I also agree with Kurnal's view that 'fire risk' should be covered during an individual's care plan assessment which is generally undertaken by medical staff.
Most medical professionals I have dealt with would be quick to argue that there is a human rights issue here as this information is personal and confidential and as such should only be recorded in medical notes rather than publically available records such as an FRA.
!
Yes and no.
I think some people have misunderstood what Ive been trying to say .
Yes the implementation of individual service user risk assessments is definately a management issue - but it has to tie into the general fire risk assesment for the premises where applicable.
In order to determine the general fire precautions required for the premises you have to undertake a fire risk assessment. In a FRA you will normally consider the occupancy of a building and whether people are ambulant etc.
That would be acceptable for standard commercial premises.
Now consider institutions for the mentally impaired and the like...
You should be assessing any occupant whom might put others occupants/staff/visitors at risk due to their condition etc.
That means a GENERAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL should be undertaken which must then feed into the fire risk assessment if required.
Im not asking you to Name Names on the fire risk assesment.
It isnt a fire risk assesment of the individual but its results or findings may highlight additional safety concerns that need to be addressed.
Are you telling me service users aren't assessed for say violent tendencies.
If a member of staff is seriously hurt because a service user knifed them would you stand up in court and say " Sorry we did assess that MR BLOGGS was violent but because of patient confidentiality we couldnt actually tell our staff that he was violent"
This issue is and should be part of your FRA. WHo is going to see the FRA ? Members of the public? No of course not.
Also remember that confidentiality does not superseed safety.
If you put service users at risk through inadequate FRA and General Fire Precautions you will find yourself on the end of a serious case prosecution.
Someone mentioned that if a non smoking tenant is replaced by a smoking one the FRA has be re-done - well of course it doesn't but it should be reviewed and if any new significant findings are highlighted then fair enough. In a "normal" risk care home that won't be an issue as such. But you should still show youve considered the risk even if it ammounts to no further action required.
If however it is a service user with arsonitic tendencies then it becomes a much bigger issue and can not be ignored.
If someone has a history of arson of course they need to be assessed - the confidentiality issues attached to this are neither here or there - To prove a management failing has taken place the fire officer is legally entitled to look to see if such assessments were undertaken when gathering evidence for a prosecution or serious case offence.
And I would suggest that (and this is simply IMHO) if such assessments weren't in place then you could find yourself in very hot water if things went to court.
Think on.
