IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Emergency Escape Route / Security - Childrens Home
Rank: Forum user
|
I'm hoping to get some opinions on a quandary we have at a small childrens home. In summary, the home consists of 2 semi-detached houses joined together internally, from the outside it appears to be a residential property. The maximum number of occupants is 8 young people (aged 14-16), 4 on each side of the house, overnight 2 members of staff sleep in, one on each side of the house. All bedrooms are on the first floor. There is a ground floor extension housing an office / workspace only used during the day.
Both front doors are locked manually with a key at 10pm. Currently, the documented emergency evacuation procedure (for after 10pm) states that the employees on site will unlock the doors with the key to enable egress. It has been highlighted that, if for any reason, both staff members at the property (who would be 'sleeping in' on opposite sides of the building) become incapacitated, the doors would remain locked which is clearly unacceptable, however unlikely.
A recent FRA states "Exits are in line with a residential property and are the responsibility of the staff to open in the even of an emergency situation", and does not recommend any further action. My concern is that while the intention is to create as close to a home environment as possible for the children living there, ultimately - it is more than a 'residential property' and as such, more robust procedures need to be established.
We've discussed timed mag locks linked to the fire alarm etc, so that the doors do not need to be manually unlocked in the event of an emergency, but there are concerns that these will not be effective in terms of adequately securing the front doors overnight. The question has been raised by other parties as to whether any action or change is required at all, especially since the FRA states the procedure is apparently compliant (albeit in the context of a residential property).
Any thoughts on the matter are gratefully received.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm sure someone will add to my comments but I would never lock a front door with a key when people are in the property. The exception being if the key was left in the lock itself, even then with young persons I would feel uncomfortable. For additional security why not fit a chain or bolt?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't claim any great specific knowledge of children's homes - however from the information given, as an independent 'obeserver'...
What are the chances of both adults becoing incapacitated at the same time? Extremely low I would suggest. Save some dual wilful act at the same time, I would say a barely credible event.
You say the houses have access between each other - so cross exscape should be possible. Again save some wilful act of obstructing the fire escape.
You have indicated that the 'children' are 14-16 - so while obviously not legally adults, neither are they true children/babies incapable of independent action/escape.
What type of children's home is it? For children with mental illness - where irrational behaviour may happen or a children's home where the occupants are simply housed for whatever reason (awaiting foster care/adoption etc - but with no mental health issues).
If the latter, at ages 14-16 they should be capable of opening/unlocking a door, even in the event of an emergency. I would say they are young adults rather than 'children'.
I would also think that the fire risks are low to start off with?
Control/access to the front door keys seems to be paramount, after the doors are locked at 10pm.
As indicated by your existing FRA - the overall fire risks, seem to be 'normal' residential risks.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I forgot to add - for both adults to become incapacitated at the same time - seems very unlikely for the following reasons.
They are in each side of the joined houses. So it would take the outbreak of 2 separate fires at the same time for smoke to overcome both adults. An unlikely event. I assume there are probably a number of fire doors already separating the joined houses. Also a fire alarm etc.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
some great points and comments made here. And with due respect it sounds like we have another very poor fire risk assessment of which there appears to be millions about especially in such circumstances
what is your role; as I advise that a proper RA be undertaken which accounts for the children present and their specific circumstances and if not competent to do so get hold of somebody who is to support U ---- I would say that a competent person in this case is a person who has a large amount of experience etc. with fire plus childrens homes plus proper H&S all joined together e.g. the local authorities H&S team [not the LA's EHO's] may be best placed to support U [if there are any left that is after the cost cutting that has gone on - I know of some authorities who have got rid of their whole internal H&S teams!]
Without knowing the whole picture I would say that simple chains are sufficient as anybody can take them off in an emergency additionally this not not strictly residential as people are working there [sleeping in such circumstances is noted as being at work!]
best of luck
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I may be reading more into your post than was intended, so a question.
Is there a concern that if the children can get out in a fire they could also use the same method to run away ?
This may help others advise
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
DonnaAlAssaad wrote:I'm hoping to get some opinions on a quandary we have at a small childrens home. In summary, the home consists of 2 semi-detached houses joined together internally, from the outside it appears to be a residential property. The maximum number of occupants is 8 young people (aged 14-16), 4 on each side of the house, overnight 2 members of staff sleep in, one on each side of the house. All bedrooms are on the first floor. There is a ground floor extension housing an office / workspace only used during the day.
Both front doors are locked manually with a key at 10pm. Currently, the documented emergency evacuation procedure (for after 10pm) states that the employees on site will unlock the doors with the key to enable egress. It has been highlighted that, if for any reason, both staff members at the property (who would be 'sleeping in' on opposite sides of the building) become incapacitated, the doors would remain locked which is clearly unacceptable, however unlikely.
A recent FRA states "Exits are in line with a residential property and are the responsibility of the staff to open in the even of an emergency situation", and does not recommend any further action. My concern is that while the intention is to create as close to a home environment as possible for the children living there, ultimately - it is more than a 'residential property' and as such, more robust procedures need to be established.
We've discussed timed mag locks linked to the fire alarm etc, so that the doors do not need to be manually unlocked in the event of an emergency, but there are concerns that these will not be effective in terms of adequately securing the front doors overnight. The question has been raised by other parties as to whether any action or change is required at all, especially since the FRA states the procedure is apparently compliant (albeit in the context of a residential property).
Any thoughts on the matter are gratefully received. Is it not possible to evacuate to the rear of the property into the garden or yard? I guess from there there will be some kind of route to the front.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Chris42 - you have read between the lines correctly; part of the purpose for locking the door at 10pm, is a means of 'dissuading the young residents from leaving the premises'.
The 2 sides of the house are only interconnected on the ground floor so if one staircase becomes unusable - the people on the upper floor of that side of the house, have no escape route (this is another issue under discussion). The doors to the rear of the property on the ground floor are also locked at night, primarily because these rooms house the office and IT suite etc). The residents do not have any learning disabilities - sometimes "challenging behaviour", but they are aged 14-16 :)
My role is an adviser with the LA; the issue was highlighted following an ofsted inspection. The relevant manager has approached me in order to assist in determining the most appropriate solution considering the specific circumstances.
It is true to say that the likelihood of both adults becoming incapacitated at the same time is very remote; however do these long odds justify the contravention of the requirement that "emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;" ?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm not in the Fire assessment game, so hope others can provide experienced advice.
However it does seem wrong to lock a door with a key, with people inside. You don't do this in your house ( residential property). So if you feel mag lock doors are not secure enough ( I dare say not cheap, but hope that is not a deciding factor), should the doors remain unlocked, but alarmed so if opened the adults will be notified. How far can they get ? They are probably trusted to go to school.
Just a thought, hope you get a proper answer.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris42 wrote:
However it does seem wrong to lock a door with a key, with people inside. You don't do this in your house ( residential property).
Just a thought, hope you get a proper answer.
Chris
So what else do you do are your normal residence, when you go to bed? I lock myself in my house.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DonnaAlAssaad wrote:Chris42 - you have read between the lines correctly; part of the purpose for locking the door at 10pm, is a means of 'dissuading the young residents from leaving the premises'.
The 2 sides of the house are only interconnected on the ground floor so if one staircase becomes unusable - the people on the upper floor of that side of the house, have no escape route (this is another issue under discussion).
It is true to say that the likelihood of both adults becoming incapacitated at the same time is very remote; however do these long odds justify the contravention of the requirement that "emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;" ? You didn't provide this information in your original post. However, with suitable compensating factors - fire doors, fire alarm etc - the risk remains about the same. Unless someone starts a fire with petrol etc, you don't often suddenly get a raging fire which prevents escape. Its not fire per se, that kills its the smoke. So with a modern alarm, it should activate pretty quickly as smoke is generated. Are you really saying there is only 1 door out of each house. I can't think of any normal houses (flats excluded) that only have 1 door. My house has a front and rear door. The risk remains normal in my view, and think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. As the properties are linked - does the fire alarm activate in both sides of the joined houses? So what is your maximum travel distance? For 'normal' risks with a single escape, if memory serves me correctly its in the order of 30m-ish? I don't see you are contravening the 'easily openable' requirement - as previous, the occupants are young adults - not incapable toddlers/young children.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In mental health, it is common practice to lock doors and have staff carrying keys. In this case, why not have the doors locked on maglocks linked to the fire alarm system and have key operated overrides (not break-glass overrides which can be abused). The only issue then would be that residents who understand the fire alarm opens the doors may push manual call points or place burning material under smoke detection to activate the alrm, thereby opening the doors. My concern about key operated overrides (and/or key operated manual call points) would be that, in this case, staff are not awake at night, so will be delayed getting to the final exits compared with those on a wakeful watch. This cannot be an isolated problem, so I hope somebody with some experience of this type of premises comes along soon In the meanwhile have a look at this guide Page 94 Means of escape security B3 pages 127 to 129 It doesnt fit this problem too well, but might inspire you https://www.gov.uk/gover...sra-residential-care.pdf Good luck
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As described so far, I don't think this is a true mental health facility/situation.
Simply discouraging teenagers not too do something is a different ball game.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've made a suggestion for the managers consideration, as the sticking point is ensuring the locked door can be opened in an emergency, I've raised the possibility of a copy of the vital key being securely stored in a 'keyguard' box at the front door(s) or strategically placed near to the doors. These can be set up to sound an audible alarm if accessed, thereby alerting staff on site should any of the younger residents access the key. Controlled yet accessible. It certainly seems a proportionate solution considering the very remote chance of a worst case scenario coming to pass (*both* adults being prevented for whatever reason, from bringing the key to open the door).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just a few things to add;
Is this a registered care home? if not then it must be a HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy), both of these premises have specific fire safety guidance that needs to followed. What level of fire detection system do you have (Ideally it should be a L1 system with full detection in every room), are the staff trained in fire warden duties, is the alarm system connected to an ARC, are the residents medicated at night? etc... etc... Yes I agree you do want to keep it as a homely environment, however, you have a duty of care towards the residents.
In my opinion if you are relying on staff to open the doors in the event of an emergency then the support should be one sleepover and a waking night.
Your right - the door needs to be secure for both intruders and the residents absconding however, it must be able to be opened quickly in the event of an emergency, and relying on staff waking up, getting dressed, and then making their way to the door may take vital time - I would suggest that you get a security system fitted to the front doors (key fobs, keypads, key-codes, fingerprint security etc) that is connected to the fire alarm system that defaults to safe in the event of an alarm activation. Note: Security entry doors (connected to the alarm system) are effective and will adequately keep the building secure at night.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Its a shame we are stuck with the legal aspects of fire safety & duty of care etc, while we don't know enough about the kids - it certainly seems it is not a mental healthcare facility. Sure probably stroppy/awkward teenagers etc but that seems to be it. I've got 2 of them!!
In reality the fire risks are probably no worse and probably far less than a normal domestic situation, with an admittedly large family of up to 8 kids.
Domestic houses of 2 parents + 4 kids is not uncommon - yet do we demand one of the parents stays awake on 'shift' every night or have a full L1 grade fire alarm. Sure any sensible domestic householder will have a smoke alarm.
Lets keep the risk in perspective and what fire safety/security precautions are required.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Forgot to add - as it 00.20hrs.... what are the fire precautions like in the house you are sleeping in tonight?
I'm happy with mine - smoke alarm, nobody smokes in the house, keys left in the front door. normal domestic grade doors.
No fire extinguisher, no L1 fire alarm
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
again some great ideas here
and as suspected the issue is 'dissuading the young residents from leaving the premises' and this is where involving the F&RServices is a good one as I have done on many such occasions [but U must lean them and not follow them] and in all cases they fully understood and accepted that the doors needed to be secure - which is contrary to fire law in the 'usual' situation but this is not the usual situation
we have to look at all factors here and include safeguarding, human rights, social security, and education law areas as well as the children [they are children] who are not residents in the common sense of the word they are minors in our care and the problem that U may have is that there is a mix of child types with a mix of problems, especially child grooming, all of which need accounting for
As already stated we all lock our own personal doors at home with minors inside & unless U have a particular 'troublesome' child then doors can be locked - we ended up with key safes next to the doors that opened as part of the alarm system. Thereafter everybody were happy [except ofsted but they had to lump it as we all stuck together]
As for Ofsted; well in 17 years of dealing with them [my friend had 20 + years dealing with them] we found that in most [not all] cases they were not competent but to those who have not dealt with the organisation U have to note just how powerful they are irrespective of competence and just what influence they have !! In one situation Ofsted marked down a special school because of a poor H&S policy yet when challenged Ofsted themselves could not produce their own H&S policy even after >3 months of badgering them yet they were marking down schools etc.
and this is yet another area that HR has no knowledge of [I have put this in for good measure]
Undertake your RA and stick with the findings arguing your case with all that challenge it and as said already the F&RServices are usually very good if U involve them all the way so they can support U in any argument
This is real 'day to day' fire risk assessment!
Best of luck
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob your spot on, not sure about Ofstead however, the Care Inspectorate (in Scotland) do not involve themselves in fire safety they leave that to the Fire and Rescue Service who have the competencies in this area.
I am perplexed at a previous comment made and have to state that these people are children, whom may be [by the very nature of then being in care] more vulnerable that the average child. Note: they are in the care of an organisation (business) and therefore there are lots of laws that apply here and not just fires safety laws - this is simply NOT a domestic home, so...the legal aspect and duty of care applies here. This is why there was a FRA conducted on the premises and the OP (responsible person) is concerned of the welfare of the residents and asks for advice on this forum.
Lets remember Rose Park, the lessons learned and do the best for the residents that are sleeping on this premises and keep them safe at all times.
Note 1: In health and social care 'duty of care' is paramount. Note 2: The most important aspect of fire safety is safe evacuation, if you cannot get out of the premises (because the doors are locked for example) you have failed in all of you fire requirements.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just re-read my post - what I mean in Note 2 above is that - fire extinguishers, alarms, fire doors, fire wardens, fire prevention, risk assessment are all irrelevant if you do not have safe escape from the building. Safe escape is the most critical element of any fire safety strategy, and something as a Fire Risk Assessor I do-not compromise on. This is why I would be uncomfortable with the OP's current situation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm not questioning any of the legal aspects or fire escape requirements. Its plainly obvious safe a means of escape is required whatever the situation/status of the building.
My question is why do some feel the fire safety precautions as has been suggested by some (NOT the original poster) should possibly be L1 alarms etc. An adult stays awake 'on duty' over night.
Again, from the information we have this is not a building providing care to people with mental illness or other behaviour problems - just 'normal' teenagers, capable of independent action. If any of these children are mentally vulnerable and need greater care etc or likely to run off - then why house them in such a low security property?
Save for the fact the 2 houses are linked, we appear to have 2 effectively domestic properties with potentially 5 people (maximum) in each house - but not always this number.
I doubt many people have similar fire precautions in their own homes i.e. full L1 alarms etc, fire extinguishers. At best most people will have a domestic grade smoke alarm and maybe a small extinguisher in the kitchen. One parent (if both are present) staying awake all night, just in case there is a fire.
So most of us accept a lower standard of fire safety in our own homes/protecting our families than when 'at work'.
So what fire precautions do you take in your own house, when you go to bed? All non essential electrical appliances turned off, cookers turned off, key left in the front door, stairways clear, no smoking in the house. smoke alarm installed in the house.
SO why should these 2 'domestic' properties be any different if considering just the actual fire risk?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I forgot to add, the Rose Park reference is not entirely relevant here. That was a different order of magnitude of risk entirely. Greater occupancy, elderly and infirm residents with probably a whole range of age related infirmity and ill health issues.
Lets at least compare similar risk levels etc.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is entirely sensible that when considering those at risk, special attention is given to those deemed particularly vulnerable. Call me old fashioned, but if children in care do not fall under this category, then who does?
I may have introduced the metal health aspect into this thread. I was not making any assumptions as to the medical status of the residents (far from it), but merely suggesting the use fire safety procedures and standards used in mental health (ie locked final exits) in a different environment if it is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
with reference to the well made comment;- "If any of these children are mentally vulnerable and need greater care etc or likely to run off - then why house them in such a low security property"
The areas behind placing different types of children together especially just before they are 16 is money, politics and similar as it costs more to manage 'troublesome' people than none troublesome people so on many occasions different 'types' of children are put together irrespective
After my 17 years with both education and social services areas it was as hard to get real information about children etc. [so as we could facilitate a situation/ manager etc.] out of the various bodies in the first year as it was in the last year and time and again when the truth was known some of the children housed with other children should have not been in 'ordinary' homes but costs and politics play a very big part in such things especially the nearer the child gets to 16
In the UK irrespective of our generally great social systems things are very very very hard for children with no parents or family, and there are many thousands of them, with only the gov that is acting as the guardian. Even today children [yep children] at a certain point before they turn 18 get 'thrown out' of the system and have to fend for themselves in a very tough world
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why do people assume children in care are 'vulnerable? Again we don't know enough in this case.
Children could be in care for a whole number of reasons, entirely unrelated to their mental health etc
For example, they may be in temporary care, if they normally live in a single parent household and that single parent is ill or injured after an accident and temporarily can't look after the child.
From the original information, these seems to be a normal residential fire risk - all be it complicated from the 'officialdom' point of view.
Until the original poster indicates that the children have mental health problems or some other serious behavioural/educational issue to consider, then where does the fire risk change from normal residential?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What we do in our 'own homes' is entirely up to us and we do-not need to comply with H&S Law.
However, for example registered care homes (in which this premises may well be, we just don't know) require having an L1 alarm system fitted, fire extinguishes, safe means of escape, FRA's, etc... this is the Law, and we must comply with the law.
All children up to the age of 16 require a responsible person (parent or guardian) to ensure their safety and welfare, children in care require welfare guardians (as stated above for most its the council (gov) that are the guardians) and therefore all children are vulnerable, given the nature that these children are in care can make them more vulnerable that the average child, no one is suggesting any mental health issues here.
Rosepark although different circumstances, I'm not sure it is entirely irrelevant, fire in a care home and people died. Note: every year children die in their homes as a result of fires.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Given the info we have - you still haven't justified why the fire risks are greater than a normal domestic situation.
If there is going to be a blanket rule for L1 fire alarms, why bother with fire risk assessment?
What is the legal status of the guidance for care homes etc? Is it the same as for children's homes?
Isn't the RRFSO not absolute - requirements are often worded 'where necessary'/'to the extent appropriate' for fire detection & fire alarms - Reg 13
Locking of doors/security so as to be easily openable and access to the key etc is covered by reg 14 which is mandatory. No issue with that - obviously!!
Control/access to the key was the original query
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian Bell wrote:I don't claim any great specific knowledge of children's homes - however from the information given, as an independent 'obeserver'... quote] This is a field that I am involved with. Not sure your getting this - we do not have any fire safety laws for normal domestic premises, and therefore we do not need to have ANY fire safety control measures in them, and therefore we cannot compare the risks between them and commercial settings. The fire safety measures for commercial settings is based on fire safety laws, the FRA and guidance, see link below. In Scotland after Rose Park there is a blanked rule for L1 alarms system in registered care homes, point to note, we have not established if OP is a registered care home setting. http://www.gov.scot/resource/0044/00444923.pdf . Note: Care Homes are Care Homes they have different registrations types but the same laws apply.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is accepted that we have not established if the OP's premisis is a registered care home or not. However, see item number 223 and 226 of the link below. Not compulsary and applicable in Scotland I know, but some guidance to help answer the OP's origional question. http://www.gov.scot/resource/0044/00444923.pdf
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course we have fire safety laws for domestic premises - Building Regulations.
We can compare the fire risks for a reasonable domestic house and these 2 joined houses- as they are seemingly also residential premises. So purely from the science of fire& fire engineering the fire risks appear to be about the same.
My usual fire work is associated with oil refineries, fuel storage facilities, oil platforms & chemical process plant - so I'm familiar with most aspects of fire safety & fire engineering.
As previous, it seems to me instead of assessing the fire risk properly, blanket 'gold plating' takes place in this sector.
No issues at all with very high fire safety/fire detection standards in care homes with possibly immobile people, hard of hearing, poor eyesight etc and other frailties of the older person.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Are you locking the front door to stop children getting out or for security for people getting in? In our building we have a thumb turn on the door. Perhaps a consideration.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi DonnaAlAssad, I have worked for a number of years in residential care services for children and the situation you face is not uncommon and with so many stakeholders demanding that regulations and standards are met it is difficult to get an appropriate and agreed balance. What we have always considered is escape is priority. Therefore a movement or burglar alarm can be utilised for ensuring that doors remain closed at night and alert sleeping staff if opened. Be careful of how you justify this as it is not deemed appropriate in all situations to mechanically monitor or restrict young people as you will be aware. Such a system will allow for the use of thumbturns and can be part/zone set. Both stairways should form part of a protected escape route and be seperated from each other with a glazed fire door. compensatory measures shoukld also be considered such as first aid fire fighting equipment and secondary means of escape via staff room windows, should the main route be blocked. Just my opinion based on your description. Kevin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've read this thread a few times and am a little concerned about the safety of the 'occupants' of the property.
I talked to my other half, who was ,until retiring a couple of years ago, a senior manager in childrens Services for a Local Authority, and for once she agrees with me.
My worries are about evacuation of the premises when staff are 'incapacitated'.
My views/concerns/comments are that;-
1. Stopping young persons 'escaping' from their place of residence is an ongoing problem nationwide. However, just locking the doors and trusting to luck seems naive to say the least
2. The situation, as it stands at present, MUST be discussed formally with the local Fire Authority. I'm pretty sure they would say that the existing arrangements are unacceptable. They could give useful guidance on possible ways forward
3. I'm trying to work out the 'status' of the property. My OH cannot envisage any Local Authority approving the placement of young persons in a 'home' with such arrangements in place - they would be failing in their Duty of Care.
4. At the end of the day - some type of door interlocking with an Alarm system will be required.
5. This isn't the first time such a problem has arisen - talk to other 'operators of homes' to see what they do
Sorry about the ramble - but this problem does worry me
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've been watching this thread with interest from a distance until now. I would like to say I have the answer but I don't.
Due to the nature of the occupants this is not a HMO so any special rules for HMO's will not apply. They are not families but children.
If in care they are Vulnerable children, if under Social Services then they should be involved in any assessments, I do not say fire risk assessment because there is more to this then a simple fra.
I do know something about children in care having fostered in the past, I have an understanding of how they think, I do not fully understand them but I do know that if they wish to exit the premises they will try, it may be a cry for help/attention or it may be a real escape attempt so the final exit doors have to be secured as a deterrent.
They could decide to open the door and allow someone in unauthorised?
If a teenager is serious about escaping they will stop at nothing, perhaps use force to access the key, and if there is more than one who wishes to escape one or two adults can become easily overpowered therefore a locked door does not guarantee everyone will remain inside.
I offer the following as thought starters and hope I have helped:
a fire exit door should open easily safely and be immediately usable at all times
usable without passing through doors requiring a key or code to unlock
where possible there should only be one fastening
available for access by the emergency services
all doors on escape routes should open in the direction of escape (Do they if in a pair of houses?) Small numbers OK.
you should consider the type of people who will use your premises, if the residents are in a hostel type accommodation or a house in multiple occupation they will remain vulnerable and at a higher risk when sleeping. This includes the members of staff who hold the keys!
effective management procedures are required for those with mobility impairment (need help to escape)
your fire risk assessment must take into account factors such as the mobility of the people who may be expected to use the doors and the accessibility of door opening devices.
consider Arson - outside well lit, secure the perimeter, secure all entry points including windows and the roof, making sure this does not compromise escape routes, regularly remove all rubbish, don’t allow skips adjacent to the building etc. etc. etc.
keep escape routes clear
manage building works (fires more frequent when buildings are under refurbishment)
do not allow smoking, operate a safe smoking policy, (persons under 16 should not be allowed to smoke).
good housekeeping
The above come from the guidance on sleeping accommodation which may or may not suit the type of risk here but the bottom line as always is:
It is your risk assessment (not OFSTED's or anyone else) and you must act accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can't speak from experience, but OH worked in a not to dissimilar setting, but under no circumstance could he lock the door in the inside. The only door that could be locked was the staff office/break room. There was an adult on site at all times, and should the teens/young adults decide they wanted to walk out- they did. It was down to my other half and the other staff to inform the police they had left the property. This was also used as a fire safety measure in case of a fire.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I forgot to add in my opinion whoever decided to knock theough at ground floor level only made a big mistake as there is escape only in one direction from anywhere on the first floor.
That makes the fire risk higher.
If possible there should be a knock through on first floor as well.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
some great advice here --------- In my summary [I have dealt with this area for 17 years] I suggest that we keep a hold on this situation as it will get out of hand where its probably a low risk situation all along and it's a situation that is mirrored 1000's of times throughout the UK; so consider all that has been said and work your management system from that point noting that the fire service is very helpful and we could either undertake the RA under Fire or MHSW but referencing both as one overall RA etc.
Unfortunately assessors e.g. Ofsted and similar in a case like this usually uses tick list and similar systems, systems that only account for the average situation at best so U have to break the mold - I have had no problems but I have stuck to my guns [with the fire service in support] and Ofsted especially did not like it but could not formally counter the RA's etc. in place as they had nothing comparable nor better but behind the scenes they did put pressure on senior management to do things their way and it did cause problems as many times managers were marked down irrespective
best of luck
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just a short update - they've decided to go for the maglocks connected to the fire alarm system. An unrelated incident whereby a staff member became trapped in the hallway, with the key on the other side of a locked door (and the front door locked) provided some clarity on the potential scenarios which could be faced.
Thank you for all your comments, they were extremely helpful.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Donna, many thanks for the feedback.
It is good to know that Stable Door policies are alive and well.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Emergency Escape Route / Security - Childrens Home
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.