Good afternoon all, I'm having a debate with a colleague on the requirements of fire door keep shut requirements in a Care Home. After reading the guidance for care homes and knowledge I gained from the NEBOSH Fire Certificate I think there should be the mandatory "fire door keep shut" signs on the fire doors on service users rooms that have self closing devices installed. But my colleague says its not required. Is t not a rule of thumb that where a self closing device is installed the sign should be in place also. One of his arguments is that the building is their home, but my argument is its still a workplace. Your views will be much appreciated. Barney#1

Hi Barney, I work for a Charity that operate several Care Homes and would not advocate placing "Fire door keep closed" notices on every Residents door, as these doors are generally held open (Residents own choice) to allow free mobility throughout the home. The addition of too much signage would institutionalise the feel of the Home and not be in line with CQC aims. As a further note, best practice would be to have these doors on free swing devices linked to the fire alarm system, to close during activation. Pete,

HMG Guidance is at http://www.communities.g...ents/fire/pdf/151786.pdf "Keep closed" notices are recommended there on p107, but remember this is guidance and not mandatory. Bob I disagree that these Care Home rooms are not workplaces. The permanent staff are working, so too are health visitors, social workers, doctors, community nurses, charity sector workers, the occasional H&S professional, the enforcement agencies etc etc. I do agree that putting blue stickers everywhere can be intrusive and confusing. The management of the home should include monitoring of the doors to ensure that they are not propped open and any on "hold-back devices" will actually close on operation of the alarm.

Ask the architect who desiged the building? Are these bedrooms off protected corridors? Is there a night ime procedure for cheking doors are closed?

I feel that my comment "and their rooms are not [technically] workplaces in the normal sense they are their own private rooms" covered the 'grey' area as yep people do work there so employees etc. are at work when in the room just as somebody is at work in a private house when moving asbestos but it is still a private house/room as somebody lives there and is paying for it Hence we need to balance the situation as dignity must be considered and as stated by others there is more than one way of managing noting that signage is, in many cases inclusive of permanent work places where there is no greynessabout the status of the building etc. not sufficient e.g. infant schools is a good case where signs are everywhere about everything but most people present in such locations cannot read as they are too young!!! REgards

They are not required on residents rooms,I work in the Care Sector and virtually all our bedrooms and all other firedoors have an "hold open" device such as a magnet linked to the Fire Alarm or battery operated Dorgard which hold the doors open and reacts to the noise of the fire alarm and releases the dorgard.(it fails to safe if the battery goes flat) Every bedroom and fire door has a automatic closer fitted,this is essential to ensure the fast comparmentalisation of the premises to prevent the spread of smoke which we all know is the main killer. Our residents can have their doors open 24 hours a day if they wishas long as one of theses devices is fitted(no wedging allowed)after all it is their home.

I must say I'm quite shocked to say the least, as a practitioner that inspects care homes I constantly see service users rooms being obstructed with chairs, door wedges etc. Each room opens on to a corridor which forms a means of escape. The majority of the doors have electromagnetic door realises on them that are connect to the fire alarm system. As this is a premise that accommodates individuals that in most cases cannot get out of bed never mind shut their door in the event of a fire I feel that these signs are are required. I understand that if there are automatic door realises installed then the sign should state "automatic fire door keep clear". I can see the point about staff training but what some of you may be failing to recognise is that there are also visitors that attend relatives etc that would be unaware of the requirements of the company procedures. Is it the case then the management should instructed every person on attendance that they must not obstruct fire doors, or even should they have staff standing at each door making sure they no one obstructs the fire door? Also let's look at the legal duties in this case based on the reasonably practicable argument: Reasonably practicable requires there to be a balance between risk and cost, in terms of money, time and trouble and which are met when the cost of further control is grossly disproportionate to any reduction in risk. So at the small blue mandatory sign at a cost of £0.19 each where is the argument that you have done everything reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of injury and or harm? It's also been mentioned that this a requirement set out in the Local Government and Communities Guidance for Care Homes. Barney#1

Protecting residents from fire and other risks can appear to be contradictory - this current HSE prosecution might be of interest: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pr...-risk&cr=06-Jul-2012

I for one do not understand the 'dignity' argument, are people saying it is undignified to have a little sign on the door that states 'keep closed fire door'? How is it undignified? We need to look at the problem, if it is a problem! Why not have a policy that states that the door must be closed if the resident is out of the room, this probably happens anyway to prevent unwanted visitors when they are not in. I believe that the elderly or are they '3rd generation teenagers' feel isolated with the door closed cutting them off from the world around them. Shouldn't we be balancing the risks and educate both staff and residents.

I rarely post on forums but had come on this site to see if there was any information that would help me with a current problem I have, definitely related to this thread of conversation. I also work for a charity that has some care and support homes - both residential and community. For reasons, that I cant even start to think through our property team have commissioned fire risk assessments from a consultancy that employs ex fire officers. The result it that we have, what I would call an inspection report, that is stipulating we are high risk in one area because there is 1.5 cm of paint on an intumescent seal and that we havent got fire door notices on peoples bedroom doors. To be honest I am extremely disappointed in the approach taken - whilst not disagreeing with the facts of the points raised the level of risk appears disproportionate and I could see no risk assessment information within the review. So for example, whilst considering the signages - there has been no review of whether or not people would understand the signs and thus if they were there how effective would they be, there is nothing in the report that reflects dignity and privacy and content of inspection appears to be totally counter intuitive to the personalisation agenda with social care. There is no evidence in the report of the specific characteristics of our service users being considered and so on. No report on any of the measures we have in place to minimise I have to say we still get regular visits form local fire officers and these sorts of concerns are never raised and we have very positive reports from them I have 3 questions Does anyone use a consultancy for fire risk assessments that they believe adds both value and understanding of specific needs - if so I would appreciate any recommendations. Is it common for fire consultancies not to make reference to HM guidance documents within their reports and for them not to look at risk assessments currently in place (they only asked to see PEEP risk assessments - to quote!!) Is there any piece of legislation/guidance that stipulates the person completing the fire risk assessment MUST have a specific fire qualification. I cant find anything other than some wooley recommendations and some out of context quotes from the Rosepark enquiry report Thanks Lynne

I would expect a consultancy to make reference in their report to the required legislative standards/requirements and associated good practice documents/standards. A person must be competent to undertake fire risk assessments. There is legal requirement to attend specific fire safety risk assessment training. What 'comptence' is open to lengthy debate and argument in the h&s world. In my experience just because you have been a fireman (on the pumps/tenders etc) doesn't necessarily lead to being a good/competent fire risk assessor. These guys are good at the practicalities of fighting fires etc, which is not to be dismissed, but sometimes don't have a good understanding of building design, fire spread/devlopment etc. And as you appear to have found, only see the legislative/technical solutions to fire risk assessment - not the wider diginity aspects of care homes etc. Don't be taken in by the 'I was a fireman for 30yrs with xxxx County Fire & Rescue Service' No doubt the ex firemen will now get the huff with me

Hi Lynne, My sympathies, you appear to have fallen foul of the vagaries of the consultancy world. It really doesn’t help to hear/read stories like yours. I agree with the statements above, the FRA should be carried out by competent persons. Equally, there is NO requirement to have any particular training to demonstrate said competence. I also agree with JJ that being an ex firefighter does not automatically qualify you to carry out fire risk assessments. The competency criteria published earlier this year may help you to pick a better provider next time: http://www.britishfireco..._competency_document.pdf However, on the subject of referencing legislation, best practice and guidance, every consultant will have their own view on this. The FRA needs to be a working document and there is an argument for less is more – clients need to know what they are doing well and what they need to improve. Referencing legislation and best practice can help put the point across but this should not turn into an exploration of how much referencing you can cram into a document, or be used to obfuscate. With regard to the HM guidance documents, they are exactly that – guidance. In some instances, it can be counterproductive to reference them as they only set out the minimum fire safety standards expected. But, I’m with you on reviewing past findings or risk assessments, this is often the only way to gauge the commitment to fire safety - lots of uncompleted actions don’t bode well. Sadly I can’t recommend anyone (slight conflict of interest!) but happy to discuss privately if you want. I would only suggest that you look at companies or individuals who have either taken the time to affiliate to Institutions such as the IFE or join a recognised risk assessor register, and/or have suitable experience demonstrable through client feedback. I hope that helps, Jerry PS the PEEP risk assessments made me chuckle

JJ Prendergast wrote 'I would expect a consultancy to make reference in their report to the required legislative standards/requirements and associated good practice documents/standards'. Why? Of what benefit would it be? There are times when someone will ask for this but the majority don't care and are having an assessment done because they have to and only want you to tell them what they have to do. Even in my own workplace I will complete an assessment and I used to add legislation etc. but my director asked me why when I explained the reason behind it he said just tell me what we need to do, I am not going to look at a load of documents to find out what your saying is correct. It is my experience that people feel confused by all the Article this and section that, regulation whatever says, I feel that this is often for the benefit of the author to prove that they know what they are talking about and offers no real value to the assessment or report. It's like showing a CMIOSH membership card, has no real benefit in showing it, proves little but makes the owner feel good as quite often they have worked hard to get it.

many thanks for responding to my posts Sometimes you just need to touch base with people to make sure that your expectations are both reasonable and sound Lynne

Evacuation of a care home is one of the issues that I'm faced with nearly every day in my new role as a H & S Advisor. The homes are familiar with horizontal evacuation but its a grey issue as to what they would do in a vertical evacuation as we don't have solutions in every homes for getting people with no or limited mobility down the stairs. I've looked at possible Evac solutions including the sleeping bag type stretcher that would enable residents to be carried down stairs safely but then this causes a further issue of manual handling for care staff. Can I ask how other homes address this?

Mrs Noodles - there are a number of issues here. The most obvious solution is only allow those with mobility to be located upstairs - keep those with mobility problems on the ground floor. Clearly this might not be a solution for you if all are mobility impaired. I am tempted to ask how did the mobility impaired people get to the floor they are on in the first place - was it by lift? Is the lift fire rated for use in an emergency? Progressive horizontal evacuation is fine for some instances but in the event that a total evacuation is required it sounds you have a problem. What does the fire risk assessment say on how to address this? Are there PEEPS in place? We have used "rescue mats" in some locations but they aren't ideal for everyone as they do require some cooperation from the persons being evacuated. Sorry its a bit rambling just some quick notes!

I work for an LA and have been through all these issues. There is no requirement to put signs on bedroom doors in a care home environment, if you have extra care facilities these are classed as flats so you do require fire door keep shut signs. It is about the care home being the persons home and so long as the signs are on the corridor doors this should be enough. You need to concentrate on the more serious issue of fire training and management. We have audited our establishments and found that a number of doors were wedged open, why? because we had door closers on and not swing free style closers so service users felt trapped, we are investing in swing free in all our homes and have asked the managers to assess the individual risk so we try to avoid accidents until we have enough money to do them all. We now deliver evacuation of a zone using a mannequin and have revamped the general fire training and made the induction more detailed to ensure all staff inlcuding agency staff know how to read the fire panel and what action to take etc. One issue during simulation training was that staff run back to the office rather than use the nearest fire action point! We have researched evacuation aids and use the albac mat and have introduced them even on the ground floor where a risk was identified eg bed bound respite beds and sensory rooms We don't have fire lifts in any of our establishments. We place a sign inside our service users bedrooms that read if the alarm activates please stay in your room and wait for a member of staff and this was an idea from the residents and fire is reiterated in residents meetings too. We have also asked our managers to complete an emergency plan for full evacuation of the establishment, where to go and how you going to them there etc. PEEPs are completed for all our residents otherwise how can you ensure you have considered their needs for evacuation. We still only have 2 night staff members for most of our homes which is one of the reasons why we needed better training for zones this is the biggest risk area. Fire is such a big area and if you read the rosepark report training and management are key. I just wish the fire authority were able to give proper advice with their report rather than quoting the legislation and saying broadly compliant for everything! LB