Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft Has anybody any experience/knowledge of an evacuation chair/device called LifeSlider - seems to be US design and shows a bit of radical thinking in it's approach - see http://www.lifeslider.com/WhatIsLifeSlider.html . I would like to know particularly how to get someone in a wheel chair into it given the difference in levels - the LifeSlider seems to sit at floor level. Thanks Max Bancroft
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Max I'm not sure which model you're referring to; could you email a picture?
There are loads of issues with using all such devices - not least the practical and psychological impact of attempting to remove someone from the equivalent of their clothes and put them into something that they aren't familiar with and will be controlled by others on what is easy to percieve as a "death slide" for some.
Not to be embarked upon without the greatest level of consultation and interaction with the potential occupants of the device.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft Frank - I have emailed a picture to you (and can email to anybody else who is interested). The issues you mention certainly need to be kept in mind. In this case, the LifeSlider is a bit like a plastic tobaggon with an upright of similar shape which the assistant holds on to. So there is a reasonable distance to lower somebody from a wheelchair down.
I haven't had this happen to me yet but what do we do if, in the process of preparing a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan, the mobility impaired person says: "No thanks - I don't want to transfer to an evacuation chair or similar - I'll head for a safe haven and wait for the Fire & Rescue Service (as they are now known in Scotland) to get me out"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett Max
I've already responded directly with my view of the [generally unacceptable] device that you mention.
Doesn't the Disability Discrimination Act apply in Scotland? Will the RRFSO not apply in Scotland or have you done your own thing on that also?
As there are no exclusions nor derogations in the English versions of the DDA or RRFSO for evac situations; I can only identify that it is simply not acceptable to leave people behind and expect the FS to extricate them later.
If you need further discussions, feel able to contact me.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft You are correct - there is no derogation from the DDA in Scotland - and employers here as as responsible in law for evacuating everyone out of their building. However, what happens if the employer provides the chair, the trained assistant and the mobility impaired person decides she doesn't want to trust herself to them? We can't force her into the chair! I suppose I'll have to use my powers of persuasionas I do with all other H&S issues where people are unwilling to do what they should.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster This is where you have to go back to consultation BEFORE the event, and before you try to impose a solution. Under the DDA you must make "reasonable adjustments". The disabled person can advise YOU of what THEY need, you can decide if it is reasonable - just remember that what you agree to must still conform to other legislation, and your view of reasonable must be defensible before a tribunal.
Remember that "reasonable adjustment" can, where appropriate, mean relocating a department to the ground floor. In large multi-floor premises where people with restricted mobility regularly use all levels, then it might just be reasonable to expect a fire-safe lift.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft Just to be clear, the reason I asked the question in the first place was following discussions with a mobility impaired person who wasn't too happy with the current evacuation chair so I am looking at alternative designs. Relocation to a lower floor isn't possible and she is the only one who uses a wheel chair so at the moment a fire proof lift isn't justifiable.
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself in asking the question what if the impaired person decides none of the proposed methods of evacuation are suitabele and says she'll wait for the Fire and Rescue Service - can we allow her to make the choice? The reality might be that in a real fire she would allow herself to be evacuated using the least unacceptable chair.
As you say it will eventually be decided in a tribunal either under DDA or Fire Safety - but I'd rather not be the case that sets case law!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Roberts Max, I had a similar problem about two years ago and I solved it by getting an EVAC+CHAIR which is an exellent piece of kit although a bit expensive. It is very easy to use and the lightest person in the office managed quite easily to get me down the stairs on her own without any problem and I weigh 18 stone plus. We did have a wheelchair bound person on site who was quite happy to use the kit and was evacuated several times using the chair during practice drills.Just type evac+chair into google to find more information.
best regards Phil Roberts
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor I'd be interested in hearing the view of the Disability Rights Commission on this one.
Is the person entirely non-ambulant? A number are are said to prefer to lower themselves down a stair at a time rather than trust the evacuation chair method.
Have you obtained a quote for converting your lift to an evacuation lift?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor Having now watched the video, I see that the device does not have the 'friction resistance' to sliding down stairs at full speed that the Evac Chair has. There was also quite a jolt as the Lifeslider was moved from the horizontal landing to the inclined stairway. The result of the operator losing grip of the thing would also be interesting. I would suggest that this is possibly something for use by trained and strong emergency service type people rather than volunteers from the office.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Max and others on this thread. Please find appended extracts from the RRFSO; these may help to concentrate attention.
There is no specific, explicit requirement, exemption or derogation regarding less able or ambulant persons and therefore they must be considered as being subject to the general requirements for safety. For brevity, I have only included a couple of definitions and Articles 15 & 34.
It gets murkier every time I re-read this document.
Frank Hallett
“place of safety” in relation to premises, means a safe area beyond the premises.
“safety” means the safety of persons in respect of harm caused by fire; and “safe” shall be interpreted accordingly;
Procedures for serious and imminent danger and for danger areas 15.—(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; (b) nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from the premises; and (c) ensure that no relevant person has access to any area to which it is necessary to restrict access on grounds of safety, unless the person concerned has received adequate safety instruction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1)(a), the procedures referred to in that sub-paragraph must— (a) so far as is practicable, require any relevant persons who are exposed to serious and imminent danger to be informed of the nature of the hazard and of the steps taken or to be taken to protect them from it; (b) enable the persons concerned (if necessary by taking appropriate steps in the absence of guidance or instruction and in the light of their knowledge and the technical means at their disposal) to stop work and immediately proceed to a place of safety in the event of their being exposed to serious, imminent and unavoidable danger; and (c) save in exceptional cases for reasons duly substantiated (which cases and reasons must be specified in those procedures), require the persons concerned to be prevented from resuming work in any situation where there is still a serious and imminent danger. (3) A person is to be regarded as competent for the purposes of paragraph (1) where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to implement the evacuation procedures referred to in that paragraph.
Onus of proving limits of what is practicable or reasonably practicable 34. In any proceedings for an offence under this Order consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, it is for the accused to prove that it was not practicable or reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simone Plaut As a health and safety practitioner and also a manual handling trainer(including patient handling in healthcare settings)I have seen this issue become very murky indeed. There is seldom any safe way to move or transfer a disabled person...depends on their disability.......upper body strength or not ...head control or not.....hemiplegic or not (paralysis down one side of the body) high lesion paraplegic etc....so why not leave them in their wheelchair and provide a smoke hood or respirator protective device and communication with ground floor fire muster point...at their agreement.......removing someone from their motorised wheelchair is torture for many disabled individuals and deprives them of their independence and dignity. Other alternatives include stairclimbing wheelchairs which literally climb stairs up or down.....and use a hoist to transfer. I would stress strongly however that this equipment requires intensive regular training to operate, and regular inspection and testing under the LOLER regulations. Failing to do these things properly will lead employers to contravene the human rights of either the disabled person or the unfortunate victim of a manual handling injury which will probably result if someone decides to do the heroics and bodily lift the person into the evacuation device. I should know ....that is roughly how I suffered a back injury in the 1970s which still plagues me today. Simone Plaut CMIOSH , London
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor Except that you must not have a plan that involves leaving someone in a burning building and must have a plan for assisting those to escape that require such assistance - hence my interest in suggesting an evacuation lift that the wheelchair user, etc can use.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simone Plaut Yes......we must not force anyone to remain in a burning building to await rescue. We must however carry out a detailed manual handling risk assessment under MHO Regulations 1992 as amended and then that risk assessment will identify equipment required (and training to operate it safely)so that the transfer can be done safely. Remember that adults can and do weigh up to 55 stone (350 kilos approx) (no I am not exagerating) or even more....in some cases.....and the weight of a motorised wheelchair can add several tens of kilos to that still. Any evacuation equipment provided may not be suitable for the larger person, and will have a weight limit on it as required under LOLER. So who or what is going to move this person? and how? How many people are to be put at risk of serious injury to do this? or do we only move disabled people who weigh under 100 kg?
this is a can of worms of massive proportions. I am all in favour of providing safety as well as honouring freedoms for those with a disability......having had personal experience of having to use a wheelchair for a year following a nasty skiing accident I know more about this than I would like to ....
so answers? do not set out to sea with too few lifeboats for your passengers. hence do not admit more than the number of disabled individuals to your upper floors if you have not a safe, dignified and comfortable, acceptable way to evacuate them in an emergency. Consider the hire of a hotel meeting room instead, or think about a move of offices. Employ people to work from home.......there are solutions.....we are just not always thinking of them. adapting a lift to operate in a fire scenario is hugely expensive when i last looked......has this changed at all? dense concrete shaft, armoured cables....smoke venting at top of shaft....I was under the impression it costs around the £250,000 mark to retrofit to a ten story building. Has anyone else got more up to date information. This may not fit the "reasonable adjustments" test under DDA 1995 but if others are more knowledgeable I am keen to hear an alternative viewpoint. Regards to all Simone Plaut
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor It depends upon the existing lift, Simone. A modern lift in a fairly recent building may need little more that some work on the electrics, the lift controls and a simple communication system - not much more than a few evacuation chairs. It's worth looking at BS5588-8:1999 and getting some quotes for the work. Don't let them quote for a full fire-fighting lift. It's surprising how many 'lift people' that arrive don't seem to know the difference.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Harney Some health and safety problems are just not ‘black and white’, there are many grey areas that are difficult to resolve. I believe evacuation of disabled persons is one such issue.
The comment about consultation and interaction with potential users of devices such as the Evac+Chair is very pertinent and it is obviously essential to involve disabled members of staff when preparing evacuation plans etc. But what do you do, for example, in the case of a Public Library with a floor or floors above ground level? There may be several disabled persons on an upper level at the time of an emergency, how do you adequately prepare for such a situation? Some contributors to this thread have found Evac+Chairs or similar very useful but others have identified problems with them, it would seem fair to say they are not the ‘panacea for all ills’.
If a local authority opted for Evac+Chairs for use in a Public Library, should they buy two or more? These are not cheap (£650 or thereabouts) and not all local authorities are awash with money, quite often the opposite. Then there is the training of staff to operate them, how many staff should be trained to cover for holidays, sickness, etc.? Obviously staff would need to volunteer for such a task and there could be reluctance to do so as it could potentially put them at risk by delaying their own exit from a dangerous situation. Equipment would have to be maintained so there would be some additional cost to consider. Someone mentioned a disabled person refusing to use an Evac+Chair…….
I am inclined to agree with Simone who likened the situation of evacuating disabled persons to a ‘can of worms’.
If anyone out there has experienced similar problems with evacuation of disabled persons from Public Libraries and has some good ideas to share, I would love to hear from them.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett I suspect that Max has moved on from this thread now, but it is apparent that there are many premises controllers out there with substantial problems re the "disabled" person and emergency evacuation.
The DDA isn't just about routine access, even though most who attempt to comply still artificially restrict their efforts to this area of access; the "disabled" access & egress must also include the emergency evacuation processes as well.
I believe that the unfulfilled need for a major "step-change" in understanding of the issue when considerd in terms of emrgency evacuation is the greatest problem - mostly in those who control the actual funds rather than the resource itself.
Simone and Martin Harney are correct that it appears to be a can of worms; but only because that step-change hasn't yet ben realised and we're still [as a society] trying to bodge, fudge and apply minima rather than maxima when considering this.
incidentally, I find the general perception of "disabled" is still only a small proportion of the actual remit of the term. And NO, I'm not disabled within the meaning of the DDA - yet.
For Martin and others with local authority controlled public access buildings; you have my considerable sympathy as you cannot get it right withoput adequate funds - there really is no other answer.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
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.