Stay put policy

[shaunmckeever]

Does anyone advocate a stay put policy, and if so, under what circumstances?

[Brian Catton]

Every Specialist Fire Safety advisor in the NHS would advocate stay put policy, at least in part.

This is part of the phased horizontal evacuation principle described in Firecode where the only persons moved are the persons that are affected, or likely to be affected by the fire.

Of course if this principle is to be used effectively the following has to be ensured.

That the building is designed to have properly separated Fire resisting compartments and where necessary, sub compartments

The fire alarm system is a two stage system where the boundary of each fire alarm zone is the same as the compartment line.

The staff are trained by a competent trainer to understand the PHE principles and a clear fire evacuation procedure is in place that is regularly practised.

[messy]

How about PHE for similar occupants (who might be difficult to evacuate) such as a children's Nursery??

[Ken Taylor]

Can we describe progressive evacuation as simply 'stay put'?

[Brian Catton]

Ken
I do not think it is as simple as that, it depends on the situation. As I said PHE is a combination of stay put and PHE.

Messy

As a general rule stay put what not be applied just beacause persons are difficult to evacuate. An assessment has to be made that includes staff to dependant ratios and the design of the building. You will have to give us more info if we are to discuss your particular scenario. As you are aware the management have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the occupants which includes evacuation where appropriate.

[shaunmckeever]

I am looking at a stay put policy for student accommodation. As we all know students are not very responsive when the fire alarm operates, but I am also concerned that they regulalry leave open fire doors and defeat other fire protection methods. So long as the construction is right I am wondering if the stay put policy is the best approach.

[TallyHo]

shaunmckeever

I assume that you are talking about them staying put in their rooms and not moving to an unaffected part of the building.

I know that it can be difficult to get a student to respond to anything; and to actually get them out of bed before midday is nigh on impossible.

However, if they are ABLE to evacuate the building WITHOUT ASSISTANCE then, in my opinion, that’s exactly what they should be doing.

As for the construction and compartmentation being right; its extremely rare to come across a building with adequate fire stopping and all fire doors doing the job that they were designed for.  Even if it is today, you can’t guarantee that it will be tomorrow.

[saddlers]

It could depend on the "student accommodation" if you are discussing flats that are occupied by students, then the "stay put" method may be suitable, as it would be in standard apartments.

Colin G.

[TallyHo]

I totally agree Colin, but I assumed that he was referring to ‘halls of residence’; otherwise I doubt that he would be asking the question in the first place.

[FORRIE]

Reference STAY-PUT POLICY many local authorities have a stay-put policy for sheltered accommodation, with certain cretia to be met: following a fire risk assessment,the building meets an approved standard of construction. BS 5588: Part 1:1990 or CP3, an approved fire alarm system throughout, with a category L2 AFD [at least] acceptable fire safety management
 procedures confirmed in writing suitable trained staff with recorded training, any system of ventilation in accordance with BS 5588: Part 9. Good history of fire precautions, no fires ect:
 No blanket policy for stay-put, each examined on it's own merits. I would not regard progressive horizonal evacuation methods in hospitals as
stay-put procedures. Hope this is of some use for debate.

[TallyHo]

I personally would not stay in a burning building even if there was a 'stay put' policy in place and I see no reason why ABLE BODIED persons who can evacuate WITHOUT ASSISTANCE should be told to 'stay put'.

I don't know the full circumstances of this fire, but I think it is a timely reminder of what could happen when considering 'stay put' policies.


 Saturday, 9 December 2006, 14:59 GMT
One dead in sheltered house fire


A woman died and 13 other people were trapped by smoke when a fire broke out at sheltered housing flats.

The fire started in a ground-floor flat at Cherry Orchard, Prestwood, in Buckinghamshire, on Friday afternoon.

Firefighters carried 12 people through smoke filled corridors to safety, while a member of the public rescued another.

Thames Valley Police and Bucks Fire and Rescue Service are investigating the cause of the fire but it is not being treated as suspicious.

'Restricted mobility'

At the peak of the fire, about 50 firefighters and officers attended the scene.

Assistant Chief Fire Officer Andy Hickmott said: "Firefighters quickly brought the fire under control and mounted an outstanding rescue operation under difficult and exhausting circumstances.

"Given the nature of the building, and the fact that some of the residents had restricted mobility, they were unable to get out of their rooms without assistance.

"But for the professionalism and thoroughness of the firefighters, there could have been many more deaths."

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with DaveyH, the best option for everyone is to get out of the building that is on fire. That is where they are safest. However there are circumstances where for specific reasons a stay put policy would give a safer option for the occupants principally restricted mobility. Here the demon risk assessment raises its head. I see the relevance of the fire in Bucks but the report states that the fire stared in a flat. If the fatality was in that flat then the stay put principal worked. Yes 12 people were safely evacuated by the fire service but that is what is meant to happen.

As far as student accomodation is concerned then, unless there is a specific reason such as disability, the stay put option must be a non starter. Granted the problem of getting students to respond is a different kettle of fish but why should we reduce our aims just because we have failed to educate them as to why they need to evacuate?

[jokar]

If a defend in place option is agreed then surely the fire alarm system should be a staff alert system.  Logic would state that if you want residents to "stay put" then being awaken or moved by the warning from a fire alarm defeats the object of this in the first instance.  Mike, the FRS job is not too evacuated that is the roel of the RP.  FRS rescue people.  Even with a defend in place policy for evacuation there has to be a thought process for second stage evacuation.  Defend in place is not PHE, it is something entirely different.

[Ken Taylor]

The nearest I can equate with the term 'stay put' is with many modern blocks of purpose-built flats. In my understanding progressive evacuation is precisely that - even if the FRS arrive and deal with the fire before persons in more remote zones have been required to evacuate.

Sheltered accommodation is generally a candidate for PHE but with generally short horizontals, it can soon require vertical evacuation - albeit progressive.

Halls of residence tend to have a number of common areas and will usually require evacuation. This necessitates provision for assisted evacuation of non-ambulant residents - or, at least, careful allocation of accommodation.

[Tom Sutton]

I am with you Mike B, “a defend in place option” is the last resort and Jokar "the FRS job is not too evacuated that is the role of the RP" their role or not, when they arrive, depending on the severity of the fire, they will evacuate.