Consitency in care homes

[Markbr]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a discussion on how consistency of advice/requirements in residential care/nursing homes given by FO's can be better achieved across England and Wales? (Yes I know that under the RRO they are not supposed to give advice)

In this high risk group, I have customers in Cornwall who, under instruction from the FO, are having to replace their perko door closers with BS1154 compliant units and fit cold smoke seals to all bedroom doors. (probably right)?

Then I have a customer in Lancashire who were told by the FO last week that fire doors, closers & seals were not necessary on a corridor of 6 bedrooms compartmented at each end by a 1 hour door set? (can't be right?)

These are just two examples at both ends of the spectrum and we see everything else in between.

Closers on bathrooms, toilets and sluices is a frequent area of discussion too.

The requirements seem to vary by region and in some cases between FO's on the same team!

Can anyone suggest how clear guidelines or even minimum requirements might be best disseminated so both the FO's are consistent and care home owners can be clear on what must be done with doors?

Regards, Mark

[xan]

Some of the advice, to give its technical term, previously quoted on this site, seems pants!
Cold smoke seals would seem v. good advice,especially following the deaths in Scotland a few years ago.not much excuse for not fitting them,especially with the availability of 'swing free' devices etc.THE HMG 'cerise' guide, aka Fire safety Risk Assessment-Residential Care premises is a start,but could be better written.You will get differences depending on individual F.A. policies & proceedures.

[stevew]

Hi Markbr

You have identified a situation that appears to be increasing.  We have to face up to the fact that FO's will NEVER be consistent.  I would say at this point that a fire authority and inspectors are entitled to an opinion, its how they use it.  It must be remembered that it is NOT their RA and that what they do with their 'opinion' that is important.  

If they choose to issue a deficiencies or enforcement notice they must be prepared, if necessary to follow it through to prosecution.

If it was a client of my company the situation would not arise as we would ONLY issue a FRA that we would be prepared to be held accountable for.     If it was a prospective client I would advise that we undertake an assessment on their behalf.  If we disagree with the FO this would be reflected in the RA and we would advise the fire authority on behalf of the client.  The next move is theirs, and in my experience of 8 years I have never had to amend an RA or face a fire authority in court.    

My advice is put aside inconsistencies with FO's and concentrate on encouraging those responsible for such 'high' risk premises to enlighten themselves on the RRO and look for professional advice before they jump.

Steve

[kurnal]

I agree with SteveW. Its not a black and white issue. We have a general benchmark guidance document which in itself is far from perfect. Fire officers will generally expect to see that the RP has implemented the benchmark guidance and if not, has instead implemented an alternative solution that is logical, well considered and provides an equivalent degree of safety.  They will usually accept such a solution if it is clearly presented to them.  

There will always be  individuals with their own opinions and prejudices and there is nothing that can be done about this, unless we revert to a wholly prescriptive regime.

[Clevelandfire]

You will never get consistancy and thats the whole point. Unles you have prescription you will never ever have consitancy in the way you talk about.

The two examples you gave are places we have never seen,  visited, or inspected.

The FO's in both occassions may have been totally right, they could have been totally wrong.

The home where the FO said no closers or fire doors were required etc could have been a nursing home with an L1 system, a nursing station with repeater panel in each wing with 4 nursing staff in each compartment who could effectively evacuate the residents quickly

Probably wasn't but you hopefully take my point!

Once again you can nver have consistancy with risk assessment bench marks are bench marks but in certain circumstances you are allowed to stray from them.

I hear this argument literally everyday from clients who operate on a national scale, one fire officer in one county say one thing, another from another county says another. They forget that the buildings, staffing levels and layout are totally different!

One thing has to be pointed out to the RP responsible for running these establishments. They wanted less prescription they wanted risk assessment, and thats fine. But they also must realise they will never ever get a consistant approach across the board this way and I just wish Fire Authoritys would push this message more.

[messy]

I agree that consistancy is very difficult to achieve when using risk based, rather than prescriptive methods

But it is a fair point that some FAs are not providing adequate supervision of their IOs, and in particular, their older... ahem.. dinosaur ones who have been bought up on the FPA and are hanging on to it's prescriptive ways like a child to a comfort blanket.

In my Brigade, only enforcement notices are routinely vetted and IOs are left to offer advice or demand anything they want (even if they are wrong) with few checks or balances.

In fact, the older (more experienced) IOs are even more unlikely to be monitored in any way by managers, many of whom have been put in place by promotion with absolutely no FS experience.

Despite a policy to occasionally be accompanied by a manager and vetted on an audit, and that used to happen regularly, I haven't been subject to such an escort in over three years (and four managers)

[Clevelandfire]

Bit of a sweeping statement that I feel. Alot of IOs Ive worked with do change with the times. I do accept some don't but its important not to tar everyone with the same brush and remain open minded.

I know of very few professions where employees have to confirm their competence in the way you describe after intially qualifying

There are of course exceptions, but for the most part once you qualify or are deemed competent thats it you are left on your own.

Any good manager should recognise shortfalls in their employees competency (even if they dont go out on audits with them) there are normally some pointers which would set alarm bells ringing.

[jokar]

Am I missing something here.  Risk based fire safety is for the RP to do not the FRS.  The FRS role is enforcement, they can not demand anything and should be working with and not against the RP to ensure that relevant persons have adequate protection.  The fire safety duties in the order are for the RP and therefore the enforcers role is to ensure that the RP has undertaken the duties required by law.  Advice is given under Section 6 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act and it should be made quite clear that is what it is.

[PhilB]

Well said Jokar.

[Tom Sutton]

They may not be giving advice they may consider the risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient and as the enforcement concordat requires giving their reason why.

As for consistency, during the time the FPA was in force, the biggest compliant from businesses was FPO’s are inconsistent. In this brave new world of risk assessment this opinion must have multiplied many times with some foundation.

http://www.perko-powermatic.com/perko-powermatic/frameset.htm

[stevew]

Jokar its not you thats missing anything its the fire inspectors and those responsible for carrying out a FA.  

I see two possible ways to make inroads into preventing the problem developing into a costly epidemic.

As those of us in business will belong to at least one pressure group perhaps we should encourage those with more clout to express concerns to the fire authorities nationally.    

Secondly, educate those responsible for carrying out a FRA.  This again can be achieved through business pressure groups.

If I can leave a prospective client with anything from our conversation it is this.
1.  Whoever they use for advice check their credentials, backgound and  sample work (interesting how some advertising of companies/individuals offering fire safety advice deliberately leave out vital information on competence)
2.  Question everything put forward by a FO.  If in doubt take professional advice.  


Steve

[Markbr]

Steve your suggestion is a good one and in relation to point 2, I have advised many of my clients (including one just today) to seek the advice of a professional before spending large amounts of money on the FO's say so.

The comments from Clevelandfire are of course correct, there will never be a "one size fits all" but would it be possible to prescribe some simple minimum requirements that can only be departed from with the express permission of the FO? This might stop people believing they can omit mandatory measures because they have been included in their risk assessment, (something I have come across more than once) and it might help FO’s realise that something they are not asking for or demanding, is a departure from standard practice?

Sticking my neck out and please be gentle because I am not an expert, as a limited example, what would be wrong with a minimum requirement that says “unless otherwise agreed by the FO, all care home bedroom doors leading onto a common escape route must be:
1.   rated at 30 minutes
2.   fitted with 15mm inutmescent strips & cold smoke seals
3.   fitted with a door closer complying with BS 1154
4.   must effectively close when released from an angle of 65 deg"

And: “unless otherwise agreed by the FO, doors from toilets or bathrooms that do not contain any electrical equipment other than lighting need not be fitted with fire doors and closers”

At least then perhaps everyone might be clear without removing the ability to deal with exceptions?

[Clevelandfire]

I'd go with everything you say except for 65 degree angle. In my view that should be changed to doors should be maintained effectively self closing from any angle

Otherwise Im very happy to accept your suggestions

[Clevelandfire]

I have advised many of my clients (including one just today) to seek the advice of a professional before spending large amounts of money on the FO's say so.

Of course you realise that some sceptics out there would say this is just another way for consultants to get more business!.

Be mindful that whilst FSOs are there to be challenged and should be challenged where you feel it is necessary you must recognise that many have now probably had superior legal training to private comsultants and will know how far they are able to push for things. You just watch Lancashire Fire and Rescue at work. They are quite a force to be reckoned with.The flip side of the coin is that their officers are very reasonable / approachable and know their standards / regs well.

We privateers out there need to be certain we don't end up costing the client more money by fighting futile  requirements only to have the case overturned or rejected. Leaving a client with the cost of the upgrades required by the fire officer, legal fees, and consultancy fees is not a particularly good days work.

Most FSOs are only too happy to explain the logic behind their requirements in an approachable way and are happy to discuss alternatives, but to advise clients to challenge everything seems a little bit over the top to me.

[stevew]

Ref the last post by Clevelandfire I do not consider the level of legal training to have a significant bearing on my risk assessments.  I would not expect a client of mine to fight everything the FO says.  However I would advise fighting if I consider the FO requirement to be onerous/unreasonable.  If necessary I will contact the FO to discuss.    Part of my task is to take into account the financial implication of my FRA  which includes how the FA may react to any deviation from the benchmark standard.  

Fully support the legal training you mention however I am confident that my staff are second to none with regard to knowledge and experience in risk assessment.  We offer clients 'best advice' that I would be prepared to justify/qualify in any court of law.  Im not alone out there its just a case of separating those that competent and those that think they are.  Unfortunately some of the latter can talk a good RA.

Steve