Updated Fire Safety code for Care Homes
Additional guidance has been published for fire safety in residential care and nursing homes in order to clarify the government guide to fire risk assessment, fire control and fire avoidance within the industry to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) legislation. The new guide is in the form of updates to the existing Communities and Local Government Guide for care homes which remains in force although it should be noted that unlike the RRO is not enshrined in law but is for want of a better description a Code of Practice
Even so the additional guidance, published by the National Association for Safety and Health in Care Services (NASHiCS) and the Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA), deals with several issues and if anything relaxes some provisions within of the previous CLG Guide to acknowledge the variations in age and construction of care homes and not least the differing mobility levels of residents. Care Home owners are well advised to work closely to these guidelines to ensure legal compliance with the RRO.
Specific issues covered include upgrades to fire compartments, evacuation times, dealing with residents unable to evacuate without assistance, travel distances on evacuation routes, use of external fire escapes and by-pass routes.
I have a close relative in a care home and when I visit even at 97 years she is always lucid, happy, content and I hope safe in her micro community. What is noticeable is that for the most part for practical purposes within the residential blocks at least the compartment fire doors are often fixed in the open position. I will check next time I visit to see if they are fixed using automatic safety closing devices such as the Dorgard Automatic Fire Door Retainer that will ensure compartmentation in the event of fire. The rooms to the individual “guest”” rooms are more often closed but without any self closers attached. If the new guidance is followed these rooms which should already have 30 minute fire compartmentation may have to be upgraded at the first opportunity to 60 mins “if practical” so as to provide a temporary refuge should the occupant be unable to be evacuated immediately. With my relative being somewhat hard of hearing I could I guess see if the home would install a Deafguard Fire Alarm which incorporates a flashing beacon and under pillow vibration pad to alert the resident to a fire alarm.
The additional guidance is intended to provide care home managers with a clearer understanding of the existing CLG guide and compliance with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. If you have a loved one in care you might just check the basic fire safety provisions are in place on your next visit
A copy of the report can be found at the following link:
http://www.nashics.org/uploads/documents/23641652.pdf
Comments (0)
Disabled smoke detectors lead to prosecution
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some businesses will go to circumvent fire safety legislation often with wanton disregard for the safety of their customers and staff.
A recent prosecution under the Fire Safety legislation saw the owner of a Thai restaurant pleading guilty to 12 charges relating to fire safety breaches posing a life-threatening risk to staff and customers. So extensive are the legal responsibilities for the business owner as the “responsible person” as defined under the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order (RRO) that it is all too easy for one misdemeanor to generate several other non compliances each of which is a prosecution in its own right.
In this case Fire Safety inspectors, who by the way have the right to call on any premises unannounced, found amongst several safety breaches that the owner had installed smoke detectors and then proceeded to tape cling film over the unit sensors to prevent them from sounding the alarm in the event of a fire. That has to be just about as irresponsible as it can get particularly when the premises was not only a restaurant but also doubled as a boarding house for members of staff.
It also showed a lack of understanding on the correct placement of smoke detectors. As a rule you would not install them in a kitchen area where even with air extraction the generation of smoke from cooking can result in persistent false alarms and is probably what prompted the owner to disable them. Better to install them in adjacent rooms so as to detect excessive smoke generation.
I would also recommend the use of Optical Smoke Detectors in these areas as they are less prone to false alarms than the cheaper Ionization Smoke Detectors.
In the restaurant kitchen you can install a 2 litre or 6 litre Wet Chemical fire extinguisher and one or two of the larger sized fire blankets to provide effective means to combat cooking fat fires and pan fires on commercial ranges.
In this case the owner of the restaurant paid the ultimate price for his recklessness with the forced sale of the business in order to pay the fine and costs imposed as a result of the successful prosecution.
Comments (0)
Smoke and Mirrors
As a frequently stopped smoker and even more sadly, an avid reader of European and UK safety legislation I draw your attention to the announcement of a new EN standard published on 12th November entitled “EN 16156 Cigarettes – Assessment of the ignition propensity.”
According to the blurb this is I quote – “a new European standard for fire safer cigarettes that extinguish themselves.” It apparently details Fire safety requirements for what are mystifyingly termed reduced ignition propensity cigarettes that are designed to stop burning through their whole length when not, and I quote, being “actively smoked”. The standard complements another tome published this September, ISO 12863 Standard test method for assessing the ignition propensity for cigarettes.
Both the standards may be in force across the EU as early as November 2011.
Now given the much publicised propensity for unnecessary and downright crazy legislation emanating from the European Parliament I wonder at the thinking behind this standard. I presume that at our expense some team of scientists has determined what defines an actively smoked cigarette. Of course it has to be lit in the first place but how often you take a puff is surely down to individual preference. I can see a new crime of fag rage taking hold when frustrated smokers find they are continually relighting to sate their addiction. I am (currently was) a slow puffer and much of my cigarette burnt away between drags whilst conversely my brother smokes roll ups which free from all the unnecessary additives requires more frequent puffing to stay alight. I fully expect further legislation forcing smokers into puffing at predetermined time intervals or face immediate incarceration for failure to actively smoke.
The up side for us is that sales of our sophisticated cigarette smoke detectors that issue stern verbal warning messages will rocket with possibly a script changed to “Active smoking is prohibited”.
Comments (0)
Court of Appeal to rule on fairness of RRO sentence
The Court of Appeal is expected to issue new guidelines this week on the level of fines metered out for breaches of the RRO. The appeal is mounted by New Look against its record-breaking fine of £400,000 plus a hefty £136,000 in legal costs arising from a serious fire that eventually led to the demolition if its Oxford Street store.
Hillary Ross of law firm Bond Pearce giving details at a presentation to a conference of Safety & Health Practitioners this month, maintained that there is a huge problem of consistency in sentencing across England and Wales and a lack of guidance for fire and rescue authorities in pursuing prosecutions.
She echoes my sentiments when stating “When the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into play [in October 2006], it was hoisted not just on industry but also on fire officers”, who were given no additional training, no additional guidance, and no support for the changes the law brought in.
The basis of the New Look appeal is that the punishment is disproportionate and bears no relation to fines imposed in other areas of Health and Safety.
I have long argued that the RRO gives the fire services an open season on prosecuting otherwise law abiding businesses. The figures also suggest that the fines imposed reflect ability to pay rather than the seriousness of the actual offence. This dare I say raises the prospect of fire services “actively” seeking prosecution to raise easy revenue. This is borne out by Ms Ross who also criticised fire authorities for handing out prohibition notices “like sweeties”. Under H&S rules, prohibition notices should only be used if the risk to life is so serious that operations cannot continue. A poorly conducted fire risk assessment hardly qualifies.
I think Ms Moss has a point when you look at some of the fines imposed for serious breaches of Health & Safety legislation. At New Look the offences amounted to having conducted an inadequate fire risk assessment and insufficient staff training, which led to a delayed evacuation of the premises – this judgment despite the fact that no lives were lost or injuries sustained.
Compare New Looks £536000 punishment with that dispensed earlier this year to a marble and granite manufacturing company who were fined £100,000 with £46,500 costs after a worker died and two others were injured when six tonnes of stone slabs fell on them whilst unloading an unstable and poorly restrained load. Similarly scrap metal company Sims Group UK Ltd, who pleaded guilty to a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act that caused the death of a driver, crushed when a one and a half tonne metal bale rolled off a scrap pile. They were fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £57,500 costs. The figures just don’t add up under comparison.
Let’s hope the Court of Appeal will bring clarity and fairness to stop the current RRO free for all.
Finally a welcome to Bob Neil sitting Conservative MP for Bromley & Chislehurst on his elevation to Minister for Fire. It is encouraging to note he is a former leader of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority so at least has experience of the department he oversees. How refreshing this new politics is!!
Tony
Comments (0)
Important addition to RRO regulations
A quick update on an important addition to the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005. The new regulation is cited in the usual legal disguise as the Fire Safety (Employees’ Capabilities) (England) Regulations 2010 and came into force on 6th April 2010.
As is increasingly the case the new law applies only to England as our devolved parliaments have either yet to ratify it or fire safety compliance training has been mandatory in Welsh, Scottish and Ulster infants schools since the second world war. The following is the complete citation from the edict.
“Employer to take employees’ capabilities into consideration
2. Every employer must, in entrusting tasks to employees, take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety, so far as those capabilities relate to fire.”
It is signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government one Shahid Malik who presumably after his defeat on May 6th is now spending more time with his family.
What the new edict means in essence is that an employer cannot offload any of his responsibility for fire safety onto an employee unless that employee has demonstrable expertise in fire safety issues, which excludes just about everybody. You will also need to find a deputy fire officer to cover absence.
This set me thinking that when the RRO was introduced the Government effectively saddled every employer, landlord, business owner and some tenants – as defined by law – with responsibility for adherence to the new RRO fire safety regulatory regime. Now surely they knew that they were offloading this responsibility arbitrarily to individuals without first checking if they were possessed of the capabilities to undertake the task.
A clear case of do what I say not what I do.
If you want to elevate a member of staff to the position of fire safety officer I suggest to avail yourself of one or more of our excellent fire safety awareness staff training programme’s that will allow you to train all your staff to a level that will meet the new regulatory framework.
Tony
Comments (0) < Previous Page | Next Page >