Morning all

We have a social care establishment in which some of the service users are refusing to evacuate during a fire alarm. Despite staff encouragement, a small number of service users patently refuse and will even resort to threatening behaviour. The staff have developed a procedure to get them to a safe refuse point, staff members supervise and ensure all fire doors are closed etc until the fire bridage arrive and we can inform them of their location.

So the question is are we doing everything reasonable inspite of the potential for loss of life if there was a real fire?

Without resorting to the A-team tactics to get BA on a plane, I am not sure what further action can be taken?

Any advice is most welcome

This is not an uncommon situation in some 'social care' & similar circumstances

U need to have to hand as much information about the individuals present as possible to enable U to create a professional management plan, irrespective of what 'case workers' & similar say about confidentiality etc as a persons life is the primary thing to care for especially so as the press would have a field day if U had a real emergency!

U may have a war on your hands as 'care workers' medical people & similar are very protective of their areas & will try to block U at every turn but all U can do is what is reasonably practicable noting that U must keep records of your actions, meetings requests etc

And listen to what SS has already said as U can only do so much and no more

Best of luck

Hmm...

But isn't the reason people tend to be in social care because they cannot look after themselves?

As such is there not a higher duty of care to service users than to say a stubborn employee?

...If so, isn't the possible use of "A-team tactics" a legitimate option if required by the individuals PEEP?

- I don't know the answer by the way, just thinking aloud. Feel free to correct any of the above suppositions.

If it is old folk couldn't you just tell them it is the visitors bell and that meetings are now held in the car park?

They'll complain about it afterwards but won't be likely to remember the scam for long so you can use it again next time around.

You see - good risk management is about thinking outside the box.

I'm with Yossarian on this one. How would the beloved Daily Mail report that one? Care workers left their charges to burn?
Under the Human Rights Act the right to life comes top, and if the residents are in any way vulnerable you have a high level of duty of care. Believe me the subsequent enquiry will be long and painful.
Far better to give them a shove out of the door!

Had a similar problem - we were undergoing an audit by the regulator (MCA in our case) and a passenger refused the repeated requests from a crew member to leave his car and go to a muster point.

The MCA surveyor agreed that we had done all that we could and did not criticise the crew - although he did send the passenger a very snotty letter!

@ Tomorton,
Please can you explain what you mean when you say it is fact that they would be negligent? I am not aware of any law placing such a burden.

@tomorton, I would guess your use of the term 'customer' indicates that you don't work in the care sector; the rights of people in care are very carefully and thoroughly set out in law, and they do include a right to refuse to move in general, not just in the specific case of a fire. The applicable law in the OPS scenario is the Mental Capacity Act, and in its terms the ofence would be caused by forcing compliance against the expressed wishes of the person beiong forced. In every case where any kind of compulsion is used there has to be a current assessment of capacity; there are no circumstances where negligence would be applicable where people refused to apply compulsion to somebody who was clearly intedning to stay put,

John

tomorton

If you were to use restraint and custody techniques for a exercise, you may well find that the persons whom conduct this will face criminal charges, and rightly so,if only play acting and not a real life threatening situation. If the persons whom you are trying to remove need restraining then how are you going to restrain them when you reach the muster point.
The difference between real life situations and play act training has to be the considered difference in this situation.

Persons who are likely to become aggressive, confrontational or require help do not need to be placed under stress to help prove that all are complying with the letter of the law. Rights of people still prevail.

As for the PEEP then this would also include the fact that persons may be prone to acts of violence and would not require them to be participants in play acting. You would not evacuate a ward of terminally ill bed bound residents unless it was essential for their safety, why is this any different.

John,

Good point and a sensible approach to managing the risks to both residents & employees. I expect a very emotive and difficult thing to document without being challenged.... Commendable approach!

To be clear I an not suggesting getting 'hands on' with people during a test evacuation, that would be very hard to justify. However, it would be wise to record who was reluctant to leave, include that in the findings of the test evacuation report and build it into the evacuation plan.

However, in the event of a real situation, do not discount 'helping' reluctant vulnerable people out of the door. The use of force to save life is well established in law, see Article 2 Human Rights Act - Positive Obligation on the state to save life. If you are acting on behalf of the state - i.e providing a 'Public Service' this does apply.

If it ever became known that someone had not acted 'due to H&S' and a vulnerable person had burned to death as a result they would be absolutely slaughtered in the national tabloids. They would also have they story told and retold by politicians seeking to make a point. This may not be fair or reasonable, but whenever were the national press or politicians fair or reasonable?

I'm sorry that this may not be palatable to many here, but unfortunately this is the reality of the situation. I know this from the bitter experience of having to support good people who acted perfectly correctly in situations that had a bad outcome through the subsequent enquiries with the accompanying trial by media and politically motivated pronouncements. Please be careful with this.

If you were a customer in a shop, bar or club etc., in which the fire alarm sounded and which employed appropriately trained security staff, which of us would not expect to be physically detained and removed?

If you were unfortunate enough to be detained by Police or in a prison establishment, would you not expect to find yourself physically removed from a fire risk?

Of course, staff without the appropriate training certainly cannot be allowed to get hands-on with anyone.

Hi all

Just a few thoughts.

On taking up residency at a care home do the people sign anything that says they agree to comply with the 'home rules'? If they have signed then failure to comply could lead to being removed as they would be placing all concerned parties at risk. A few may well take up the call and 'If she's/he's not doing it then I'm not!' The staff would then, in a real life fire be caught between the devil and the deep blue. Delay kills does it not?

Why should a fire fighter (or staff) be asked (they would not need to be asked) to put their lives on the line to pull someone out of a blazing building if the person concerned could have walked out unhurt in the first instance?

If someone refuses to take part in a fire drill one must assume that they have limited intellectual capacity and therefore (a) are perhaps best suited to a different place of residence or (b) just being pig headed.

As was said...Not a good read...'old lady left to burn as staff looked on...' ..'they should have dragged her out'..Said grieving son. ...'she couldn't find the fire escape as she never took part in the drills'

'WHAT..The staff and all involved at the home showed little or no concern with her/his welfare. They should have made her/him take part' said the Sun

Zimmy...that was a rant and a half..have a glass of water son

No drill...not home

Zimmy

Never ever have we had a case of refusal in any of our Homes or Day Centres because they are all involved or the reasons to why they need to evacuate has been explained to them on a regular basis. Public buildings are more challenging but calm, trained staff ensure people leave the building (lots of grumbles but they do go). Lack of trained staff will always lead to a disaster in an emergency. Trained staff remain calm and know what to do which enables safe and effective evacuation every time. There was a story from the awful Twin Towers event that (I can't remember which compnay) the Fire Marshall had ensured that he practised fire drills for all his deparment on a regular basis.....so much so that he was seen as a bit obsessive....however that man saved the vast majority of all people in his department. Rhea

What's f'irefighter nowadays, hmmmmm no comment'?

We have had lots of the clients refuse to leave in our fire drill but when we had a smell of smoke due to some one burning toast it was one out all out and that's how it should be would any of us want a family member who was deemed a vulnerable left to burn in a home