Evacuate or stay put?

[Mushy]

I remember when I was in the job, there was a policy of keep the residents behind fire resisting construction and await the brigade, the theory being that the old dears could get hypothermia if they were out in the snow waiting for the brigade to arrive and this has got me thinking.

If you guys were doing an inspection/fra of a hospital, what would you be saying with reference the operating theatre? Would you be happy to have a stay put policy written into your risk assesment? maybe only move if there was a known fire on the same floor?

[PhilB]

There is confusion out there both with enforcers and RPs between stay put and progressive horizontal evacuation. I have come across many care homes that say they have a stay put policy....when actually the emergency action plan involves evacuating residents to an alternative fire compartment within the building...that is not stay put.

Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.

The CLG guide suggests that if you are going to leave residents within their rooms, the rooms should be 60 mins FR and each resident will be accompanied by a dedicated carer. I don't know of many care homes that have that many employees.

In the case of hospitals if designed to HTMs the operating theatres are likely to be adjacent to another theatre in a different compartment. The design will make sure that there are no hazard departments adjacent to very high dependency areas etc. and pressurisation will prevent the theatres being affected by smoke.

So in that case, yes stay put until you really have to move. It is not a good idea to evacuate someone immediately to the car park when they are in the middle of a heart transplant.

[Mushy]

Thanks for that philb

slip of the keypad when I used the terminology 'stay put' for EPH... and the staff out and residents in policy would be horrendous

I have done a iid (old money) in a single operating theatre (none adjoining) which was on the ground floor and the recovery room was in the theatre itself, so the patient was not necessarily on the op table...and the exit route to the final fire exit door from the rear of theatre was ok if you were walking, not so if on a push bed/ stretcher...although there was an alternative route which was through the theatre entrance doors and out another fire exit....which would be a bit dodgy if the fire was the entrance side of the theatre

I suppose worst case scenario with the front escape route blocked would be to carry them through the rear of theatre fire exit...hardly perfect but maybe necessary in that case

[messy]

T

Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.

.

I have never come across this approach before - It's absolutely incredible!

I might find it amusing if it wasn't so disturbing

[Clevelandfire]

T

Also many say that they evacuate the staff, leave the residents in their rooms and leave it to the FRS to evacuate the residents. That certainly is a form of stay put but is also totally unacceptable.

.

I have never come across this approach before - It's absolutely incredible!

I might find it amusing if it wasn't so disturbing

I have im afraid and it scares the living hell out of me.

[Chris Houston]

It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.

[PhilB]

It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.

Quite so Chris...and most of us would agree that thankfully the law has changed.....but in my experience many managers of care homes believe that if there is a fire it is not their job to get people out. In my opinion ....they are wrong.

[Clevelandfire]

It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.

Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod

[Clevelandfire]

The biggest thing I find is people are confused about the term "evacuation" and "rescue"

Firefighters are paid to rescue people because they have the correct training PPE etc to do so.

Care workers are paid to evacuate people (without putting themselves at risk)

Firefighters dont evacuate, care workers dont rescue

[Chris Houston]

It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.

Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod

On what basis?

[PhilB]

The arguement care home managers put to me is "I cannot place my employees at risk"

Whilst we would not expect them to don fire kit and BA they must be trained, and present in sufficient numbers, to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the safety of all relevant persons.

Yes of course if there is a fire in a room, in my opinion, it may not be reasonable for employees to enter. However the building should be provided with adequate measures e.g. FR construction, AFD to enable a suitable emergency plan to be implemented without total reliance of the fire service.

That may involve relying on assistance from off duty employees as the numbers on duty are rarely sufficient.

[jokar]

Firefighters would, have and do put theselves at risk to rescue others.  However as the points have been made here demonstrate, the RP has to have an evacuation strategy that involves exiting the premises at some stage dependent on the severity of the fire.  They may well have a defend in place strategy, simultaneous evacuation or a PHE strategy but that can not and must not rely on rescue by fire personnel.  An RP in Barnet got a 150K fine for not having  such an evac plan because the fire that occurred put people at risk of death or seroius injury.  Evca down to RP rescue is a firefighter task, they do not match.

[Clevelandfire]

Firefighters would, have and do put theselves at risk to rescue others.  However as the points have been made here demonstrate, the RP has to have an evacuation strategy that involves exiting the premises at some stage dependent on the severity of the fire.  They may well have a defend in place strategy, simultaneous evacuation or a PHE strategy but that can not and must not rely on rescue by fire personnel.  An RP in Barnet got a 150K fine for not having  such an evac plan because the fire that occurred put people at risk of death or seroius injury.  Evca down to RP rescue is a firefighter task, they do not match.

Have you got details of the case? cheers

[Clevelandfire]

It wasn't so long ago when fire safety legislation only covered employees.

Well yes but even under the workplace regs fire officers wouldnt allow service users/residents to be left on their tod

On what basis?

CSCI required residents be taken care of and also the bluff and pursuation act

[Chris Houston]

What is CSCI?

"Bluff and persuasion"....hmmm this is what I was thinking.  Rightly or wrongly, if the law didn't afford shopping centre customers, school pupils and home residents any specific protection, I'm wondering how someone who's role is an enforcer, could "not allow" things that they did not "like".