Wtih regard to the above posts:
Nearlythere: Cant understand the reference to stale pee, other than to note that, in a well run care home such aromas do not occur.
Jokar: I must have the wrong language module plugged in to my brain today, cos you have lost me too with history books, pots and kettles, etc. As for the bodies, I assume that, in terms of fire safety, you have been living on Mars for the past few years, with only temporary excursions to planet earth and had not noticed that 14 people died in a care home, representing the largest loss of life in any single fire since the King's Cross disaster.
Nearlythere: I assume that you have not botehred to read the Determination on Rosepark, which we required all of our consultants to read as essential CPD. I trust that you will not advise on fire precautions in care homes until you do, but, to answer your question, no, the fire did not start in a bedroom, but here is what the Sherrif Principal said about the open bedroom doors:
It would have been a reasonable precaution for all bedroom doors to have been closed in the event that a fire alarm
sounded. In particular it would have been a reasonable precaution for the management of Rosepark to have fitted
devices to ensure that bedroom doors were closed automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded.
In particular it should be noted:
(i) in corridors 3 and 4 (where all the fatalities occurred) only in rooms 10 and 11 were the bedroom doors closed;
(ii) in the event that there were medical or nursing reasons for leaving any particular bedroom door open, or a care
home resident reasonably wished to make a choice to have his or her door open or ajar at night, members of staff could
close all doors in the event that a fire alarm sounded, or doors could be fitted with mechanisms which would close
them automatically in the event that the fire alarm sounded;
(iii) at all relevant times there were available in the market a number of technological solutions to the apparent
conflict between fire safety and other demands, namely devices that could have been fitted to the bedroom doors in
order to make sure that they would be closed automatically should the fire alarm sound;
(iv) esto the care home adopted a strategy which relied solely on the action of staff to close bedroom doors in the
event of a fire, a care home adopting such a strategy would require to address itself seriously to the training and
drilling of the staff in that regard and, potentially, whether the number of staff on duty at any time would be sufficient
to ensure that this action could be taken;
(v) If a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out at Rosepark (see Chapter 44(6) hereof) that risk
assessment would have addressed how the fire safety requirement to have doors closed in the event of a fire would be
achieved and would, in that context, have recommended the use of one of the technological devices that were
available;
(vi) the bedroom doors, if they had all been closed, would have withstood the fire in the corridor for a period of time
sufficient for the fire to die back from lack of air, so that fire penetration into the bedrooms would not, in the absence
of some exceptional circumstances causing flame impingement directly on the door, have occurred;
(vii) given that the two residents in corridor 4 who had closed doors did not, ultimately, survive, it cannot be said with
SHERIFFDOM OF SOUTH STRATHCLYDE DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
file:///C|/Users/cgoasduff.SCS/Desktop/temp/CURRENT/FAI%2018%20Rosepark.htm[19/05/2011 10:41:30]
certainty that any of the residents in this corner would have survived even if the doors had been closed. However,
closing the doors on its own would have made a significant difference to their prospects.
Had the residents in the rooms in corridor 4 apart from rooms 10 and 11 had their doors closed, their deaths might have
been avoided.
