Fire evacuation in supported housing: a different approach

Since 2001, I’ve been head of health and safety at social care provider, United Response. I take a campaigning and activist approach to health and safety, having previously worked as part of the Hazards Movement at the London Hazards Centre.

Photograph: iStock/FG Trade Latin

The Hazards Movement supports people working to ensure equality in safety, public and occupational health for everyone in society, including but also beyond the workplace. Everyone is entitled to feel and be safe and secure from hazards, contaminants and unsafe practices in their life, one of the basic needs identified in Maslow’s hierarchy.

The fire safety management system in the UK is predicated on a fire risk assessment, the findings of which dictate the fire safety management systems implemented, tested, reviewed and rehearsed to ensure everyone’s safety.

The question is then, how did the fire prevention and safety measures fail in Grenfell Tower with such dire consequences for those most vulnerable in society? The public inquiry identified multiple causes which led to the loss of 72 lives, and injuries and psychological damage to hundreds of other people. One finding was that “many more lives” would likely have been saved if incident commanders had told residents to evacuate an hour earlier. 

The part played by a ‘stay put’ approach lit a fire in me, pun intended. I saw parallels between the vulnerabilities of Grenfell residents, told to stay put in their flats in the mistaken belief that the fabric of the building would withstand and hold back the spread of fire, and the thousands of vulnerable people supported in the social care sector and at risk should a fire break out in their home.

The lack of agency, of people in Grenfell Tower not being able to decide and, crucially, not knowing how and when to safely get themselves out of a dangerous situation hit home. Indeed, speaking to the BBC podcast Grenfell: Building a disaster in August this year, London Fire Brigade (LFB) boss Andy Roe – who revoked the ‘stay put’ advice minutes after taking charge at the scene – acknowledged the policy “would have had an impact on people’s decision-making”.

Revising evacuation plans

Since the Grenfell fire, I’ve been working with and coaching United Response managers to revise their evacuation plans to ensure that the 1,500 people with disabilities supported to live in a variety of residential and care settings at over 400 locations across the UK and their staff support teams can always evacuate safely should a fire break out.

I am also passionate in seeking to bring about a societal change: vulnerable people living independently in the community must be a central consideration in the fire safety planning of the buildings they live in.

I started in the sphere with which I am familiar: in some social care settings, in common with the approach at Grenfell Tower, plans have been developed to leave tenants and residents behind the relative safety of fire doors within a ‘place of safety’.

This approach has been adopted for a number of reasons:

• The funding of social care does not usually cover a dedicated staff member for each person, and certainly not during night time hours
• Some vulnerable people would take longer to evacuate, because they might be elderly, infirm, or of limited mobility and so will need to use specialist equipment; or their understanding of danger might be limited or absent and this might lead them to refuse to leave immediately during an emergency situation.

Thirty- or 60-minute fire doors are usually fitted in Registered Care Homes and are also likely to be in place in housing rented from Registered Social Landlords, although they are by no means always fitted in flats rented in the private market.

Fire doors are designed to hold back flames, heat and smoke and are often included in a risk assessment supporting a phased evacuation approach. Fire doors, along with in-built fire-containing materials, play a crucial role where a decision is made to leave a person in a place of relative safety as part of a phased evacuation.

The theory is that they will remain in the building, making their way from safe place to safe place until they eventually evacuate from the building.

Shonagh Methven is head of health and safety at United Response. Photograph: United Response

However, social care staff may find themselves in a position of supporting a number of vulnerable people to leave their home in an emergency. This is especially true of an emergency overnight when staffing resources will be much reduced compared to daytime.

In reality, in light of this challenge, the plan may be that people will be left alone to await rescue, by staff or the Fire and Rescue service, in a place of ‘safety’ behind a fire door in a room where the floor, walls and ceiling are believed to be fire-safe. This was the approach applied to the situation which Grenfell Tower residents found themselves in. However, the advice was not based on accurate information and therefore was not safe.

The thrust of government action since the fire at Grenfell Tower, although slow, has been to identify and remove building materials, primarily cladding, which was shown to encourage the spread of fire across and within a building.

It would be nonsense to claim there are direct parallels between the fabric and construction of Grenfell Tower and all locations where social care is provided, but the lack of agency and lack of suitable plans considering, including and addressing the needs of tenants, residents and staff, is likely to be reflected in many fire safety plans across social care locations.

The possibility of a fire, the sound of the alarm and the smell of smoke would understandably cause anyone to be anxious and afraid. One cannot imagine the increasing fear of Grenfell Tower residents as the alarm continued to blare out, while they continued to be advised to remain in their flats. Some will certainly have ignored that instruction – one hopes in time to escape to safety and not be caught in the smoke and flames on lower floors.

Exposed to a fire

That fear is likely to be compounded among the cohort of vulnerable people supported through social care. It is not impossible to envision a situation in which a person of limited understanding, advised to remain alone in a place of safety behind a fire door, might become increasingly worried as the alarm continues to sound. They could decide to leave their bedroom or other place of safety, opening the fire door and exposing themselves to the full force of a fire which could have been raging for a few moments or even longer.

None of these challenges is new and I’m not willing to accept that any of the challenges are sufficient to decide to leave a vulnerable person in a building believed to be on fire, even in a place considered to be a safe refuge.

Morally, how can the plan be to leave a vulnerable person, for whom the organisation has health safety and welfare responsibility under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, in a building where the alarm is screeching and where they might open a fire door and become exposed to the full force of a fire?

The option to ask or require a staff member to remain in the building that they believe to be on fire with the tenant is not a reasonable ask by an employer and there is no guarantee that it will be complied with. Either the staff member could decide, understandably, to save themselves, leaving the person in the building behind a fire door, or they might equally likely decide to have a go at getting them both (or all) out in an unplanned and unrehearsed way.

How can an approach where a single staff member is responsible for the safety of more than one resident be practical? One need not try to imagine a scenario where a single staff member has to decide what to do when the alarm sounds.

Whom do they prioritise? The person who can’t physically get out of bed without support, or the person whose anxiety level is likely to mean they could refuse to leave? Or the other two, three or four people for whom they are also responsible?

These scenarios confront social care staff across the country. Plans must be designed, practised and in place to ensure staff don’t have a decision to make in the event of an emergency evacuation – they know and have practised what they are to do – and there are sufficient numbers of staff around to ensure everyone can get out of the property to safety.

Workable and rehearsed plans

And so, in light of the 72 deaths at Grenfell Tower, I’ve worked with managers and teams to ensure that there is a workable, practical, rehearsed plan in every building where United Response staff work. Those plans ensure that everyone can be evacuated in the event of a fire.

Managers worked with local authority commissioners, social workers and families to explore how to ensure that each location has sufficient staffing resources to ensure everyone’s safety.

Location-specific evacuation plans are supported by personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for everyone supported by United Response. They address risks posed by the ability or understanding of each individual.

Our organisational policy is clear: “PEEPs for people who cannot leave unaided or who may refuse to leave in an emergency for reasons of understanding or behaviour must be reviewed in order to identify how, not whether, people will be supported to evacuate.”

Each PEEP is person-centred, focusing on the abilities and the needs of the person, and is built around them using equipment, being supported by skilled and trained staff and undertaking detailed, regularly rehearsed procedures to ensure their safety should a fire break out. If the person needs support around mobility, I’ve worked with managers to source appropriate equipment to enable their safe and speedy exit.

Objects and phrases of reference

Where the nature of the person’s learning disability might mean they could refuse to leave even in an emergency, I’ve developed and shared the approach of an object or phrase of reference, added to each PEEP.

An object of reference is something that the person cares about: it could be an item or a person which they are more likely to want to save and bring with them, or follow in an emergency evacuation.

A phrase of reference is spoken by staff, or sometimes recorded by a parent, family member or a friend and is designed to act as a prompt to evacuate.

The phrase is employed in everyday use to cement it as a prompt to action by the person, to leave their house or their bedroom each day. Familiarity with the object or phrase of reference, built up through its use as a prompt over months and years, increases the likelihood that it will work when it must, in an emergency situation.

The work is aimed at enabling staff to safely evacuate the property, secure in the knowledge that the people they are responsible for are more likely to co-operate with the evacuation procedure, avoiding increased risk to anyone present.

My expertise and enthusiasm for fire safety resulted in a welcome invitation by the Home Office to be part of the Evacuation & Fire Safety Working Group in 2022. The group was looking specifically at what would be needed to ensure as far as possible that disabled or vulnerable people in the community without paid support would be able, prepared and helped to evacuate from a multi-storey building in an emergency.

My experience of working to find creative and person-centred solutions within United Response meant I brought practical experience of solutions that could work in a variety of locations.

The challenge outside of the workplace is to find ways to support or help vulnerable people in the community to evacuate in an emergency, in the absence of paid staff who are trained to effect a supported evacuation.

Using the hierarchy of risk control, the first step is (where possible), to eliminate the hazard at source. Fire prevention is crucial, but if it fails, in the event of an emergency evacuation, people will need less help to evacuate if they have a short distance to travel, along a clear, level and well-lit route out of a building.

In a perfect world, we would ensure vulnerable people are housed as close to a final exit as possible. This isn’t a legal requirement; it’s not a perfect world, in social care and certainly not in the wider community. However, one of my contributions to the Home Office work was to raise this consideration when placing tenants in a building. We can’t guarantee that vulnerable people will be the only priority when planning fire safety but can and must ensure they are part of that planning.

Many workplaces have nominated individuals to marshal folk out of the premises when the alarm sounds, and to record that everyone who was in the building gets out. This approach is reflected in social care and is complicated by the extra needs of many of the people supported throughout the sector.

Getting the community involved

There is reason to hope that the approach could also be replicated in the wider community. The way that many people supported elderly neighbours, shopped and cut grass for those more vulnerable, and generally pulled together during the pandemic demonstrated the best of society. Could that goodwill be harnessed to seek helpers in community blocks; to agree to buddy with someone more vulnerable, to agree to help and check they get out of a building in an emergency?

I am keen to ensure that this issue remains at the top of the agenda in social care and in our wider community.

Learning lessons is crucial and the occupational safety and health sector is arguably more focused on this than other sectors. The names associated with loss of life echo down the years: Piper Alpha, the Kings Cross Fire, Lakanal House in south London, to which we add Grenfell Tower.

I am hoping that my work will shine a spotlight on an inequality in safety. Everyone should be able, and know how, to get out of a building they believe to be on fire, especially if it is their home.

If they need help, it should be in place, with helpers or supporters fully aware of what they need to do. The sounding of the alarm, be it audible, visual or kinetic, must prompt people to take action, with effective and rehearsed supporters helping where necessary.

Evidence of past disasters and the daily challenges in the social care sector demonstrate that we have a long way to go. Our approach must be to recognise this and act. This is under way in the social care sector as we recognise and address the inbuilt challenges, exacerbated by an ongoing financial squeeze.

On a wider scale, and as the building of 1.5 million new homes is announced by the Government, those in power must plan for safety, combating hazards at source, and designing and building homes that place the safety of tenants and residents at the centre.

No-one should be trapped in a building which is on fire.

Shonagh Methven is head of health and safety at United Response.

For more information see:

unitedresponse.org.uk