CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers

[kurnal]

It does sound as though the fire officer has got rather too carried away with enthusiasm. We would surely require detection in every room leading onto the single staircase in a 3 storey HMO sprinklers or not.

There has been talk of some relaxation on the standards of doors in such circumstances for many years. The new ADB gives some general advice and referral to a research document but is thin on specifics. The BRE research document on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers that was commissioned by the ODPM  was criticised by many supporters of sprinklers, who felt rightly or wrongly  that some of the methodlogy in the experiments was flawed. Many were hoping for greater and more specific design freedoms.  Much work on this topic was done by the National Fire Sprinkler Network, and in particular an officer of the Hertfordshire fire and rescue
service produced a draft to this end. No need to mention the officers name- his work promoting sprinklers is well known within and outside the brigade.
 Although this work has no official standing it is a useful insight into the way many serving fire officers view sprinklers and had many supporters nationally. I could dig a copy out if you cannot find it on the www.

[stevew]

Thanks wee brian, short and straight to the point.

Thanks kurnel I must however clarify that detection would be required in all rooms opening off as well as in the staircase. Does not change my concerns.

 I will search the web for the draft, if unsuccessful can I come back to you.

I will be writing to the particular FA and request confirmation as to their policy on sprinklers

[kurnal]

email me with a fax number or mailing adress and I will gladly  post a copy.

[wee brian]

Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.

The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.

Come come Wee B....that's not exactly what the 'Cleckheaton' tests or BRE Report found - certainly not regarding BS9251: 2005 systems.

Ok - I'll correct myself - If you are daft/drunk enough to stay in the room with a fire then domestic sprinklers could go off in time to save your life. The room will probably be full of smoke (less nasty but still no walk in the park.

Most people will just leave the room - its a fire they are bad for you. Of course you may be asleep - get a smoke alarm (less than a fiver these days).

[wee brian]

Staying on the sprinkler thread I attended a meeting with a fire officer today.
The meeting was in connection with a three storey single staircase HMO.   The view of the FA was that if a BS9521 system was installed there would be no need separate the risk areas from the staircase with fire doors.

It appears to me to be a good trade off for the client.  The only thing nagging away in my head is the fire officers comment that we want the smoke to enter the escape route to activate the smoke detection system .  With this type of premises I do not see occupants responding that urgently to an alarm.  My concern is that by the time they enter the escape route may be compromised by smoke.  

Does the arrangement work?  

Comments please.

Sorry I didnt respond in my usual detail.  I often hear people talking about leaving doors open to let smoke get to detectors quicker - This is very very very wrong, don't do it.

Whatever you think about sprinklers (I think they are great I'm just a realist). Its always best to have a closed door between the fire and the escape route. Yes leaving the door open will spead up detection but it speads up the loss of the escape route to. Thus the total time between detection and loss of tenability is much less.

[stevew]

Reasssuring to hear someone confirming my thoughts wee brian.  I fully support the use of domestic sprinklers however having been brought up on protected staircases, certainly in high life risk premises, I need more convincing on such a dramatic trade off.

I have on occassions been accused of going deaf although I call it selective hearing.  I will get my conversation with the FO confirmed in writing.

[Redone]

Lots of feed back on this topic, thank you very much everyone.  Reply from WF&RS FSO below.

BS 9251 is suitable for domestic dwellings and for residential occupancies
(HMO, blocks of flats, halls of residence, etc.).

Where sprinklers to this standard are fitted within residential care homes,
Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service will accept this as a trade-off in
connection with difficulties found by responsible persons in the
requirement for the immediate moving of non-ambulant residents out of an
affected compartment in case of fire.

No other trade-offs in terms of material alterations to the building will
be allowed unless a BS EN 12845 system is fitted.

Just to recap folks, my issue was the delayed evacuation of residents from care homes only, due to poor mobility, degree of assistance required, etc.

[jokar]

Can we go back a bit, under RR(FS)O the responsible Person has to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment as can as part of this choose to use the guidance issued by the Government to assist.  The outcomes of this FRA will be whatever the competent person has decided they are.  A fire authority has to enforce the provision of the RR(FS)O and may have a differing viewpoint on the decisions being made but they cannot impose requirements on the responsible person, they can ony suggest alternative solutions.  Therefore, the bit above with reagrd to WF&RS is absurd, they cannot dictate terms.

[stevew]

Firstly I support and encourage the provision of sprinklers in care premises.

The policy of progressive horizontal evacuation (phe) in care/nursing is workable.  I accept that in existing premises there may be individual residents that may require special arrangements.  To eliminate the premises phe policy on the basis of the inclusion of a sprinkler system concerns me.  

In new purpose built premises structural standards to assist phe can and should be included, principly corridor and door widths.  Certainly consider sprinklers however look at other trade offs, not a stay put policy.

Sounds to me that certain interested parties are looking at sprinklers to remove the need to review staffing levels for fire evacuation.   A concern for many care providers in the run up to ther Fire Safety Order.

The fire authority are entitled to a view however to dictate/influence what they will and will not accept conflicts with the risk assessment approach.  Get a competent person to carry out the assessment and let the FA  accept or challenge.  Unfortunately there are too many so called competent persons out there offering unreliable advice, however thats another subject.

[Pip]

I think to be fair, a fire authority has to set a benchmark standard for it inspectors to follow and for general guidance to the public, and if the RP does not like it and offers a suitable alternative,then that can be a process of negotiation between the two parties.

[Redone]

Stevew, Who's suggesting the removal of the PHE policy?  Name any care premise or group that is actively looking to remove the need to evacuate.

I'm not interested in new builds here, I'm trying to make a silk purse from a pigs ear, whilst attempting to give the staff a fighting chance of having a policy showing that current staffing levels can EVACUATE the residents in reasonable safety from the zone involved (and the room above the fire).

You can have doors the width of a barn and corridors the width of the M6, I'm not dealing with hospitals with beds that can be wheeled into the adjacent zone.  I'm talking of care homes where 50% - 95% of residents need assistance to get out of bed never mind leave the zone/floor/building.  

In the homes I deal with there may be individual residents who can move without assistance, I'm talking VERY FEW, they don't stay put as policy, the stay because thats all they can do, bless them.

No home will function if it cannot balance the books, or make a profit, the people holding the purse strings will not increase staffing levels whatever the assessor or RP recommends, be it on their head.  I do recommend an increase in staff where I believe it is appropriate, however the management deserve a greater selection of cures for their buildings ill's to choose from, there is no single cure all.

So.

A sprinkler system will hold the fire in check until the fire service arrives and possibly put it out - FACT.  So why not recommend it?  And why not take the trouble to find out if the system your recommending is a none starter because of the cost, looking efficient but wasting everyones time?  And why not try to find a more cost effective system that will satisfy all parties Owner/RP/FSO/BC?

Obviously the decision to install is with the occupier/owner.

[stevew]

Pip
Thanks. negotiation is a better word.
Redone
Reference existing care premises.  It is acknowledged that the registration authorities have for many years failed to  question required staffing levels for fire evacuation needs.   The Fire Safety Order now requires care providers to re-evaluate their fire evacuation strategy.  If they are satisfied that it is appropriate taking into account benchmark standards then ok.  However we must be careful not to readily accept double standards for those residents who dont fit readily into the general strategy.

You refer to those residents who only stay put because they have to.  They have always been there with their individual fire safety needs.  

I agree with your comments that the care provider has to balance the books.  All I am saying is that there are a number of cures for existing care buildings without having to leave residents in their room.  Cures that do not necessarily need additional staff.