Am I missing something?

[kurnal]

Recently two events have left me confused.

At a CPD session discussing unwanted fire alarms we were played a fire control room tape of a 999 fire call from a 24 storey hotel in the Birmingham when the fire service said they would not attend unless there was a confirmed fire. 10 minutes later a very breathless receptionist, having run up 20 flights of stairs and discovered there was a real fire, called the fire service for the second time, and as a result they turned out. 

Now in another area, a fire occurred in a hotel and the duty manager arranged for the fire brigade to be called then used 8 fire extinguishers to put the fire out, suffering some minor smoke inhalation as he did so. But it was out by the time the brigade arrived and I think he did a brilliant job. The hotel have received a notice of deficiencies in respect of inadequate training as clearly he should not have tried to use more than one extinguisher.

And all the time we are being told Get Out Stay Out Call the Fire Brigade Out.

Now if the brigades are going to prevaricate, require staff to go wandering round looking for a fires before agreeing to respond but then will throw the book at the employer if an employee goes beyond the call of duty in fighting the fire- or heaven forbid gets injured whilst looking for a fire then this leaves a very confused message.   

[Clevelandfire 3]

1) The fire service tell members of the public to get out and stay out. That slogan harks back to safety campaigns of old mainly aimed at folk in their homes. In a hotel that slogan would apply to guests but not staff. We expect nominated trained staff to take on different roles during a fire evacuation. The use of fire wardens has been accepted practice for years so why is someone tasked to investigate if a fire is in progress at any additional risk? The answer has comes down to what training they have had and that they do it safely. As long as they have been properly trained what is the problem?
2) OK fair dues to the hotel employee for attempting to put the fire out but as you said "clearly he should not have used more than one extinguisher". Which is correct he shouldn't. Either the training he received was inadequate or he ignored that training. Perhaps he forgot or hadnt received refresher training for donkeys years. Who knows. He shouldn't have used 8 extinguishers and could have been seriously hurt. So the fire service is quite correct in wanting to investigate that.

So personally I dont think the fire brigade are sending out mixed messages. Culture change is required too many resources wasted on false alarms. Get staff trained, get them to check the problem is genuine before calling the fire service out, everyone wins. Simples.

[Phoenix]

I can't help thinking that if this guy had 8 extinguishers available for use on a single fire then his premises might have been overprovided with the things.

Stu

[Midland Retty]

I don't think it is a confused message. There is obviously a training issue here which the Fire Authority need to pursue. However there are some issues to consider which on the face of it appear contencious.

If I ensure my employee Joe Bloggs receives pukka fire extinguisher training regularly and yet he totally ignores what he has been taught, sees the red mist and tries to tackle a substantial fire using 8 extinguishers then as an employer is that my fault?

The fire safety order would suggest it is - as en employer I have no defence [Art 32(2)(11)(a)]

But that said Article 32(2)(10) may go in my favour. Remember Kurnal the brigade issued a NOD against the hotel in question, from what you said, not an enforcement notice, so at this stage they are informally enforcing the point that the hotel employee needs retraining IMHO, which quite clearly he does. 

Furthermore asking staff to investigate alarm activations is nothing new, and again as long as those employees have received suitable training there is no reason why they shouldn't investigate prior to calling the fire service.

[Golden]

Am I missing something? Training providers state its good practice that only small fires are tackled using extinguishers but there is no specific requirement to withdraw if more extinguishers are available. What if he was trying to put out a fire in a bed with the 7 CO₂ extinguishers that were available to protect the risk of someone's IPad inadvertently setting fire to the hotel and then found a decent class A extinguisher to finish the job properly? If that was the basis of the NOD then I would be having a word with the local FB and possibly the local press - elf and safety gone mad!!

The issue of investigating fires before calling the brigade has always been emotive. In my opinion it should be risk based and related to the  past history of the alarm system with respect to false alarms and/or fires at the premises. The receptionist was clearly breathless as (s)he'd climbed 20 floors - couldn't use the lift as the fire alarm was sounding - what would be the reaction of a coroner if a few people had died because the receptionist hadn't been able to report the fire until it was well developed? The receptionist would have the defence of calling the FB, following training, not using lifts etc. seems we want it both ways?

[kurnal]

I had trained the guy who used the 8 extinguishers at the hotel and yes always I stress the role of portable equipment as a first aid fire fighting measure to stop a small fire becoming a large fire. I always tell delegates that if a fire cant be put out with a single extinguisher to withdraw and close the door.

But this was a multi seated fire started by an arsonist in a deliberate attempt to burn the place down and the duty manager decided to do all he could to save the business. He acted on his own volition and he succeded. I think it was a cause for celebration and congratulation not criticism.

As for the multi storey hotel and staff having to run up 20 flights of stairs to investigate the cause of the alarm, this not only puts the staff member at risk it also means that any fire will be more developed before the fire brigade arrive and will place fire fighters at greater risk in addition to anyone who may be trapped by the fire. In implementing these unwanted signals policies the size and height of a building should also be a factor in determining the fire services response.   

[Midland Retty]

But this was a multi seated fire started by an arsonist in a deliberate attempt to burn the place down and the duty manager decided to do all he could to save the business. He acted on his own volition and he succeded. I think it was a cause for celebration and congratulation not criticism.

It's all well and good saying that. But what if he had been overcome and was killed? Thank heavens he wasn't. I understand that the manager was trying to do the right thing, but what if he had got into trouble. You then have to potentially risk others to get him out.

One of the reasons hose reels became undesirable was the fact that people were tempted to just stand there fighting the fire indefinately, putting themselves at risk.

So it is very easy to become emotive about it, the story has a semi happy ending, but so easily could have gone wrong. The fire service still have every right to investigate, and who knows when the story comes out maybe they will empathise and understand the actions of the manager and leave it at that.

As for the multi storey hotel and staff having to run up 20 flights of stairs to investigate the cause of the alarm, this not only puts the staff member at risk it also means that any fire will be more developed before the fire brigade arrive and will place fire fighters at greater risk in addition to anyone who may be trapped by the fire. In implementing these unwanted signals policies the size and height of a building should also be a factor in determining the fire services response.   

Possibly. But then why should it all be down to the fire service? Everyone is facing cuts. So why should this be all laid at the fire service's door - could you not argue that the hotel could improve its arrangements to monitor / investigate false alarms too?

[Davo]

Midland

What arrangement would you propose for a reported fire on the 20th floor?

Have mini receptions every fourth floor?

Seriously, the FRS are at fault. A massive hotel with potentially dozens of guests aught to be a red flag after recent events?



davo

[Midland Retty]

The point I'm making is this. If we are going to have a discussion about call challenging and everything thats perceived to be wrong with it you need to also talk about the duties and responsibilities of the RPs out there and what they could be doing to reduce uneccesary burdens on the emergency services.

Take the B'ham hotel scenario. You could look at their existing arrangements. For instance why not have a portable phone for the receptionist? Why not have an internal phone on each floor? How is their alarm system configured? Is anyone else employed at night who could investigate and report back to the receptionist via radio or mobile phone?? Can the procedures be tweaked so that lifts in certain zones can be used if another distant zone has been affected. Thats what springs to mind without even visiting the place?

People are saying the fire brigade are wrong without necessarily knowing the full facts or thinking of how problems like the out of breath receptionist can be dealt with. The days of the fire service responding to non confirmed fires are gone, they have to call challenge now. I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

[Marek]

I have an issue with a Call Challenge policy introduced by a Fire & Rescue Authority. They sent a circular letter to businesses and some care home operators in February 2011 re their policy, starting on 1st April 2011, not to attend Fire Alarm Calls where there are no confirmed fire.
The letter contained a paragraph stating that there were some exemptions, one being 'premises occupied by vulnerable persons'.
I rang to seek clarification if this was referring to Residential Care and Nursing Homes, I was told that following a further senior management meeting that the exemptions no longer applied and that they will not turn out to any premises 24/7 (except domestic) where the caller cannot confirm if there is a fire. The caller will be advised to check the zone and call back if there are suspicions of, or a known fire, if no cal is received after 20 minutes the call will be taken off the system
I sited the Rosepark Care Home Fatal Accident Inquiry where there was a delay in calling 999 and that all other F&R authorities I have dealt with would send a reduced PDA to such  high risk premises, I also stated that during daytime hours it is common practice to check a fire zone before calling 999; but at times when staffing levels are at a minimum, usually at night, that calling the F&R service immediately is safe practice for both staff and residents, I also questioned their policy when alarms have activated in roof voids and if care staff are expected to get steps to access and check the area; I was told that I was being facetious.
I have written and met the senior officer/manager (ex colleague) but he will not budge. Interestingly they have have not sent a further circular out stating that they have retracted the exemptions as their original letter.
The care homes I work with are concerned, I have contacted Adult Services and the Local Care Homes Association to raise my concerns, but seem to be a lone voice. When carrying out evacuation training, I arrange for the local fire control to accept 999 calls as for real but not turn out, the call challenge in question has occurred on a number of the exercises, which confused staff , and on 3 occasions they failed to call the F&R back when they were faced with a 'smoked filled room' (smoke machine) and 'residents' (staff) in the affected protected area.
I could go on further.......

[colin todd]

Retters, A few years ago in a hotel in your delightful part of the UK, a hotel tipped put all the guests, but investigated before calling the FRS. As it was a false alarm they did not do so. A guest waiting outside was concerned that the FRS were not there so called them on his mobile.  One of your colleagues from fire safety arrived the next day and threatened them with prosecution on the basis that the policy in the West Mids was that they should always call the FRS as soon as the fire alarm operates. Investigation of alarms nothing new???  This was in the days of Uncle Frank.  Nothing new, you say???  It depends on your defintion of new Grand Wizard Retters.

[colin todd]

Marek, you were right to quote Rosepark.  I was an expert witness for the Crown in the FAI.  Perhaps you should quote them the Sheriff Prinicpal's Determination, naemly that in a care home with vulnerable people ANY delay in calling the FRS when the FA operates CAN NEVER BE CONDONED.  It will all end in tears, mark my words Mr Hudson.

[stevew]

Marek

I advise my care clients that at night unless the cause of the alarm can be investigated quickly and safely that they should place the 999 call and then investigate.  Whatever procedure is adopted it will be clearly set out in the fire risk assessment.

One or two clients have come up against the call challenge when placing a 999 call.
On each occasion I have challenged the appropriate FA who have apologised for the actions of the control operator.

Any FA who pursue the call challenge approach to care owners will in my opinion encourage the night call to include such words as ‘I can smell smoke’.  Of course I would never encourage such an approach

A responsible employer should be supported by all emergency services including the fire service.

Steve
         

[Marek]

Thank you Colin and Steve, in fact I have written a brief instruction note for all my care homes in the FA concerned to add ' I can smell burning' and with my discussion with their control operators they would attend. I have qouted extracts from the Rosepark FAI and also that if a Fire Risk Assessment considers a worst case scenario, i.e. a fire during the night, and within the Emegency Plan the RP deems it best practice to call the F&R immediately upon activation of the alarm; that the FA by not attending such a call are undermining the FRA process and their duty of care.
I have also written to CFOA to raise my concerns of this FA's implementation of their document, the response was that it is for each FA to determine their own Protocol for the Reduction of False Alarms & Unwanted Fire Signals.
My next thought is to approach CQC on this, I appear to be the lone voice on this and perhaps the only trainer in this FA's area that is aware of their call challenge policy.

[Golden]

Marek could you fill in some more detail on this. Firstly how many false alarms do your care homes experience? In a previous life as a fire service manager one of my targets was to reduce false alarms in care homes (UWFS for the more pedantic out there) as some were up to a couple a week - over a period of two years the false alarms in the borough reduced by about 30% which was a significant reduction in calls. This is the reason some FAs are insisting on call challenge - the homes weren't interested in reducing false alarms and it was only a fire service intervention that worked. The method was very resource intensive and involved one of my IOs regularly visiting the premises to advise the managers on the reasons behind the alarms and how they could stop them. When you have three fire engines attending persistent false alarms the risk transfers from the home residents to road users where there is a greater risk of an accident (collision - pedants).

Secondly it is your duty of care to protect your residents under the FRA process - the only role the FA has is to prosecute you if you get it wrong!!