Detector in Care Home Smoking Lounge

[kurnal]

It sounds to me that you are meeting all reasonable needs and that  smoke detection will not  provide any significant further benefit. As previously stated.

[nearlythere]

And I was accused of being grumpy!

Posting history aside I judged this query to be pretty universal as I wager clothing ignites and burns the same irrespective of the geography.

And the CQC in England regularly overstep their mark and are rarely corrected in this by the AHJ!

NI. Of course it's universal K wherever it is. By the way - where are you from?

[nearlythere]

NI. And as the OP says RQIA can be a strange lot. They make decisions on fire safety and I don't believe any of them are Registered as it requires anyone else involved in FS to be.

One thing I know they were involved in was a requirement in a new Dementia Unit that the service users had to be able to lock themselves in their rooms without making sure that arrangements  were in place to ensure staff could get them out.

[David Rooney]

Quickest response but to avoid false alarms may be from a point flame detector - depends on the manufacture of the system.

Only issue would be the lighting of the cigarettes - you wouldn't want to use a lighter but then I wouldn't have thought the clients are allowed to wander around with lighters in there pockets ... You would need "hot element" lighters like a car lighter.

[AnthonyB]

I wrongly assumed that posters would connect RQIA with Northern Ireland so apologies about that.

If you had actually mentioned the RQIA in the original post we would. 'Registration Body' on it's own could be anywhere, some posters seem to have crystal balls!

That's where the confusion came from!

[AnthonyB]

Doesn't say anything other than registration body in the OP, my crystal ball is in for repair....

Perhaps posters should make clear where they are situated in order to use the right legislation and identify the AHJ

NI. Do you identify where you are before you you speak AB? You really should or you can confuse the issue. And what do you mean by "right" legislation? Is legislation wrong other than where you come from? And if you don't know what RQIA is you clearly aren't reading enough.

Pedant. By the right legislation it if course means the legislation appropriate to the country where the premises are. No point applying the 2013 California Fire Code if talking about a building in Bolton for (an extreme) example...

And I know who the RQIA are except (for the thousandth time) it doesn't mention it anywhere in the original post!

[nearlythere]

Why did you not ask before you got involved?

[kurnal]

Come on chaps it's the season of goodwill. Personally I think the original posting could be answered without regard to the geography.

[colin todd]

Big Al,  I have some sympathy with your view, but its not the first time that people have given advice that is wrong in the context of NI and Scottish legislation.  That's why its dangerous for people to rely on the advice of strangers down the pub (unless it is someone like Wee B, who is strange, can sometimes be found in the pub but is generally spot on the mark).

Anyhow, has that poor wee Galway girl got the answer she needs, which is more to the point.  In summary, dont rush to a heat detector, but think about an ICSD (if there is one in the range of the manufacturer) or check what their multi sensors are capable of doing. 

[kurnal]

First of all a note to hmcb1976 to say I hope the shenanigans that have arisen from your posting have not put you off for the future. You really are welcome and the detail you provided in your subsequent posts indicated to me that other than for your initial query that are well on top of this issue to an extent that most fire safety professionals would not consider.

Colin I can't believe you dismissed a fellow professional as a poor wee Galway girl. Can you not see how insulting this is? Obviously a need for some training for you.

As for Wee B I guess you have said enough to warrant your bottle of Ministry Christmas scotch.

I don't disagree that an ionisation detector is likely to reduce unwanted alarms, whilst on the face of it satisfying the Authorities but I was more concerned not to paper over the cracks but to educate them to remove this misperception that a detector in the room will give early enough warning to prevent injury or death as the inspection team is likely to carry it with them and repeat it at all homes they visit. Or is that just me over complicating things as usual?

[Fishy]

Very good point about the multi-sensors - I had cause to look into the detail of how they work a few years ago & it's inconsistent.  For example, I looked at the Hochiki multi-sensor and as a default this uses the heat detector to vary the sensitivity of the smoke detector - but only by 1% so it might be less prone to false alarms than a standard detector, but by no means immune.

It's usually very hard to find this detail in the product literature - they're often quite vague (perhaps deliberately so).  

[kurnal]

Yes those I have worked with offer a range of sensitivities or "states" selected by the engineer, in respect of smoke detection rate of rise and peak temperature, which can be varied to find a combination that suits the environment. The bottom line is that on extreme settings the smoke detection is switched off and you have a heat detector and vice versa. Hopefully Dave R will see this and enlighten us?

[nearlythere]

Hi all,

looking some advice from all you knowledgeable folk 

Care Home with a designated smoking room for residents. Fitted with a Photo Electric Detector, when there are 4-5 smokers in the room, fire alarm activates. This has resulted in a number of false alarms. ventilation system has been upgraded, no combustible materials in the room except clothing worn by the smokers.

Looking for people's opinion on what the best form of fire detection is?  I have recommended a fixed temp 57 Deg C heat detector, this has been refused by the registration body on the grounds that if somebody sets their clothing / hair on fire a heat detector will not activate quickly enough to prevent injury to the smoker. Is it not widely accepted that no detector will pick up this sort of fire rapidly enough to prevent injury / burns to the smoker??

 The inspector is insisting on a smoke detector being fitted to the room, would you good folk recommend an ionisation smoke detector?

Your thoughts would be warmly welcomed as I'm fighting a losing battle!!

Many thanks,

I would be inclined not to fight them Hmcb. They consider themselves experts now so give them what they want. In the event of the F&RService sending out their standard "too many false alarms" letter your client can direct it to those responsible.

[lyledunn]

NI. Clearly false alarms are a serious concern. My own view would be that the current situation is not fixable by detector choice. The room should be closed and the smokers moved out of the building, perhaps to some purpose-built external shelter. Smoking inside care homes by anyone should not be tolerated.

[nearlythere]

The only fire caused by smoking I have experience of Lyle happened outside a cre home between the building and its external smoking shelter.

Making residents go outside to have a smoke has its own problems where additional staff is needed to ensure residents don't do a runner. At least when they are inside in a designated room where they can be more easily monitored.

The other serious issue I have experience of was in a sheltered housing situation where some very high risk smokers were presenting a significant risk to other users and staff. The residents were allowed to smoke in their bedrooms and some of the things they were doing with smoking materials would make you cringe. I wanted a total ban on internal smoking but the various regulatory bodies considered this a breach of their human rights. Can you believe it?