than the shatter proof material.  All depends on the evacuation strategy of course, I personally would want to keep this person inside.  Just a quick question, are the residents kept locked in?

[Steps]

jokar, no this is not a secure unit, it's care in the community.  Having said that he and his fellow patients don't go out of the unit grounds alone they're always accompanied by a couple of staff.  
We are going to appeal the notice on those very grounds.  The doors with the laminate are in corridors, all risk rooms are fitted with free swing self closers on FR30 doors linked into the type L1 addressable fire alarm system.  If we have to replace the glazing we will but I think there's a greater risk of this chap injuring himself (and others) with the glass than dying in a fire.  Thanks for your help

[wee brian]

I'm not sure I would accept the argument that one risk is greater than the other. Safety is all about covering all risks to a reasonable standard.

Perhaps an assessment of fire risk could show that fire resistance was not necessary for this particular building. The shatter proof material will probably offer some fire protection even if it isnt formally FR.

[Pip]

may I suggest that he is not in the right accommodation?I would think that some one this violent needs to be somewhere more apprpriate, and not causing danger to either himself or others.
It does seem that he is more at risk of hurting himself/others than dying in a fire, but I don't think the solution is to reduce the F.R.-you could use that argument to get rid of F.R. anywhere.The person is the hazard with a high risk-that is what should be adressed.

[Chris Houston]

Can you not put the customer proof glass on the outside of the frame and the FR glass on the inside (or vice-versa if the customer is on the inside)?

[messy]

I'd echo Wee Brian's advice to contact Pilkingtons as I believe that they did some research for a London Mental Health Trust a couple of years ago into FR glazing in MHUs.

[Paul]

Having spent a fair bit of time in this very type of environment (no jokes please) I would suggest that arguing the case, based on the fact that any other such glass is more likely to injure both the individual and others.

What you will find though, in my experience, is that once the individual is unable to cause damage to the wired glass / replacement glass, they will direct their attention to something else, usually the fire extinguishers.

As you already have a good standard of AFd and if you are able to demonstrate a sound evacuation policy then I see little issue.  However, the problem with the evacuation policy can often be that in this type of premise, the occupancy type has a general stubbiness to evacuate.  If you can provide evidence that he is a danger to others then I would suggest having this individual removed to another more suitable premise this may be your answer, possibly secure or semi secure.  After all, this is not a fire safety issue, this is a case of violent behaviour that is putting others life at risk should a fire occur.

Not a straight forward resolution, although I guess in this instance you need the FSO to be reasonable, especially given your efforts already.

[Brian Catton]

There have been alot of good suggestions to solve this problem. The use of a properly fixed sheet of polycarbonate protecting properly fixed FR Glass on the risk ( risk of physical damage) side would be the answer.

The use of a metal grille would be out of the question due to the risk of ligature points.

With regard to the resident turning his attention to the fire extinguishers I would hope that these and fire alarm call points are under staff control.

I think the fire officer was right to issue the notice and that a meeting should be held between the FS, management of the unit and the  fire advisor to discuss the many issues arising from this type of resident.

Healthcare fire advisors have to be very careful when suggesting that a patient is in the wrong type of facility. Never the less the question could be raised, tactfully of course.

[Paul]

Brian,

As you say, you would hope that the fire extinguishers and MCP's are under staff control, but I should think you are just as aware as me that this is often the case due to staffing levels etc.  Afterall if there were that level of 'staff control' then the glass would not be an issue either.

Again, fully aware of raising the issue of re-occupying the resident, however I feel in this case there is sufficient justification.

Finally, I agree, best way forward is to with consultation with FSO and internal management team to resolve.

[Uncle Dave]

Don't put another sheet up to protect the fire-resistant glazing.

The glass needs to shed heat on the non fire side to maintain its stability.  If you put a layer of something on the non fire side it will prevent this heat loss, and lead to premature failure.

(If it is possible to identify the fire risk side, it may be OK to fit supplementary glazing on that side on the assumption that it will be burned off)

Dave