It seems to me that doing nothing here is not an option. The title of the post uses the word vunerable and this term could be used to describe the risk this group face during a fire - ie a much risk than the 1000s of offices and shops etc that routinely carry out drills.
So lets go back to basics. Why do the fire drill in the first place?
Its obviously to test procedures and in most buildings, its to audit staff awareness and remind all involved of what they are expected to do in a fire. In essense, a training actvity. In a supermarket, customers wouldnt really gain much from a drill, but the staff would. However in this care type environment, surely its all about staff and procedures and very little to do with the clients.
So why not exclude the clients from the process? A series of table top exercises where staff are faced with different scenarios may, if designed and recorded well, replace the need for a traditional drill. After all article 15 of the Fire Safety Order states:
-------------------------------------------
5.—(1) The responsible person must—
(a)establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;
--------------------------------------------
OK the 'where necessary' part ususally applies to flats where drills are rarely carried out, but IMO it does allow a degree of flexibility. So a table top could be a sufficient alternative. I have used the following table top shape in Mental Health establishments where drills are problematic:
- Produce a simple but large large single line drawing of the premises (or part of if the building is large). One sheet/plan per floor.
- Talk through the features of the plan to those who are not familiar with drawings (doors, stairs etc) and get staff to 'walk' through the building showing where they arrive and their route to the office.
- When satified all understand the drawing, you explain everyone's roles in an evacuation via a briefing. Manager does this, receptionist does that etc
- Then by placing a coin in a room, you say the fire alarm is sounding and the head is in this room, the door to the room is open. Talk through what should happen
- Then do it again by asking those present to take on their roles and talk through their actions
- Do it again, different room, different staff and mix the staff roles up. The manager becomes the receptionist - this way they all get an idea of what each other should be doing
- The next scenario add a small of smoke in the area with door closed
- Try a fire in an electrical riser or plant area
- Maybe a strong smell of smoke where its not possible to determine the origin
- Keep building the scenario until you reach a significant fire, minimal staff numbers (at night?), persons trapped
You may wish to discuss key clients, their needs and expected difficulties. Staff can be reluctant at first, or shy as this more inclusive type training might be new to them. Keep numbers to a minimum - 10 at most. For bigger establishments, a literal walk around the building may be useful prior to the scenarios so everyone gets an idea of what other floors look like and a reminder of RVPs etc
Record the table top, who is present and scenarios covered and time spent. Plus get a signing in sheet as evidence of who was there
This is just an idea of how to apply the 'where necessary' part of the requirement to test procedures. The actual system you use would be wholly down to a RA and may involve discussions with enforcing agencies.
The use of the table top training allowed us to cut a requirement of fire drills from 4 per annum to two and avoid night drills which upset clients the most. But with a carefully recorded RA and business case and involvement of the local fire enforcing teams, I cannot see why this system woulnt be acceptable.