Fire Suppression Systems For the Old and Vunerable!

[Guest]

I am absolutely appalled at the comments raised by the Head of Scottish Care Homes, which he said that a sprinkler would not have averted the fire in the care home and he called it "a freak and tragic occurrence". It may not have averted the fire but by god I'm sure a sprinkler or indeed any other suppression system would have averted the number of fatalities.
The Chief Executive of Scottish Care, Joe Campbell, also made the comment, financially loaded, that homes could not bear the "burden" cost to have sprinklers installed.
What about the cost to all those families and the effect on the surviving residents and staff!!
I am disgusted that people who are employed in a supposedly caring environment could even think along those lines!! These people are frail vunerable members of society and we have a duty of care to protect them.
My local Authority, after some pushing, finally installed suppression systems in Sheltered Housing Schemes, on a rolling programme basis. There are at present 3 Schemes that are covered. 3rd October 2003 one of these systems probably saved the life of a 90 year old resident who had a kitchen fire, the system put the fire out, he was back in his flat 6 hours later, no worse for the experience. Unfortunately this did not make headline news, not very newsworthy eh!!, No one died, Thank God !!

[ian 2243]

We are all appalled by the tragic loss of life at the Uddingston nursing home.
It is still too early to make judgements as to how this all panned out but from what I can gather the fire started in a storage cupboard which would be unlikely to have been covered by a sprinkler system in any event.
According to the reports the fire itself was not too severe, the problem was the dynamic smoke production and as some sources report that fire and other doors were left open to allow easier movement for the residents it follows that the smoke would quickly travel throughout.
What seems to me just as disturbing is I would have thought such a risk would be covered by a category L1 fire detection system which would have meant a smoke detector fitted in the cupboard and therefore given an earlier indication of the fire.
To be fair as I said earlier it is still too soon to be making judgements and once again we look at reactive measures rather than proactive in an effort not to repeat this terrible tragedy.
Ian.
 :x

[Guest]

The ODPM work on residential sprinklers would appear to suggest that sprinklers might be cost effective in such establishments. The findings of the work, as covered in an excellent paper given by Darren Hobbs at a seminar held by BSI on HMO fire safety today, appear to be extremely important to the fire community. The seminar was a sell-out, probably because of this paper alone, and will be repeated on 11 May. Information on the seminar is available on the BSI website, which is www.bsi-global.com/seminars

[Guest]

Cool smoke can still kill.
We should continue to campaign for fire sprinklers but must be very careful not to see them as the only solution to fire risks. Most importantly we must understand that all fire safety equipment has it's limits - and crucially, know what they are.

[colin todd]

By the way, an L1 system might not have a detector in every cupboard.

[ian 2243]

Given the use and contents of the cupboard it would have had a smoke detector in an L1 system.
Ian.

[Guest]

Whether sprinklers or an enhanced AFD system would have helped saved lives in this terrible fire is of course, speculation and hopefully will be dealt with in the investigation and political fall out from this tragedy.

However it is fairly apparent that the smoke spread rather too easily/quickly during this fire which raises the question of compartmentation, and in particular, fire doors.

I (in common with probably everyone who uses this board) have seen  hundreds of fire doors wedged open or inoperative in some way. Usually due to ignorance and "it's never happened before" syndrome.

In the case of an older persons home, staff receive more training(hopefully) than in most premises and should be aware of the importance of fire doors. However it's the impracticalities associated with constantly opening such heavy doors (especially by the elderly) which lead to wedging open of fire doors.

Simple solution: make it a requirement that all corridor and lobby fire doors in Old persons homes are fitted with door holding devices (magnetic or sound operated). Expensive? - Perhaps, but cheaper and quicker than sprinklers, especially when fitting retrospectivley

Why insist on fire doors when we all know many are not 'available' most of the time?

Messy

[Guest]

Check todays Telegraph. Page 18, Doctors diary.

 ...highly successful campaign...challenging the health and safety regulations in care homes requiring that fire doors be kept closed....

Dave

[colin todd]

Oh Messy, Messy Messy. How can I break this gently to you. I really don't quite know how to tell you, without sounding partisan. Oh well, here goes. Duh! SHTM 84, which is the Scottish version of HTM 84 and is the guidance on fire safety in res care establishments, has, since the year 2000, specified free swing closers on bedroom doors in res care, closing automatically on operation of the fire alarm system. This might be regarded to go hand in hand with the Scottish Technical Standards, which support the building regs in Scotland (cf ADB in E&W)  and require doors in sleeping risks to be self closing (but does not object to automatic closing on fire alarm systems). In 1997, in E&W, the then Institute of Building Control brought out a document on applying the Building Regs 1991 in E&W to res care, and it recommended that bedroom doors in res care did not need to be self closing. HTM 84 in Northern Ireland takes the same view, namely that bedroom doors do not need to be self closing. However, it is under review and it might be reasonable to speculate that it will go the same direction as SHTM 84.

[colin todd]

Ian, what was the use and contents of the cupboard?

[ian 2243]

Colin,
According to the info I currently have the store cupboard was used for linen (not sure whether this was soiled or clean), it also had the main electrical consumer unit housed within. It really shouldn't need regulation to have detection fitted in this store.
There appears also to be have been confusion regarding the location of the fire as the anunciator panel showed the wrong 'address' within the building.
I have no idea when the system was installed but a retro-fit to cover the linen store would have been handy.
Ian.

[Guest]

Colin

You Scots are so forward thinking.

Mind you, with several litres of Scotch whisky and other flammable alcohols in the average Scot's bedroom, one could argue that the fire loading is higher north of the border (with the possible exception of George Best's house down here).

[Guest]

Colin

You Scots are so forward thinking.

Mind you, with several litres of Scotch whisky and other flammable alcohols in the average Scot's bedroom, one could argue that the fire loading is higher north of the border (with the possible exception of George Best's house down here).

Messy

[colin todd]

Yes, yes Messey, I heard you the first time. Ian, the alleged incorrect indication by the fire alarm system is extremely interesting. Hopefully, this can be bottomed out, as it could have implications for design, commissioning and verification of fire alarm systems. However, after such a disastrous fire, speculation, although inevitable, is probably not appropriate, and we should really just wait to see what lessons we can all learn ( yes, Messey even in those brigades where they know everyhing about everything already).

[Guest]

Colin, please don't bully me. I can't help it if I stutter when I type!

Messy