Author Topic: Unwanted signals and HTM 05 03 part J  (Read 5156 times)

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Unwanted signals and HTM 05 03 part J
« on: January 13, 2009, 05:05:39 PM »
HTM 05-03  part J para 4.40 suggests that all operations of manual call points from patient areas should have an automatic fire service response. As I read it this is not as part of a double knock appproach as applied to automatic detection. Am I reading it correctly?   Do you think this is realistic in these days of addressable alarm systems, comprehensive detection, facilities for double knock, pre alarm and verification, instant communications and the fire services' drive to reduce unwanted signals?


Offline Colin Newman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
    • Healthfire
Re: Unwanted signals and HTM 05 03 part J
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2009, 05:47:06 PM »
I think you're referring to part H!? :-\

If so, you are reading it correctly. 

The inclusion of "double knock" in Firecode guidance caused no end of debate.  In the case of patient access areas, or those areas upon patients are dependent, it was deemed that a delay in calling the fire service would present an unacceptable level of life risk. 

Bearing in mind that the approach in healthcare buildings is to remain in the building and prevent fire spread through passive fire protection, there is a need for fire fighting intervention at the earliest possible opportunity. 

Much of the fire precautions built into healthcare buildings rely upon the enclosure of "fire hazard rooms" (those rooms where the contents or processes undertaken in them present an increased potential for fire) in 30 minute fir resisting construction.  Many of these rooms are local ward stores, kitchens, utility rooms etc. that are fitted with a single detector so the chance of a "double knock" within a reasonable time is remote.   

In the majority of cases a "double knock" system would only raise an alarm to the fire service once an investigation had discovered the fire and a call point had been activated.  When you consider that at night time there could be as few as two members of staff caring for upto 30 patients and at any time those staff may need to deal with a life-threatening medical emergency, there isn't necessarily the scope for a thorough investigation by local staff particularly since if there is a fire they need to evacuate up to 30 patients that may be in danger and any number of which may not be able to assist staff in their evacuation. 

In the event of a fire the burden on staff is immense and as has been demonstrated by recent fire events in hospitals the staff do a fantastic job when called upon, however, whilst there is a drive to reduce unwanted signals (which was why Part H, or FPN 11 as it was originally called, was written) it may not be realistic to increase the burden upon already hard pressed nursing staff with the resultant increase in patient risk should they fail to cope.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Re: Unwanted signals and HTM 05 03 part J
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2009, 11:11:32 PM »
God, Colin, I am glad I always go private.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Unwanted signals and HTM 05 03 part J
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2009, 06:21:54 PM »
Thanks Colin. Yes I did mean part H of course- finger trouble as usual.