Inner Rooms

[Paul2886]

When is an inner room not an inner room? We probably all know the rules about inner rooms and access rooms re. vision panels and detection etc.
A client of mine has insisted that the status of an inner room room has been removed simply by removing the door between it and the access room.
So advice please, is it still an inner room, or does in now form part of the access room and if yes; how wide does the now permanant opening need to be before it all becomes one room.
Incidently both the rooms are being used as bedrooms in a resi home. Now its claimed that it's one bedroom with two clients sharing.  Hmm

[nearlythere]

It all looked pretty a simple issue until the last sentence. I would say it is still an inner room.
If a room is made bigger you should be able to swing a bigger cat in it. Can you do that in this case?
Sorry to make light of it so early in the morning.

[nearlythere]

Had my caffeine fix so in better form to give an opinion.

I don't think the labelling is the issue but more of the layout of the two rooms and why we apply VPs or AFAs.
The main question is will the fact that it is a sleeping arrangement be an issue. Some will say that it should not provided the compensatory factors are applied. Myself I have to say that, being a code hugger, especially when it comes to sleeping risks, I would go for the inner room bit where codes say that, other than for dwellings, they should not be used for sleeping.

If the codes did not say it I would be inclined to assess it as probably OK.

[Midland Retty]

It all comes down to the travel distance (if you can get to exit with 6metres) then in principal there shouldn't be too much of an issue however by virtue of that it would mean that both rooms wouldnt be very big.

And also CSCI may not accept that scenario as all service users should be entitled to privacy, and clearly if the door is removed the resident of that bedroom clearly wouldnt have any privacy.

[Paul2886]

CSCI do accept shared rooms. You see my point here it was a simple scenario. When first visited as it was an inner bedroom. Now the door is removed claims are that it's now one room.
So the question is, does the removal of a 762mm door alter its status and if not, what size of permenant opening would.  Both rooms have smoke detection within. Is it too early in the day for this?

[jokar]

A number of issues here of course.  The new code higger guides allow the access room to be used for sleeping so thats ok.  The term is now adequate vision and you will have that if you can see from one room to another.  Travel distance is always a key feature and should meet the single distance of travel tables unless risk assessment means otherwise.  My question is about the Fire Alarm system and where the detection is sited inthis sleeping risk premises?

[jokar]

For me, our post crossed by the way, with detacetion that will give arly warning provided the travel distances are ok, I would not consider it an inner room.

[Paul2886]

Thanks for your comments. However the question of adequate vision is not my concerns.
My problem is that if any removal is required of the resident in the 'inner room' it will only be done by staff members as its a nursing home.
The resident, like most in nursing homes, will not react to a fire alarm sounding or the visible signs of smoke. If a fire occurred in the 'access room' then that person at the rear is not reachable by staff. The FA made no mention of this situation on a recent visit.
Does it just require specific staff fire awareness training and careful look at any potential heat sources in the 'access room' to make the risk acceptable?

[nearlythere]

A number of issues here of course.  The new code higger guides allow the access room to be used for sleeping so thats ok.  The term is now adequate vision and you will have that if you can see from one room to another.  Travel distance is always a key feature and should meet the single distance of travel tables unless risk assessment means otherwise.  My question is about the Fire Alarm system and where the detection is sited inthis sleeping risk premises?

Jokar.

An access room has always been allowed as a sleeping risk. What did you mean?

The vision bit is not an adequate compensatory feature for inner rooms which are used for sleeping. When someone is asleep there is no vision of any adequacy.

A risk assessment will always mean otherwise if the travel distance is in excess of the code.

As a matter of interest does anyone have a label for non code hugger? Respectfull answers only please.

[Pip]

As a matter of interest does anyone have a label for non code hugger?

try 'heretic' or 'philistine !!! :-)

[wee brian]

an artiste

[Pip]

'outlaw'

[nearlythere]

What about "Misguided One"?

[Big T]

I think the removal of the door doesn't necessarily make the inner room issue go away. If that was the case then under advice for the inner room situation the guidance would mention "remove the door" as one of the 3 options to get around it. I would suggest removing the door is not enough. The door must go and the plasterboard/bricks above it all the way to the ceiling.

Realistically it is still an inner room and because it is used as sleeping accomodation a smoke detector is required in the access room.

A non code hugger is known as an "asset" or "cost effective"

Please note "assets" are not to be confused with "incompetant, live life on the edge, nut jobs"

[nearlythere]

When is an inner room an inner room is probably a little like the question of what is the difference between a boat and a ship?

Well, put simply, the boat is the thing you get into when the ship is sinking