Author Topic: Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest  (Read 13391 times)

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2007, 09:59:04 AM »
Quote from: kurnal
The significant changes affecting care home owners- such as defend in place and its implications, the requirement for self closers on bedroom doors in the former "protected areas" a need for evacuation plans based on clearing a zone within 2.5 minutes are hidden away in a 160 page document and were largely unannounced. The changes and publicity were purposefully low key for political reasons and the guides issued at the last possible moment.
Thanks for those links, (more info I was not aware of), but it was the above guide I was intrested in and was it Health Technical Memorandum 05-01: Managing healthcare fire safety.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2007, 11:35:09 AM »
OK Tw
The document is the guidance for residential care premises issued by the DCLG.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firesafetyrisk5

The reference to the evacuation of sub compartments within 2.5 minutes is on page 70, the reference to delayed evacuation by increasing the fire resistance of bedrooms to 1 hour and providing extra staffing  ("defend in place" seems to be adopted as the term in common use) is on page 71, and the need for self closers on all doors protecting corridors is on page 85 and on 125.
There are other very significant changes such as dead end areas, fire resistance of walls lining corridors between the new guidance and the previous in force until 31 September 2006.

Offline Tom Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2287
Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2007, 11:57:26 AM »
Thanks Kurnal I have that one, I must get a round to reading it, I am glad it was not HTM 5-01 at £75 a throw I am not that interested.
All my responses only apply to England and Wales and they are an overview of the subject, hopefully it will point you in the right direction and always treat with caution.

Offline Nearlybaldandgrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2007, 01:29:29 PM »
There is a very balanced arguement throughout this thread.

In relation to responsible persons not knowing about the change, didn't the Government send out letters to all businesses in the UK to inform them of the change or am I mistaken?
Basically, the Government should have run a full on advertising campaign, other that a few adverts on Radio 4 or whatever it was, to raise awareness.

I can't speak for other IO's but prior to The Order coming into force, I informed all persons I dealt with of the forthcoming change ... and the steps to take to ensure compliance. If they have chosen not to act, is that my fault?

One year on from the introduction of the legislation, I don't feel alot has changed. There are still hotels that have insufficient detection to protect relevant persons, there are still care homes that do not have suitable and sufficient numbers to implement the emergency procedures and there are literally thousands of premises which haven't even been looked at.

If I own/operate a business, it is my responsibility to find out what legislation I have to comply to. Simple really.

Offline AFD

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Redcar Residential Care Home Fire Death Inquest
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2007, 10:25:33 PM »
For the last X years FRS did not enforce it in resicare, even with the workplace regs. fire authorities have worked with CSCI ( or what ever they were called that month) and not enforced it, they have advised CSCI who have for political reasons have left things to drift. Most CSCI inspectors are shall we say delicate, and moved on from responsibility for a home, to another home usually for personal child care reasons.
 
The CLG told FRS to prioritise resicare and hospitals, so if they have not audited in the last 12 months they are failing.

The consultants are all telling them different things, except they all say you should have me back in 12 months ( yum yum).

Where the FRS have audited , some are making it up on the hoof, some are stating it is satisfactory, even when it has not even heard of the green guide, little red fire engine guide or a girls guide !

There are a lot of responsible owners who have tried to take charge of their fire precautions in their homes but have been told one thing by consultants another by FRS, and they do not know if they are on their a**e or their elbow, yes there is also bad ones who will employ the poor consultants who tell them what they want, and the consultants take the money and run.  Or even owners who do not bother at all and still can get a satisfactory audit from either group. And FRS who are then the villains ( in some cases deservedly) for trying to sort something out.

As to the comment on the pay rise for FRS ! What planet are you on ? that was engineered to destroy the fire service
( standards of fire cover, attendance times etc.) and bring in the IRMP, if you do not believe that, read the guides and legislation. Which now means if we target resicare , hospitals,  which are high political and community loss ( see paragraph 2) we can, with onerous dodgy 2.5 minute etc. guidance, we can get suppression by stealth and close fire stations.

It has always been the case that deaths in domestics are not a political problem, deaths in commercial under 6 in number do not create a political outcry.  But multi deaths in a care home that have a minister involved or lose an hospital and bu**er up target times for operations, dear oh dear, then it needs sorting !

Stop pointing fingers, ( not that I have ! ) and with a combined voice of 'concientous' professionals, we could get things uniform and fair, but the more I read these forums, I realise there is 60% in it for their bank accounts only, and 20% in it for politcal reasons only and 20%  ( generous) actually want it right.

Sorry for last section on getting it right , still in dream world !