Asssisted living responsibilties

[Paul2886]

You views would be appreciated.
The scenario: A ground and first floor block with 35 residents in an assisted living environment. During the day there are 3 staff to provide assistance such as meals general support and laundry services.
At night there is one sleep-in member of staff on the premises.
So, the question, do the staff leave the premises on hearing the fire alarm or are they responsible for the well being of the residents. There is an L1 system in place with (unfortunately) smoke detection in each room as part of the system, so lots of false alarms. Each apartment has a 30- minute fire door with strips and seals and closers. A stay-put is in place but apparantly its up to the residents. Your opinions please.

[kurnal]

Sounds like the usual dilemma. Is it stay put or not?

If the residents need a carer in the building 24/7 (as seems the case)to look after them in normal situations then how on earth can they be considered safe enough to fend for themselves when the building is on fire? 

What is the point of an L1 alarm if there is no one present to act on the alarm. Is the L1 alarm just there to warn the member of staff to go out to the car park? I doubt it. Theres clearly no room for heroics but they should at least do what they can to investigate the cause of the alarm and without entering smoke or fire conditions should direct those at greatest risk as to the best course of action. Otherwise if its someone with MH issues or learning difficulties they wont be able to come to terms with the fire in their flat and will keep going in and out to look filling the common corridor with smoke. 

[Phoenix]

Yes, I would make efforts to try to determine if a stay put policy is actually safe in the building (by examining the compartmentation and smoke stopping facilities in and above corridors, etc). 

If stay put is not viable (due to insufficient compartmentation or smoke stopping capabilities) then some evacuation strategy should be devised  based on the aim of getting people at risk to a safe part of the building with the ability to continue their escape if necessary - it all depends on the layout.  In this case, the staff will have a significant role to play in the evacuation.

If stay put is viable then I would recommend that the fire alarm system be adapted.  Each flat/flatlet should, of course, have its own sounder facility for the occurence of fire within it (i.e. part 6 or equivalent) - the part 1 system may be able to be programmed to facilitate this.  But there is no reason for a general raising of the alarm throughout the building, there should just be some mechanism for alerting the warden in the case of fire detected anywhere in the building.  Pagers, or similar, linked to the alarm panel can work to alert the warden or maybe (to save costs) a low level general intermittent alarm that the warden can hear anywhere in the building.  This should remove any confusion that might currently exist.   In this case, there will be only a very limited evacuation but the staff should be involved in this.  There are probably some common rooms to consider and careful thought will be required to determine what parts of the building should be evacuated in the event of fire in these areas.  Again, it all depends on the layout.

Of course, the current system will work, but it is confusing and can lead to a tendency for people to ignore the alarm sounders.  It is also disruptive and inconvenient.  Whatever system and procedure is chosen it should be as simple as possible.

Stu

[Clevelandfire 3]

Sounds like the usual dilemma. Is it stay put or not?

If the residents need a carer in the building 24/7 (as seems the case)to look after them in normal situations then how on earth can they be considered safe enough to fend for themselves when the building is on fire?  

What is the point of an L1 alarm if there is no one present to act on the alarm. Is the L1 alarm just there to warn the member of staff to go out to the car park? I doubt it. Theres clearly no room for heroics but they should at least do what they can to investigate the cause of the alarm and without entering smoke or fire conditions should direct those at greatest risk as to the best course of action. Otherwise if its someone with MH issues or learning difficulties they wont be able to come to terms with the fire in their flat and will keep going in and out to look filling the common corridor with smoke.  

I see. So what about the hundreds of thousands of elderly and infirm who live in single domestic dwellings or tower blocks, what happens there then? Should all those people have wardens permantely attached to them? Simple answer is to devise a fire alarm system as Phoenix mentions and have it connected to a call centre at night. Of course not ideal but it is a real world solution.You are never ever going to get  wardens or staff in at night. Where on earth is the funding going to come for that ? As you once argued Kurnal apparently the care sector has inappropriate staff funding and doesn't make much profits..

[kurnal]

Cleveland my point was simply that if the landlord sees sufficient  justification to employ a member of staff 24/7 to provide for the needs of residents (as stated in Pauls first posting)  then that member of staff would be better employed doing something useful in a fire alarm and not standing by themselves in the car park whilst every body else stays inside.

 

[nearlythere]

Why else would the person be employed than to provide some degree of assistance and support to the residents. This would also include assistance and support in the event of an emergency, I would presume.

[Paul2886]

Some additional info regarding the premises:
The staff do not deem themselves as being carers but merely assistants. The premises does not fall within The Care Quality Commision as it is not a care home. There is very good compartmentation and a 'stay put' would be acceptable owing to other fire precautionary features. The biggest problem is the nuisance alarms owing to the fire alarm system (smoke detectors) extending into each apartment. I am suggesting that they be changed to heat and stand alone smokes to be supplied in each apartment linked to the carer either by pager or dedicated mobile phone.
As mentioned earlier the staff say they are not carers and they have been told to leave the building and stand in the car park. I am contesting this and need some advice from learned friends out there. ta

[kurnal]

Paul the minimum role of the staff would be to perform the role of the responsible person for the fire alarm system as set out in BS5839. Many brigades would be jumping up and down over the number of unwanted signals and be expecting the Employer to do more to control this, this would often include an initial investigation by the responsible person to see if there is a fire or if it is another unwanted signal. Is it a conventional or analogue addressable system?

[nearlythere]

Some additional info regarding the premises:
The staff do not deem themselves as being carers but merely assistants. The premises does not fall within The Care Quality Commision as it is not a care home. There is very good compartmentation and a 'stay put' would be acceptable owing to other fire precautionary features. The biggest problem is the nuisance alarms owing to the fire alarm system (smoke detectors) extending into each apartment. I am suggesting that they be changed to heat and stand alone smokes to be supplied in each apartment linked to the carer either by pager or dedicated mobile phone.
As mentioned earlier the staff say they are not carers and they have been told to leave the building and stand in the car park. I am contesting this and need some advice from learned friends out there. ta

Shop assistants or office staff are not carers either but you would expect them to be able to assist members of the public as part of an evacuation strategy for the premises.

[Midland Retty]

Some additional info regarding the premises:
The staff do not deem themselves as being carers but merely assistants. The premises does not fall within The Care Quality Commision as it is not a care home. There is very good compartmentation and a 'stay put' would be acceptable owing to other fire precautionary features. The biggest problem is the nuisance alarms owing to the fire alarm system (smoke detectors) extending into each apartment. I am suggesting that they be changed to heat and stand alone smokes to be supplied in each apartment linked to the carer either by pager or dedicated mobile phone.
As mentioned earlier the staff say they are not carers and they have been told to leave the building and stand in the car park. I am contesting this and need some advice from learned friends out there. ta

Hi Paul

Firstly I think your proposed solution (heat detection plus stand alone smoke detection in each flat) is the best option all round. It will  dramatically decrease the amount of false alarms.

The staffing issue however isn't so clear cut. As others have already pointed out the member of staff, whether they be deemed a carer or not, should be providing some form of assistance in the event of fire, in my opinion.

Be aware however that often wardens get accommodation "thrown in" as part of their contract. Depending on what their contract states some wardens will be deemed to be off duty and merely living at the premises after normal working hours just like any other resident, rather than being "waking staff". So do check that out.

If they are "waking staff" then they should provide some assistance to residents. Some people would argue that one warden is not enough to instigate the necessary assistance, but there are number of things that the warden could be doing to increase the safety of residents whilst awaiting Fire Service intervention.
 

[graz]

If the day room has suitable compartmentation and an exit direct to outside then why not make it the assembly point.
Then the staff member and person evacuating can have a cup of tea whilst the fire brigade deal with the incident.
It better than freezing to death outside.

[Phoenix]

A few points of note:

1. Any brigade is very unlikely to challenge fire calls to such premises when the only received cue is a fire alarm signal.  So an investigation is not required prior to calling the fire brigade.

2. As the building is suitable for stay put then the only immediate risk in the building, in the event of a fire, is to the people in the flat of origin.  The staff member, if they are to get involved in the fire procedures during a fire, only needs to go to the flat of origin.  If the flat is smoke logged or, in some other way, inaccessible due to fire then they should turn away and prepare to meet the brigade.  If they can gain safe access to the flat then they should assist as appropriate.  It is no more complex than that.

3. It seems to be unclear whether the staff member has a legal responsibility to assist the occupants of the flat of fire origin.  I would suggest that we do not have sufficient information to be able to determine this, as yet.  Let's break it down:

• If the responsible person has instigated adequate measures and procedures to ensure the safety of relevant persons without requiring the intervention of the staff member then it would seem reasonable for the staff member to merely go and wait in the car park for the brigade to arrive (I'm assuming here that someone has at least called 999).
  
  
• If the responsible person has instigated fire procedures that involve the staff member in facilitating safe conditions for relevant persons then the staff member has a duty to undertake the roles they have been trained to undertake.
  

4. I would have issue with the suggestion that heat detection should be fitted throughout with the support of local stand-alone smoke detectors.  If there is a fire in a flat it will set off the heat detector which will raise the alarm throughout the building.  Is this not the very thing we are trying to avoid?  Do we want people to evacuate on hearing this signal or not?  A better solution has already been suggested.

Stu

[kurnal]

Stu a lot of what you say is bang on.


However there is a widespread problem with sheltered housing, as even where these are suitable for a stay put policy, design guidance (eg 5588 part 1) has recommended an L2 alarm system. So we have thousands of places up and down the country with a declared stay put policy yet the alarms sound throughout every time someone burns the toast. So everybody ignores the alarm and doesn't even receive an indication as to whether its their toast thats burning or somebody elses.

Usually sheltered housing does at least have a link to a control centre so there can be some dialogue- because the call centre generally knows whose smoke detector has operated and the comms are interfaced through a relay connected to every flats smoke alarm ( eg tunstall do such a system. Life safety standard? I dunno)

I have been working on many of these recently and have implemented a range of solutions - the best being a new addressable alarm with staged alarms, delays and auto re-setting facilities built in, the worst being a conversion of the original smoke to a heat detector linked to the common areas and in addition a part 6 alarm stand alone alarm in each flat also linked to the comms system.

Whichever way you go its expensive for the housing provider.

[Clevelandfire 3]

the worst being a conversion of the original smoke to a heat detector linked to the common areas and in addition a part 6 alarm stand alone alarm in each flat also linked to the comms system.

Whichever way you go its expensive for the housing provider.

Why is this the worst I dont understand?

[kurnal]

Well ok its not the worst - its the poorer of two technical solutions. Non technical solutions could be worse such as nomination of a tenant to investigate and silence the alarm which is very common.