Phe

[Mark Riley]

In a res care home providing the FRA is detailed enough and not just the tick box type then, depending on the location of the fire to the refuge area there may be no need to evacuate at all. where possible you should PHE into a compartment where it is possible to futher progress into another compartment should the need arise. in Martin's case if the stairs are lobbied then your FRA could state that disabled evac from the refuge will only take place as a last resort after all you do not discount a staircase if it is lobbied. But this does not mean that you can just abandon a non ambulant person in the refuge. With regard to smoke seals and intumescent strips these are not the panacea that most people think. The ability of a door to hold back heat and smoke depends on how well it sits in it's frame, a good fitting door with an inch rebate will hold back heat and smoke better than most of the new doors i have seen recently with seals and strips fitted. Just because it is old fahioned does not mean it is bad, although i can't convince my wife of that...

[Ken Taylor]

There can be other problems and user-resistance to the use of evacuation chairs, Martin. The supplementary guide for the means of escape by disabled people states:

Disabled people may not feel confident using these
chairs and it is not always possible for wheelchair users to transfer into an
evacuation chair or to maintain a sitting position once seated in one. Therefore,
evacuation chairs should not be considered as an automatic solution to the
escape requirements of wheelchair users.
It is unlikely that an evacuation chair will be of much use unless both the user
and the operator are well trained and familiar with the piece of equipment. It
is essential that when they are purchased a suitable training system is also
implemented. Regular practices should also take place. In most instances,
these may not need to include the disabled person, although some may
wish to practise being moved in the evacuation chair. It is more appropriate
for the people who are trained to operate the evacuation chair to take it in
turns during practices rather than involve the disabled person. This will also
increase their confidence in using the equipment. Using an evacuation chair
may put the disabled person at risk from injury, so it is best to limit their use
by disabled people to the real thing.

If the premises doesn't have a an evacuation lift (or fire-fighting lift) you could look into whether an existing lift could be converted for this purpose in accordance with the BS.

[Ken Taylor]

Incidentally, I see that Health Technical Memorandum 05-03: Operational provisions Part J: Guidance on fire engineering of healthcare
premises was published yesterday.

[Martin]

Thanks for that Ken.
You have described very clearly all the drawbacks to evac chairs. I work for an LA and as part of our DDA activities we area making more of our buildings accesible. Some of our local managers are in danger of buying evac chairs (£6oo a go) as some sort of talisman to fend off inspecting fire officers.
I am looking at risk assessing use of existing lifts as means of escape though I suspect I am on  a bit of a loser with that idea.
Ps Apologies for straying away from Phased Horizontal Evacuation.

[kurnal]

Whilst we all agree that evacuation chairs have many disadvantages they do have a considerable role to play in many buildings in the absence of any other reasonably practicable solution.
Yes they should be engineered out of all new build in the ideal world (although the new ADB recommends wheelchair refuges here there and everywhere without regard to how they may be used) but this is far from an ideal world and the shifting sands of standards and policies make evac chairs the only realsitic solution to most of the problem in many buildings.

Take one of my clients as an example-  victorian town hall in which a hydraulic and platform lift were installed in the early 90s to give access to the first floor. Consultation took place with fire authority and building control and refuges were created in protected areas (30min). At the time the fire authority were happy to take responsibility for the removal of persons from refuges and their response to the building regulations consultation recommended changes to the final exit door hardware to give them access from outside the building direct to the refuge. This is no longer the policy in 2007- quite rightly so- but where can we go from here?

Our response has been to install evac chairs and train staff/ premises supervisor in their use. From surveys of building users we think that this strategy will work for 90% of visitors to the building 80% of the time.  Otherwise we would have to upgrade the fire protection in the building to allow defend in place strategy- but even then we will still need a plan for ultimate evacuation.  

Is it acceptable to say to a very ill person who for health reasons cannot be transferred from their heavy powered wheelchair (some of which weigh over 200kg) that they cannot visit a public function the upper floors due to Fire safety restrictions? Personally I think it is but the press and politicians would have a field day.

Bit short of ideas otherwise, happy to risk assess the use of lifts but found it not to be possible in most situations.
We come down to stark choices with much of the existing building stock- of refusing access to a small minority of  people from the upper floors or rebuilding the place both of which are non starters.

I would have thought that for many local authority buildings the low turnover of staff and availability of trained fire wardens would make evac chairs a reasonable compromise where a service cannot be provided in an accessible location.

[jokar]

Perhaps the authorities should insist that all new multi floored building are equipped with evac lifts instead of a normal passenger lift.

[wee brian]

How many?  Would you need one for every storey exit?

[damo73]

i believe cfoa are actively looking at the use of passenger lifts in the early stages of evacuation to address these very problems.

[wee brian]

Well that fills me with confidence!  CFOA are up there with chocolate tea pots and concrete life jackets.

[Ken Taylor]

I do feel that, when designing for lifts in 'managed institutional/assembly' type new buildings and extensions thereto, the norm ought now to be for them to be at least evacuation lifts. It's certainly cheaper at that stage.

[wee brian]

I'll say it again - how many do you want . If you have one where does it go???

It sounds like a good ida until you think about it.

[Ken Taylor]

It seems like a good idea to me when I do think about it Wee B. The number and location are design issues to be considered at the time with Building Control or the AI - just like when we decide whether we need conventional lifts or fire-fighting lifts at the design stage. Here is an example: We commissioned a sports and conference centre, decided it needed one lift and, in view of the likely nature of non-ambulant occupants being present above Ground level and the fact that the premises would be managed, decided upon a lift to evacuation standard. Naturally refuges were also designed in for each of the escape stairways for the (unlikely) eventuality of the lift not being accessible in the event of fire.

[wee brian]

Thats the bit that worries me - nto that I have aproblem with your solution. But if I need two storey exits but I only provide one evac lift. Where do I put the lift.

If the assumption is that there wont be a fire then why am I providing stairs and lifts?

[PhilB]

Thats the bit that worries me - not that I have a problem with your solution. But if I need two storey exits but I only provide one evac lift. Where do I put the lift.

If the assumption is that there wont be a fire then why am I providing stairs and lifts?

Let's not forget that even when lifts are provided there must be reasonable measures to evacuate persons by other means in case the lifts are unusable.

Surely if your building will be used by persons who cannot negotiate stairs unaided your risk asessment would point you in the direction of evacuation lifts. How many and where will come down to what is reasonably practicable.

In a building with 200 disbled persons one lift each within 10m of everyone is not reasonably practicable.......equally in a building measuring 100m x 100m one lift probably would not demonstrate that all reasonable measures have been taken.

[kurnal]

Ah. Thats where the problems arise. What are reasonable measures? Back to the passengers on the Clapham Omnibus and M'Lud.
In deciding what is reasonable is it not common to measure one against ones peers? And if M'Lud did this, even in the aftermath of a disaster, is he likely to find Mrs Postlethwaite wanting for not providing adequate evacuation lifts in her building? Especially as it could have been built fully in accordance with Building Regulations and subject to all consultations with every statutory authority along the way? I think not. Look at the Hillsborough Disaster. The football club were not found wanting for failing to provide exits forward to the pitch although this would have saved many lives. The club were measured against current standards and their peers and not individually castigated for this.

You cannot expect anyone to install evacuation lifts retrospectively unless as part of a very significant refurbishment. But put someone behind two fire doors and one hours walls and floor away from the fire, accompany them and keep in communication and then when the time is right offer them the necessary assistance to select use the route out of the building least likely to harm them, taking into account all hazards including fire, falling, or injury caused by being manhandled. This may be a standard passenger lift, a fire appliance, an evac chair, a dining chair or carry them in their own wheelchair.