Risk Assessing the evacuation process for disabled employees and those with mobility problems requires a proactive approach by employers. The Equality Act 2010 clearly specifies that an employer’s duty of care now extends to providing reasonable provision and adjustment for disabled members of staff.

This obligation is further supported by current fire safety legislation and standards. Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order in England and Wales, similar legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and BS 9999: 2008: Code of practice for fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings, those with responsibility for the management of premises must provide adequate means for emergency escape for all building occupants, not just their employees.
Many employers do consider the measures necessary to evacuate disabled and mobility impaired people in the event of an emergency. However, as a result of how legislation is structured and communicated, a significant proportion of employers and premises managers struggle to determine the full scope of their legal obligations.

Assessing needs

A personal evacuation plan (PEEP) – an essential need for those with walking difficulties – should specify a planned route to safety and identify individuals who can provide assistance to occupants with disabilities and mobility problems. The training or practice needs of such individuals must also be considered.
Employers should take action to ensure that mobility impaired or disabled workers are not exposed to any significant dangers by carrying out a full risk assessment, which should be reviewed on a regular basis. Any ongoing risks identified in the assessment should be quickly mitigated.
The provision of facilities that aid safe evacuation should also be considered an important part of the fire risk management process. In particular, there are two important issues which emphasise the importance of PEEPs and the use of specialist equipment, such as evacuation chairs, to aid quick evacuation.
Firstly, the use of lifts is often not permitted during an evacuation. Secondly, refuge points should only ever be seen as temporary areas where those with mobility problems can wait until they are safely evacuated.
Refuge points, or areas of comparative safety, have been incorporated into the design of many commercial buildings, and are vital for those unable to use stairways unassisted, as well as those assisting them, to safely evacuate. However, BS 9999 clearly specifies that refuge points should only be temporary areas. Crucially, they are not to be used as holding areas where individuals await rescue by the fire service.

Evacuation training

Ensuring that a PEEP is in place is paramount, but even the most comprehensive plan can become redundant, and occupants put at risk, if employers do not ensure that people are correctly trained in how to adhere to them.
Regular training sessions and communication exercises should be held, and the evacuation plans of those staff with mobility problems reviewed. In addition, emergency drills should be carried out regularly and incorporate training on how to use essential equipment needed during an emergency, including stairway evacuation chairs and ski sheets.
Specialist evacuation chairs, in particular, are an important option in many organisations. These allow disabled and mobility impaired occupants to safely descend staircases, with staff assistance. It is vital that staff are trained in how to operate these devices.
However, a recent survey of 200 businesses, conducted by Evac+Chair, has raised some concerns. It found that, while 40% of respondents own evacuation chairs, they do not use them during evacuation training. The results also revealed that, in a high number of organisations, the trained employee responsible for health and safety equipment no longer worked for the company. Even though 73% of respondents said they had hired replacements for the post, a worrying 40% said that person was not yet trained in using essential equipment, such as evacuation chairs. Training a team of staff, rather than just one person, would seem the sensible option.

In addition to PEEPs for specific occupants, a comprehensive emergency fire action plan should be in place which specifies the evacuation procedures for everyone, including people with disabilities. This should be clearly communicated and instructions given in a number of different formats – for example, Braille, audio and large print. Incorporating other modifications, such as ramps and vibration alarms (for those with hearing impairments) can also aid safe evacuations.
Disabled and mobility impaired occupants must be regularly reminded of the specifics of their PEEPs. Frequent and robust training in the required procedures for all occupants helps to ensure that an evacuation plan achieves full potential and serves its core purpose of helping to save lives.
 

A Yorkshire company that owned a hotel in Cornwall which was destroyed by fire in 2007 has admitted two charges of failing to meet fire safety standards.

Three people died as a result of the fire at the Penhallow Hotel in Newquay.

O&C Holdsworth Ltd admitted at failing to provide proper fire detection and alarm systems and failing to make a proper risk assessment.

Two employees, who pleaded not guilty to similar charges, were discharged by the judge at Truro Crown Court.

The company, which admitted the charges brought by Cornwall Fire & Rescue Service and Cornwall Council, is to be sentenced in May.

The two senior Holdsworth staff, John McMillan and Nichola Burfitt, denied six offences. Their pleas were accepted by the prosecution.

'Absolute hell'
The fire broke out on 18 August 2007. Flames reached 30ft (9m) into the sky and the building, in Island Crescent in the town, was later demolished as result of the damage.

The fire, which was fought by more more than 100 firefighters, was described as the worst in the UK for nearly 40 years.

About 90 people managed to escape from the 54-bedroom hotel, but Joan Harper, 80; Monica Hughes, 86; and her 43-year-old son, Peter – all from Staffordshire – died as a result of the fire.

Mr Hughes, a teacher from Cheslyn Hay, jumped from the third floor of the hotel after trying in vain to save his mother but died in hospital.

Joan Harper, Peter Hughes and Monica Hughes died in the blaze
An inquest into their deaths held last year returned an open verdict.

It heard that the fire was believed to have started in a hotel bar drink store and spread to the rest of the building.

Investigators could not say for sure what had caused the blaze, although evidence given during the inquest suggested it had been started deliberately.

After the case, John Hughes – brother of Peter and son of Monica – welcomed the pleas, saying his family had been through "absolute hell" since the fire.

He said: "To lose two members of your family is beyond most people's imagination.

"The best thing that could come out of this is that the tourism agencies and hotels sit up and take note. There are still premises and hotels around the country that are not complying with fire regulations."

Cornwall Council said it welcomed the guilty plea.

Judge Christopher Elwen adjourned sentencing of the company, based in Halifax, West Yorkshire, until May.

Deaths in care home blaze could have been prevented 

The deaths of 14 elderly residents in a care home blaze could have been prevented by a "suitable" fire safety plan, an inquiry has concluded.

The fire at Rosepark care home in Uddingston, South Lanarkshire, broke out in a cupboard on 31 January 2004 and ripped through the building.

A fatal accident inquiry (FAI) began in February 2010 and finished taking evidence in August.

Sheriff principal Brian Lockhart has now delivered his findings following the 141-day probe.

He found that "some or all" of the deaths could have been prevented if the home had a "suitable and sufficient" fire safety plan.

Sheriff Lockhart concluded: "The management of fire safety at Rosepark was systematically and seriously defective. The deficiencies in the management of fire safety at Rosepark contributed to the deaths.

"Management did not have a proper appreciation of its role and responsibilities in relation to issues of fire safety."

He said the "critical failing" was not to identify residents at the home as being at risk in the event of a fire, as well as failing to consider the "worst-case scenario" of a fire breaking out at night.

'Inadequate arrangements'
A further "serious deficiency" was found in the "limited attention" given to how residents would escape from the home in the event of a fire.

The sheriff said an adequate fire plan would have revealed the problems which eventually led to the deaths, such as staff not being properly trained in fire safety and the presence of an electrical distribution board in a cupboard which opened to a "critical escape route" alongside flammable materials.

He also highlighted "inadequate arrangements" for calling the fire brigade, a lack of fire dampeners and too many people being housed in one corridor in order to evacuate them effectively.

Fire safety procedures at Rosepark were found to be inadequate and deficient He said the risk assessment was "obtained in good faith" but contained a "serious error".

The inquiry also concluded that the lives of four of the residents – Isabella MacLachlan, Margaret Gow, Isabella MacLeod and Robina Burns – could have been saved if the fire brigade had been called as soon as the fire alarm sounded.

The women died later in hospital of conditions related to the smoke and gas they inhaled.

The inquiry, held at the Gospel Literature Outreach Centre in Motherwell, was told that the care home's practice meant a member of staff had to find the source of the blaze before dialling 999.

Staff waited nine minutes before they contacted the fire service.

An extra delay, of about four minutes, was added when the fire brigade went to the wrong entrance to the home.

Video Report

'Reasonable precaution'
Sheriff Lockhart said: "Time is of the essence because even a small fire is capable of generating large volumes of smoke which could result in casualties."

It was "absolutely essential" that the fire brigade was called as soon as the alarm sounded.

He said there were "no circumstances in which one would condone a procedure that involved sending members of staff to look and see if there was a fire before calling the fire brigade".

For the alarm instead to have sent an automatic signal to the fire brigade would have been a "reasonable precaution".

The inquiry heard how there was a delay in calling the fire service
Mr Lockhart also recommended that Rosepark should have been given a special risk category by the fire service, meaning every watch at the local station would have visited it every year and been familiar with its layout.

He praised firefighters who tackled the blaze on the night, saying they "did everything in good faith and with dedication and heroism".

The fire broke out in a cupboard because of an earth fault with a cable passing through an electrical distribution board.

The inquiry found evidence of a "defect" in the maintenance of the electrical system, which caused the fire.

All the deaths would have been avoided if these had been installed and checked properly, the sheriff said. 

"Had these defects been discovered during inspections by the health board, the fire brigade would have been called immediately”

Mr Lockhart continued: "Had there been a proper system of maintenance of the electrical installation, the inadequate installation at the back of the distribution board would have been identified.

"An adequate system of maintenance would have identified the defect and would have resulted in its rectification."

"The accident which caused the deaths would not have occurred. In that event all of the deaths would have been avoided."

The determination also criticised NHS Lanarkshire for its "deficient way of working".

He said problems with Rosepark's practices, including leaving residents' bedroom doors open at night, not calling the fire brigade

immediately and failures in fire drill training for staff, should have been uncovered by the health board during its inspection.

He said: "Had these defects been discovered during inspections by the health board, the fire brigade would have been called immediately, the staff would have acted appropriately when the fire alarm sounded, bedroom doors would have been shut.

"The deficient system of working which I have identified on the part of the health board contributed to the deaths."

In his conclusion to the determination, Sheriff Lockhart noted "the very substantial developments which have taken place in respect of fire safety since the Rosepark fire".

He added: "I would like to say to the relatives of those who so tragically lost their lives in the Rosepark fire that all of us involved in the inquiry offer our sincerest sympathies.

"We express our admiration for the manner in which they conducted themselves through the long and difficult days when evidence was taken. This must have been particularly distressing to them".

"It is to be hoped that the evidence and this determination provides answers to their questions about this tragedy. We wish them all well."

The examples of testing and maintenance given are not intended to be prescriptive and other testing regimes may be appropriate.

Daily checks
Remove bolts, padlocks and security devices from fire exits, ensure that doors on escape routes swing freely and close fully and check escape routes to ensure they are clear from obstructions and combustible materials. Check the fire alarm
panel to ensure the system is active and fully operational. Where practicable, visually check that emergency lighting units are in good repair and working. Check that all safety signs and notices are legible.

Weekly tests and checks
Test fire-detection and warning systems and manually-operated warning devices weekly following the manufacturer’s or installer’s instructions. Check the batteries of safety torches and that fire extinguishers and hose reels are correctly located
and in apparent working order. Fire pumps and standby diesel engines should be tested for 30 minutes each week.

Monthly tests and checks
Test all emergency lighting systems and safety torches to make sure they have enough charge and illumination according to the manufacturer’s or supplier’s instructions. This should be at an appropriate time when, following the test, they will not be immediately required. Check that fire doors are in good working order and closing correctly and that the frames and seals are intact.

Six-monthly tests and checks
A competent person should test and maintain the fire-detection and warning system.

Annual tests and checks
The emergency lighting and all firefighting equipment, fire alarms and other installed systems should be tested and maintained by a competent person. All structural fire protection and elements of fire compartmentation should be inspected and any remedial action carried out.

Solent Staff Fire Training can assist with all "Competent Person Tests" Please contact us for advice.

The case related to fire safety shortcomings at the Milestone Public House on Mile End Road in East London, which came to light during an inspection in July 2008. Officers from London Fire Brigade found a number of failings in the public house and on the first floor, which was being used as a house of multiple occupation.

The problems included inadequate maintenance of the fire alarm and emergency lighting, and a lack of self-closing devices on fire doors in a kitchen and bedroom.

An enforcement notice was issued and time given for the company to comply, but the faults had not been fixed when officers carried out a follow-up inspection in November 2008.

In the second case, discount retail chain Poundland Limited was hit with a £20,000 penalty for inadequate fire safety measures at a store in Portsmouth.

An inspection by Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service in November 2008 found a temporary store manager had not been given sufficient fire safety training, and the fire exits in the premises were obstructed by storage items.

The situation was deemed so dangerous that, on discovery of the problems, an evacuation of the store was carried out to ensure the safety of staff and customers.

The company pleaded guilty in relation to four breaches of the Fire Safety Order. It was fined £3,250 for each offence and ordered to pay more than £7,000 in costs.

The blaze broke out on the top floor of the 16-storey Marine Tower in Deptford, a social housing block run by Lewisham Council.

The two victims were Sri Lankan citizens – Kunaliny Alagaratnam, who lived in the block, and Santhirapathy Tharmalingam, who was visiting the UK. Both are thought to have died of smoke inhalation. Four other people had to be rescued from the top floor.

As FRM sent to press, Sandra Clarke, 49, who also lived in the block, had been charged with manslaughter, arson with intent to endanger life and arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered.

London Fire Brigade dispatched 50 firefighters and 10 fire engines to the incident, following a call at 2.40pm. Seven ambulance crews and an air ambulance also attended. Some 35 people evacuated safely, but the two victims were confirmed dead at the scene and four others were treated by paramedics. The fire was brought under control by 4.20pm.

Lewisham Council said around 30 people stayed in temporary accommodation following the blaze. Police and fire investigations are continuing.
 

Fire & Rescue services across the UK have reported a spate of recent fires in restaurants and bistros which have been linked to uncleaned, or inadequately cleaned, grease extract systems.

Indeed, one fire authority spokesperson recently stated that: ‘Uncleaned grease extract ventilation systems present probably the greatest potential fire risk in buildings with catering facilities.’

A kitchen extract ventilation system draws grease-laden air directly from the areas above cookers, grills and fryers via the cooker hood, and discharges it into the atmosphere. These grease deposits are easily ignited by even a small flash fire on or in the fryer, hob or grill.

Flames and heat can then quickly spread through the building, causing substantial damage and endangering the lives of diners and staff. And, with many restaurants situated beneath occupied residential and commercial premises, other members of the public can also be put at risk. It is therefore essential that the fire risk assessment for the building should cover, among other things, any kitchen ventilation system in the premises and the need for it to be maintained and cleaned on a regular basis, as well as looking at whether it may contribute to the spread of fire. And yet it has been estimated that over 80% of kitchen extract systems in the UK are never cleaned and are in a hazardous state.

Internal Cleaning

One of the latest reported incidents occurred at a Burger King fast-food outlet in Liverpool Street Station in June where, according to London Fire Brigade, a kitchen ventilation shaft in the restaurant caught fire. The blaze left the rail and road networks in the surrounding areas at a standstill until it was brought under control after about three hours. Some 40 firefighters tackled the fire in the shaft, after it broke out just after 10pm.

The incident provides a timely reminder that catering premises owners and managers should review their assessment of fire risk, to ensure their grease extract systems are adequately cleaned. In many cases, the best approach is to call in a competent contractor. On this occasion, no-one was hurt, but if premises owners and managers fail to carry out internal cleaning of their ductwork, the chances of more serious fires remain a threat. Indeed, owners and operators are legally required to assess and review fire risks and take appropriate preventative measures, in line with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in England and Wales, and similar legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Those that do not, both companies and individuals, face heavy penalties in court for failure to comply.

Non Compliance

In a number of recent restaurant fires, the owners or operators claimed that they had taken action and had in place a cleaning service to remove the flammable grease deposits in the extract system; only to find – following the incident – that grease had not been removed from the internal surfaces of the ducting and consequently supported a f re arising from a spark or flame in the kitchen. Forensic evidence of fire debris showed clearly that the ducting was not being cleaned properly.

‘I thought it was being cleaned’ is no defence. Insurers are disputing claims where there is evidence of noncompliance with the law. Furthermore, the country’s leading property insurer is demanding in its policy warranties that grease extract systems are cleaned in their entirety, from the kitchen canopy to exhaust to atmosphere. Perhaps only when owners or operators realise that not fully cleaning extract ducting can result in a ruined restaurant, loss of business, substantial repair costs, possible prosecution for non-compliance and refused insurance claims, will they call in a professional contractor to remove the grease and make sure that people are not put at risk.

Solent Staff Fire Training have been informed that Londons Commercial training Unit located at Skyline House, Southwark Training Centre, is set to cease trading from the start of the new year. Currently the Unit offers a range of courses including Fire Warden, Fire Risk Assessment & Fire Safety Awareness to delegates in the region. If you affected by this announcement, please contact them for details.

Solent Staff Fire Training are well placed to step in and provide this type of training. Please contact us for a competative quotation.

An urgent review of UK Building Regulations is needed to consider the issue of external fire spread from fires on construction sites, particularly those involving timber-frame, says the Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA).

The instructors who operate with us have over 27 years experience in the job & remain competent by attending regular refresher training courses recognised by the government and the IFE.

Our key fire safety training courses are the Fire Safety Manager Course, the Fire Warden / Marshal Course, the general Fire Safety Awareness Course and the most popular one, the Fire Extinguisher Users Course. All of our fire safety training courses are Certificated and designed around your specific risk if required. They are tailored so that the course is relevant to the circumstances and the people who work, use or frequent the building. Many less professional training providers will turn up and put a video on. This may prove to be inadequate under the law or in Health and Safety language, not suitable or sufficient. Many companies use online training aids. We do not advise the use of this training technique because students retain a lot less information. A pointless exercise if you want someone to be 'trained properly'. And of course you can't ask computer screen a specific question or relate to real experience as you would with a trained serving Fire Officer.

Our advice to any person given the responsibility of arranging training is ask your training provider to visit you and go over the course detail. We prefer to do this. We can then gauge the level of training required and advise of the most cost effective way to achieve conformity for the building or risk involved. We do not charge any visit fee and we do not charge extra for bespoke design.

We have several very attractive offers on at the moment. Please visit our other pages and please feel free to contact us about anything related to Fire safety or training.

Our Fire Safety Courses

1. Fire Extinguisher Course
2. Fire Warden Marshal
3. Fire Safety Awareness
4. Company Fire Safety Manager

Our courses are designed for most types of non-domestic premises. Typically: Offices, Shops, Factories, Warehouses, Residential Care Homes, Nursing Homes, Warden Assisted Flats, Sleeping Premises, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Small & Medium Places of Assembly i.e. Churches, Social Clubs, Theatres, Community Centres, Sports or Fitness Clubs, Transport Premises etc. If you control, own or are a Director of this type of premises & you require advise on your training requirements, please call us for free & impartial advice.

Breaking News……..Londons Commercial Training Unit is set to close on 31st December 2010

Solent Staff Fire Training have been informed that Londons Commercial training Unit located at Skyline House, Southwark Training Centre, is set to cease trading from the start of the new year. Currently the Unit offers a range of courses including Fire Warden, Fire Risk Assessment & Fire Safety Awareness to delegates in the region. If you affected by this announcement, please contact them for details.

Solent Staff Fire Training are well placed to step in and provide this type of training. Please contact us for a competative quotation.