AFD for smoking room in care home

[lancsfirepro]

Carried out an FRA in a care home and the residents were smoking in the rear escape corridor near the exit door.  They don't have a smoking room and if the weather is cold the chain-smokers are there most of the day apparently.  If they provide a designated smoking room with appropriate ventilation etc... what is the most appropriate AFD to recommend?  I would normally suggest heat detection but as it's a care home thought Carbon Monoxide (CO) may be more suitable as they are more tolerant to cigarette smoke and would provide earlier alarm.  Does anyone know whether a CO detector would still result in false alarms in this instance due to cigarette smoke?

[Owain]

I would just mention that smoking in corridors is illegal and the management are liable for a £2500 fine if they permit it.

...  sitting rooms, dining areas, reception areas, corridors and all other communal areas which are enclosed places and structures which are ‘substantially enclosed’ are legally required to be smokefree.
http://www.shepway.gov.uk/UserFiles/File/pdf/smokefree/smokefree-legislation-residential-homes.pdf

Slightly stupidly, a smoking room can be provided for residents, but staff aren't allowed to use it.

If the designated room is furnished with fire-resistant finishes, eg metal checkerplate flooring, metal benches then there should be nothing to catch fire even if a cigarette is dropped and left smouldering.

[lancsfirepro]

Thanks for your reply. I was specifically asking about the AFD for a designated smoking room.

[jayjay]

In the designated smoking rooms of the care homes that I have had involvement with, smoke detection is provided and there has never been any false alarms with cigarette smoke.

there was one incident when a service user set fire to her clothing, this was quickly detected by the smoke detector and thankfully was quickly dealt with by the staff and only minor burns were caused.

Provided all the safe guards as detailed in the above response are provided I have no problem with smoke detection in residential care designated smoking rooms.

[SamFIRT]

there was one incident when a service user set fire to her clothing, this was quickly detected by the smoke detector and thankfully was quickly dealt with by the staff and only minor burns were caused.

Did it's job then 

[kurnal]

Yes in theory a CO detector should give an earlier response than a heat detector and will be less vulnerable to unwanted alarms than an optical detector. Vulnerability to unwanted alarms depends on how heavily the room is used and the provision of ventialtion.

 I think it doubtful that any fire alarm and detection system will give sufficiently early warning to avoid injury from clothing on fire but for other scenarios- bin fires, furnishings on fire (all should be non upholstered or ignition source crib 5 anyway) there might be a benefit in going for an addressable system with optical detection configured to give a staff pre alarm to verify the cause before  sounding the evacuation alarm.  But I would go for the hierarchy of measures first, eliminating all ignition sources (apart from the cigarettes- but these must be controlled)  and combustible materials as far as possible first.

[lancsfirepro]

Thanks for the replies chaps.  There's a bit to do alarm wise in the place so I guess an extra CO detector won't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

[Owain]

If the designated room is furnished with fire-resistant finishes, eg metal checkerplate flooring, metal benches then there should be nothing to catch fire even if a cigarette is dropped and left smouldering.

I am going to revise my opinion after the following case near me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-21509430

Ms Samson was badly burnt in a fire in the smoking room of Wellgreen House on 14 February. She was taken to hospital but died the following day. ... It is understood the woman's hair caught fire while she was lighting a cigarette. She was burnt on the head and back. Fire crews responded to an automatic alarm, but the fire had been put out by staff in the home by the time they arrived.

[lancsfirepro]

Poor woman.  Not a nice way to go.

[Mike Buckley]

My condolencies to the family of the poor woman, however there is no way any type of fire detector could have done anything about it.

The purpose of fire detection is to alert people to a fire. The best fire detector is the good old Mk1 eyeball.

The problem in the smoking room is, it needs a detector that will not go off when people are smoking in it, but will go off if a fire starts whilst the room is unoccupied. It is reasonable to expect that if there is someone in the room when the fire starts then they will do something to raise the alarm.

Obviously the perfect solution is to stop the residents smoking anywhere inside the building, but this is not a practical answer.

[SamFIRT]

It would be interesting to know if the lady was using, or had used, oxygen before the fire. O2 enrichment can cause very rapid fire development. We had a case where the cannula to a patient’s nose was ignited by a cigarette. Or a bed jacket was O2 enriched and ignited by a smoker's pipe.

I have also carried out some experimentation on bedding, both flame retardant and non retardant treated, where the under bedding atmosphere was O2 enriched, with interesting results.

Care homes use oxygen.

[wee brian]

Old ladies use hairspray too - probably more likely

[SamFIRT]

Possibly. But why probably?