Person Centred Framework Guidance

Introduction

The cornerstone of all fire and rescue service (FRS) prevention work has been how services can prevent fire, fire fatalities and serious injuries in the home setting. This is where the majority of fire fatalities occur and remains the primary focus for the sector’s prevention efforts.

The Person Centred Framework (PCF) supports all FRS to deliver a standardised and evidence-based approach to Home Fire Safety Visits. The PCF has been developed by NFCC in consultation with UK FRS and support of the Home Office.

NFCC has endorsed a person centred approach to prevention and recognise how it supports the Prevention Fire Standard. The Prevention Fire Standard requires all English to adopt a person centred approach that places the individual and the community it serves at the core of its prevention activity.

NFCC is committed to supporting the development and implementation of PCF products to support FRS.

Part 1. Overview

1. The Prevention Journey of Fire and Rescue Services

In the first State of Fire Report released in December 2019, Sir Thomas Winsor outlined the following:

The long-term decrease in the number of fire incidents is due to many factors, including prevention work by services, for which they deserve great credit. As a result of responding to fewer incidents, services have used their capacity in a range of different ways to support their local communities. This includes expanding the breadth of their prevention work.1

The role of the firefighter. Services have expanded the role into broader areas, in particular, health and wellbeing2

This reflects the changing nature of FRS, which has seen an ever-increasing realisation that prevention work should include risk reduction measures developed around the wider needs of the individual; not solely the type of premises in which they reside.

The collaborative approach adopted by FRS through Safe and Well Visits (SWV) and echoed in the Working Together Document came ahead of the Government intention to strengthen collaboration through The Policing and Crime Act (2017)3 which placed a statutory duty on FRS with other blue light services that required these services to keep collaboration opportunities under review.

In 2019, the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, with the support of the Minister of State for Care, endorsed the person-centred approach that NFCC was promoting and which the sector was striving to deliver with the important caveat that whilst he recognised the additional benefits these visits may have, the focus must remain on fire safety4.

By 2020, up to 85% of FRS in England had developed a safe and well approach to fire risk visits in the home, with similar developments in the devolved nations.


1 State of Fire and Rescue. The Annual Assessment of Fire and Rescue Services in England (pg. 15) 2019

2 State of Fire and Rescue. The Annual Assessment of Fire and Rescue Services in England (pg. 24) 2019

3 Policing and Crime Act, HMSO, January 2017

4 Correspondence to NFCC Prevention Committee Chair, January 2019

2. The Challenge Facing the Sector

NFCC recognises that there has been a varied approach to the development of fire prevention in the home across the sector.

This view from the State of Fire Report echoes the view from the Government and strategic partners that a level of consistency in the approach to prevention would be beneficial.

A Home Fire Risk Check (HFRC) and SWV are fully compatible and are parts of the same pathway approach to fire prevention. Both approaches should take a person centred approach and should be seen as part of a single approach to the Home Fire Safety Visit.

In essence, the opportunity for FRS and strategic health and social care partners to work more effectively together is based on one important factor, the individual’s wishes and needs. The evidence that we can derive from fire fatalities across the UK indicates that there are common risk factors. Research shows that health and care issues, when coupled with fires in the home, result in worse outcomes, including a much higher likelihood of fatalities.

These factors include multi-morbidity and frailty, cognitive impairment, smoking, drugs, alcohol, physical inactivity, obesity, loneliness and cold homes. Some of these factors such as smoking increase the likelihood of having a fire, and others such as frailty increase the likelihood of sustaining more serious injuries or fatalities. However, this does not have to be at the expense of services’ core functions concerning fire prevention, protection, response and resilience.

The balance needs to be right. And it is to achieve this balance that NFCC has produced the PCF for the HFSV.

3. Developing the Person Centred Framework

NFCC consulted with the sector about its approach to fire prevention in the home, which has informed the development of the PCF.

Between October 2019 and February 2020, NFCC engaged with a range of FRS stakeholders to develop a standardised and evidence-based approach to the HFSV through a series of regional workshops. In the course of this work, NFCC spoke to 180 colleagues from across 46 FRS, including conversations with colleagues from the devolved nations. Further consultation is planned once the initial framework is approved for development by NFCC.

This work has sought to align the best practice of the HFRC and the SWV as a single tool for the sector. This work starts to provide the sector with an evidence-based framework for the HFSV.

Devolution and the Person Centred Framework

In developing and implementing the PCF and associated guidance, NFCC is aware of the current legislative and operational systems in place across UKFRS that enable a place-based approach to prevention activity. There is a recognition that the PCF itself has been developed around legislation, governance structures and public bodies that are specifically relevant to England and therefore not fully cognisant of devolved administrations.

However, following consultation with Scotland FRS, Welsh FRSs and Northern Ireland FRS it is clear that the PCF is compatible with the prevention activity of the devolved nations. There is a strong commitment across UKFRS to continue to work together to develop the underlying principles of the PCF, which recognises the importance of placing the needs and wishes of the individual at the centre of all that FRS do. NFCC will continue to work with all FRS to support the implementation of the PCF and the principles of the PCF to enhance local prevention activity.

The Person Centred Approach

All FRS that participated in the regional workshops accepted the rationale for the person-centred approach, there was broad consensus that we need to strengthen the fire service prevention pathway to put it on an equal footing with protection and response.

The HFSV should utilise a person-centred approach. The aim of the visit should be about reducing risk and changing behaviour, not simply a checklist of questions to be asked.

All services agreed that we need a consistent approach to prevention training for FRS staff if we are to meet agreed professional standards when delivering advice and brief interventions to reduce fire risk in the home setting.

The primary purpose of the Home Fire Safety Visit should be to mitigate and reduce fire risk whilst trying to change some of the riskier behaviours that may affect or increase exposure to increased fire risk.

Risk Stratification

FRS need to look at local risk but also need a standardised approach. We should be adopting an all-age approach to prevention that recognises local risk, but that draws upon a national methodology.

In regard to risk stratification, there is a recognition of the weakness of IT systems, it was accepted that the Incident Recording System (IRS) and other systems are premises-based and fall short of more sophisticated approaches to risk stratification. More work is required to arrive at a national approach to risk stratification.
All services recognised that effective risk stratification can only be achieved if we look at risk across, prevention, protection and response.

Data sharing is a significant limitation on the sectors’ ability to accurately map risk in a local community. A major barrier to offering a person-centred approach is the inability to share and receive data with partners. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has seen a risk-averse culture that sometimes hampers collaboration.

The Core Components of the Fire Risk Check

The work drawn from the regional workshops has recommended that the following core components of a HFSV should be standardised across all English FRS (and UKFRS subject to further engagement) and that these should be developed based upon a person-centred approach taking into account personal factors and behavioural factors incorporating health and care needs.

  • Home Fire Detection (smoke and heat) incorporating Assistive Technology
  • Fire Safety in the Home (kitchen, candles and escape planning)
  • Fires and Heaters (safer heating)
  • Clutter and Hoarding
  • Arson/Deliberate Fires
  • Smoking-Related Fires
  • Medicines and Medical Devices
  • Electrical Safety

Data Collection 

Data sharing was seen as a major barrier to developing more effective referral pathways between FRS and strategic partners. Each FRS has different relationships with partners; this was seen as a localised issue that would benefit from some national definitions of data sharing practice and an indication of the data that the sector should be collecting and reporting.

The case for national standardisation but with some local deviation was a very loud and consistent message from the sector. To ensure any risk particular to their area is not overlooked.

Part 2. The Person Centred Framework for the Home Fire Safety Visit

1. Introduction

The framework provides guidance for all FRS to further develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to conducting person-centred HFSV. The framework provides:

The PCF is still in development and this work links to ongoing work with NFCC Protection Committee, NFCC Community Risk Programme and NFCC Data and Digital Programme.

NFCC supports the following working definition of the person-centred approach to reduce fire risk in the home setting:

The Person-Centred Home Fire Safety Visit should include risk reduction measures developed around the health, behaviour and wider needs of the individual; not solely the type of premises in which they reside. As it is these underlying causes that can increase an individual’s exposure to fire and can also reduce the chances of them surviving a fire in the home.

2. The Person Centred Approach to the Home Fire Safety Visit

NFCC supports the development of a consistent and professional prevention function for all FRS staff. NFCC believes that the adoption of an evidence-based person-centred approach which reflects the needs of our most vulnerable individuals and communities is the way to reduce incidents of fire and fire-related deaths in the home setting. This approach will ensure that the sector is targeting its prevention capability to benefit those individuals and communities that are most at risk of having a fire in their home.

This work is often undertaken in partnership with other agencies and has sometimes been confused as FRS doing work on behalf of other agencies. However, at the core of all FRS prevention work is the explicit aim to reduce fire risk as a statutory function of all FRS. Achieving a balance between fire prevention, protection, response and resilience is at the centre of the work that NFCC has undertaken to develop a national approach to fire prevention in the home setting.

If services are to provide a person-centred HFSV, then the following characteristics should be evident:

  • Being person-centred means affording people dignity, respect and compassion. Whenever someone interacts with services, they should always be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. These ‘experience standards’ are basic human rights.
  • Being person-centred means offering coordinated support. It’s not just individual encounters that matter – services should offer or be part of coordinated support across multiple episodes and over time if needed.  Coordination is particularly crucial when an individual’s circumstances are changing and are being seen by a range of local partners.
  • Being person-centred means offering personalised support. Because we are all different, person-centred support is tailored to the needs and aspirations of each individual, not standardised to their condition or circumstances. It means that the things that are important to the person receiving support and their family are discussed and form the basis of the advice we provide and the support that we give.
  • Being person-centred means being enabling. The starting point for being enabling is seeing people as assets, not burdens and seeking to support them to recognise, engage with and develop their sense of resourcefulness, and to build on their unique range of capabilities. Being ‘enabling’ means that systems and services orientate themselves towards supporting people to recognise and build upon their strengths and/or to recover from setbacks or negative episodes so that they can live an independent and fulfilling life.

The person-centred approach to HFSV should recognise these characteristics and that individuals may have varying and increasing fire risk based upon numerous and changing factors which can be categorised under three headings as follows:

Person Factors – are integral to the person or people living in a property; things that are temporarily or permanently a part of them and cannot be changed, such as their level of mobility.

Behaviour Factors – are actions, activities or behaviours – things that people do (or don’t do) such as smoking a cigarette, taking medication or substance use.

Home factors – are those factors which are integral to the home itself, or its contents (physical environment). Or how the person interacts with others (social environment) such as the layout of the property and other people that occupy the property.

Figure 1. Illustrates how this approach may result in services understanding which individuals represent a higher risk of having a fire in the home.

 

Figure 1. The Person-Centred Fire Risk Check

This definition of ‘person centred’ outlined in this framework builds upon NFCC endorsement of the Safe and Well Standard Evaluation Framework1.

3. Risk Stratification

The information services gave us about risk stratification fits into three broad themes – Data, Process and Systems and has informed the risk stratification baseline suggested as part of the PCF.

Incident Recording System (IRS) and Prevention/Protection Activity Data

Since 2009, FRS has been recording incident data in the IRS but there are many problems with this national data that need addressing.

The sector still only has access to a much-reduced data set that is not published in a timely fashion, usually being around a year out of date.

The Home Office produces statistics in the form of numbers of incidents attended. The LGA provides a benchmarking tool via LG Inform.  HMICFRS provides a Power BI dashboard using the numerical data it collects as part of its inspection process.  None of these organisations provides NFCC or FRS with sufficient insight or disaggregated data, or in other words, what makes people, place and building high risk and how to stratify that risk locally.  Nor does it give any context behind rising trends.

FRSs are using a wide range of data like the indices of deprivation, fingertips health indicators, fly-tipping trends and Mosaic to understand why incidents sometimes increase. Many services are developing local dashboards.

The IRS does what the Home Office needs it to do to a degree, but it is of limited use for FRS, which need to be able to access national data to fulfil their risk stratification potential with regards prevention and protection.

Colleagues from NFCC Prevention Committee have worked with colleagues from NFCC Data and Digital Programme to develop a set of standard data collection definitions that will support the aggregation of a national data set that reflects the reach of the HFSV, including a standardised approach to demographic data collection as well as HFSV data. These definitions can be viewed at Data Collection – The Development of a Standard Data Collection Portal – PCF | NFCC CPO (NFCC)

Process of Risk Stratification

Whether stratification is based on the risk of fire or the risk of death or injury is not consistent.

Some risk stratification methods use weighting and again these are very different. There is not one that is the same as another.

There seems to be no concrete basis for how attributes should be weighted. The lack of a structure and permanent research function within the sector is a major limitation in understanding and validating the sectors approach to fire risk.

Fire analysts need a competency framework and support in the form of training and development if we are to utilise this resource for the benefit of the wider sector.

Risk Stratification to Support the Person-Centred Framework and the Home Fire Safety Visit

The FRS sector is a standout beacon for prevention and protection activity and the importance of being able to evidence that everything we do is person or business centred, and intelligence-led cannot be underestimated.

Despite risk stratification being done so differently across the sector, there are some factors that all FRS have in common.

The output from the Greenstreet Berman work was that 73% of the people lived alone and that the risk of becoming a fire fatality increased exponentially from the age of 50. This analysis used data from 2009 to 2011 and during this time things will almost certainly have changed, smoking prevalence is reducing each year, for example.

There has been no analysis at a national level since this report.  While every service uses different methods to weight the factors, most are using the same ones.

Research suggests that the risks associated with home fire safety fall into three categories:

  • Risk of having an accidental dwelling fire
  • Risk of being a casualty in an accidental dwelling fire
  • Risk of being killed in an accidental dwelling fire

This research1, including the 2014 DCLG report by Greenstreet Berman, identifies that the characteristics that put people at greater risk of dying in a fire are different to those that put people at risk of having a fire or being injured.

HFSVs aim to reduce the likelihood of fires occurring as well as increasing the likelihood of safe escape if a fire occurs. It is important therefore to ensure that risk stratification models include both likelihood of fire and severity.

NFCC have commissioned a review of risk stratification and have produced a risk stratification methodology for accidental dwelling fires which can be viewed.

Research which has been identified usually focuses on either fire fatalities or accidental dwelling fires and casualties. The most significant characteristics consistently identified and those which can be used with some confidence by FRSs are set out below and should be used to inform the PCF, targeting those most at risk:

Fire fatalities

  • Over 70 years old, particularly in combination with any pre-existing mental or physical impairment including frailty.
  • Children under 11 years old, but especially under 5 years who are less likely to be able to self-rescue.
  • Being male (particularly when combined with other risk factors)
  • Smokers – especially if combined with poor mobility or other health condition.
  • Low Socioeconomic Status (SES) i.e. deprivation.
  • Disability or long-term health condition (including dementia).
  • Mental and/or physical impairment caused by alcohol and/or drugs.
  • Non-owned property or mobile home – this may be a proxy indicator for low SES.
  • Single-parent families, and households with more children.

Fire casualties/ADFs

  • Living alone.
  • Having had a fire before, and lack of basic fire safety knowledge.
  • More prevalent among people in the 40-49 age group.

There are several interactions between these elements. In particular, age and other characteristics, where the primary factor relates to fatality and ability to escape. Many studies have pointed to the fact that although older age groups are more likely to become fire fatalities, they are less likely to have a fire in the first place. As Gilbert et al (2017) point out, the groups who are fire fatalities are separate and distinct from the groups who have fires or experience injury relating to fire.

It is also important to note the prevalence of alcohol as a factor in fire fatalities, especially the interaction with smoking which appears to be a leading combination for inability to escape a fire. Another interesting point raised (although so far, only in one study) was that of people who had survived an ADF, 81% had experienced a fire before, so this must be taken into consideration as a key targeting factor.

An important source of risk stratification data can be drawn from fire investigation data and the process of utilising fire investigation data to inform, improve and develop prevention activity is central to developing a person-centred approach to the HFSV.

It is not possible to recommend a standard for the weighting of the factors at this time until more research gives us the evidence to do this with confidence. It should be noted that more work is required to develop this aspect of the PCF.

Risk stratification is an important use of our data and vital in finding hard to reach people, but FRS also need to consider how people access their FRS.

The sector needs to ensure that referral pathways allow any member of the community to recognise their risks and to reach out to their local service for advice and practical assistance where applicable.

The development of a risk stratification methodology for the sector should take into account equal access and the existing position of NFCC as detailed in NFCC’s Inclusion, Equality and Diversity Strategy2.

As part of NFCC’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Statement3 FRS should ensure that the commitments of this position statement are met as services develop risk stratification approaches. And more specifically FRS should take account of the following NFCC commitments:

Encouraging Fire Authorities to undertake and strive to improve their assessment levels within the Equality Standard for Local Government.

Ensuring all new and existing policies and practices are impact assessed. The prioritisation of this is especially important at Authority and Government Department level at a time when difficult financial decisions are being made.

Encouraging learning and development at all levels to promote continuous improvement and understanding of inclusion and diversity which impact our workforce and service delivery.


1Risk Stratification Research Sources:

Ayoub, A., Kosatsky, T., Smarigassi, A., Bilodeau-Bertrand, M., & Auger, N.  (2017). Risk of hospitalization for fire-related burns during extreme cold weather. Environmental Research.
Barillo, D. J. & Goode, R. (1996). Fire fatality study: demographics of fire victims. Burns.
Flynn, J. D. (2010). Characteristics of home fire victims. National Fire Protection Association Fire Analysis and research Division.
Gilbert, S. W. & Butry, D. T. (2017). Identifying vulnerable populations to death and injuries from residential fires. Injury Prevention.
Greenstreet Berman Ltd, DCLG. (2014). Using data to help save the lives of those most at risk from fire. Presentation by Michael Wright.
Hall, J. R. (2005). Characteristics of home fire victims. National Fire Protection Association.
Heimdall Consulting Ltd. (2005). Human behaviour contributing to unintentional residential fire deaths 1997-2003. Fire Research Report.
Home Office. (2019). Detailed analysis of fires attended by fire and rescue services, England, April 2018 to March 2019.
Howland, J., & Hingson, R. (1987). Alcohol as a risk factor for injuries of death due to fires and burns: Review of the literature. Public Health Reports.
Jonsson, A., Bonander, C., Nilson, F., & Huss, F. (2017). The state of the residential fire fatality problem in Sweden: Epidemiology, risk factors, and event typologies. Journal of Safety Research.
Jonsson, A., & Jaldell, H. (2020). Identifying sociodemographic risk factors associated with residential fire fatalities: a matched case control study. Injury Prevention.
Jordan, L. B., Squires, T. J., & Busittul, A. (1999). Incidence trends in house fire fatalities in eastern Scotland. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine.
Lehna, C., Speller, A., Hanchette, C., Fahey, E., & Coty, M. (2015). Development of a Fire Risk Model to identify areas of increased potential for fire occurrences. Journal of Burn and Care Research.
Levine, M. S. & Radford, E. P. (1977). Fire victims: Medical outcomes and demographic characteristics. American Journal of Public Health.
Nilson, F., Bonander, C., & Jonsson, A. (2015). Differences in determinants amongst individuals reporting residential fires in Sweden: results from a cross-sectional study. Fire Technology.
O’Shea, J. (1991). House -fire and drowning deaths among children and young adults. American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology.
Patetta, M. J. & Cole, T. B. (1990 A population-based descriptive study of housefire deaths in North Carolina. Public Health Briefs.
Runefors, M., Johasson, N., van Hees, P. (2017). The effectiveness of specific fire prevention measures for different populations. Fire Safety Journal.
Sekizawa, A. (2005). Fire risk analysis: its validity and potential for application in fire safety. Fire Safety Science- Proceedings of the eighth international symposium.
Sully, C. J., Walker, G. S., & Langlois, N. E. (2018). Review of autopsy reports of deaths relating to fire in South Australia 2000-2015. Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology.
Turner, S., Johnson, R. D., Weightman, A. L., Rodgers, S. E., Arthurs, R., Bailey, R., & Lyons, R. A. (2017). Risk factors associated with unintentional house fire incidents, injuries and deaths in high-income countries: a systematic review. Injury Prevention.
Warda, L., Renenbein, M., & Moffatt, M. E. K. (1999.) House fire injury prevention update. Part 1 A review of risk factors for fatal and non-fatal house fire injury. Injury Prevention.
Xiong, L., Bruck, D., Ball, M. (2017). Unintentional residential fires caused by smoking-related materials: who is at risk? Fire Safety Journal.
Xiong, L., Bruck, D., Ball, M. (2007). Human Responses to non-injury accidental house fires. Fire and Materials.

2 NFCC Inclusion, Equality and Diversity Strategy, NFCC, January 2020
3 Inclusion, Diversity and Inclusion Position Statement, NFCC, January 2020

4. Safeguarding Standard

An integral part of every HFSV is to ensure the wellbeing of those individuals we provide a service to. So, every time FRS staff cross a household threshold, we are minded to ensure that our safeguarding responsibilities are delivered.  Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places duties on a range of organisations and individuals including FRS to ensure their functions, and any services that they contract out to others, are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Section 43 of the Care Act 2014 requires Local Safeguarding Adults Boards to co-ordinate, and ensures the effectiveness of, what each of its members do in protecting individuals from abuse and neglect and delivering the outcomes that enhance their wellbeing, again FRS are members of Local Safeguarding Adults Boards. As part of the PCF, FRS must ensure they are aware of their safeguarding roles and responsibilities. The Safeguarding Self Assessment toolkit for Fire and Rescue Services incorporates both Section 11 and Section 43 reporting. Available to view at UKFRS NFCC Safeguarding Guidance for Children, Young People and Adults | NFCC CPO (NFCC)

5. Advice and interventions – The Core Components of the Home Fire Safety Visit

Throughout its consultation with the sector, NFCC has sought to understand what FRS are delivering as part of their respective HFSV. This element of the PCF sets out the core components of a HFSV based upon the practice of the FRS that were consulted and the expert opinion of topic leads through NFCC’s Home Safety Committee.

It is important to stress that the following eight core components of the HFSV are seen by NFCC as an offer that all FRS can and should be offering as part of their prevention offer.

However, this does not limit FRS in providing additional areas of advice and brief interventions where local circumstances such as capacity and capability allow it, and local risk stratification warrants additional measures. This should not be seen as a basic core level of provision, rather a sound basis to build further prevention work on, and that addresses fire risk in the home and wider home safety risks where applicable.

NFCC believes that if an FRS is offering a person-centred HFSV, then it should be confident in demonstrating how it delivers these eight core components in a person-centred manner that takes account of the person factors and behaviour factors outlined in this document, not simply a checklist for operational staff to complete.

Each of the eight core components of the HFSV is made up of a description of what the challenge is regarding the topic, the advice and intervention guidance endorsed by NFCC, details of NFCC position and what NFCC will do to support FRS in delivering these core components including work with Government and other strategic partners.

The core components in the person-centred framework adopt the Hierarchy of Risk Control (HRC) measure as recognised by NFCC National Operational Guidance (NOG).  This control measure is based on information provided by the Health and Safety Executive about the hierarchy of control.

Risk control involves introducing changes to reduce the likelihood of a hazardous event from happening AND/OR reduce the consequences of the hazardous event. The HRC promotes a series of risk control measures to facilitate this approach.

Risk control measures at the top of the hierarchy are preferred because they are less reliant on people doing something. Also, they protect larger numbers of people. So, where possible, the control measures should be employed from top to bottom. (It may sometimes be appropriate to utilise combinations of control measures from the hierarchy so that more than one control measure is at play.)

There are variations of the hierarchy employed in different sectors. The one suggested below, for fire risk reduction in the home, is based on ERICPD (minus the D which stands for discipline and does not necessarily resonate with the spirit of the Home Fire Safety Visit).

Eliminate The most effective method of risk control is to eliminate the hazard.
Reduce/Replace If it is not possible to eliminate the hazard completely, the next option is to reduce it by replacing it with something safer.
Isolate If it is not possible to eliminate or reduce/replace the hazard, the next option is to isolate the hazard (preventing people from coming into contact with it by enclosing it/shutting it off or putting distance between it and people)
Control If it is not possible to eliminate, reduce/replace or isolate the hazard, the next option is to control it. Control is about employing safe systems, or rules about how activities should be carried out to minimise risk.

This is where most traditional fire safety advice comes into play, such as ‘don’t leave cooking unattended’, ‘use a heavy-bottomed ashtray’, ‘extinguish candles properly’)

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) If the measures above are not viable, the next option is the use of PPE to prevent harm if people are exposed to a hazardous event. PPE shouldn’t be considered as a first-choice control but could be used in combination with other measures in the hierarchy.

Applying the framework to the HSFV

  1. Identify the fire hazard that needs controlling. (Cooking, smoking, candles, clutter, alcohol use, electrics, heaters, emollient use etc.)
  2. For each measure within ERICP, identify what (if anything) the fire risk control measure is for the householder. So, what is/are the action/s they would need to take? (In some cases, there could be no identified action for a particular element of ERICP and so the householder would defer to the next level down)
  3. Importantly, for each control measure identified, what is the proposed/agreed FRS Intervention to encourage or enable the householder to take the action. So, what is it that is expected of the FRS to trigger the householder to employ the control measure?

An example: Reducing Smoking-Related Fires in the Home

ERICP Householder Fire Risk Control Measure FRS Intervention
Eliminate (the smoking materials/behaviour) Quit smoking Delivery of Very Brief Advice (VBA) to encourage people to make a quit attempt
Reduce/Replace (the smoking materials/behaviour) Switch from smoking to vaping Provision of information about the health and fire safety benefits of switching from smoking tobacco products to vaping.
Isolate (the smoking materials/behaviour) Have a smokefree home Provision of information about the health and fire safety benefits of having a smokefree home.
Control (the smoking behaviour) Practice safe smoking habits Provision of traditional verbal smoking-related fire safety advice and smoking-related fire safety literature.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (to protect against smoking-related fire) Use PPE Provision of fire risk reduction equipment in accordance with risk, local funding and arrangements. E.g. fire-retardant bedding, smoking apron, self-extinguishing ashtray.

Based on this approach, the following core components make up the person-centred framework.

Core Components of the Home Fire Safety Visit

  1. Home Fire Detection and Assistive Technology
  2. General Fire Safety (candles, cooking and escape planning)
  3. Electrical Safety
  4. Fire and Heaters (safer heating)
  5. Clutter and Hoarding
  6. Deliberate Fires
  7. Smoking-related fires
  8. Medicines and Medical Devices

In delivering these core components of the HFSV, FRS must understand and address:

Person Factors

  • Physical Health – such as sensory impairment
  • Mental Health – an awareness and understanding of issues that impact upon advice and brief interventions as part of the HFSV
  • Mobility – understanding the impact that reduced mobility has on fire safety

Behaviour Factors

  • Smoking – its impact on all the advice and interventions carried out as part of the HFSV
  • Medication – an understanding of the impact of medication use on all aspects of the HFSV
  • Substance Use – an understanding of the impact on all the core components of the HFSV

6. Data Collection – The Development of a Standard Data Collection Portal

The data collection requirements of the PCF are based upon the work undertaken between 2016 and 2018 to develop the Standard Evaluation Framework (SEF) which was approved by NFCC in 2018. The principles of the SEF have been applied to the collection of data relating to the eight core components of the framework, and as such should be seen as an approach to standardising data collection for the HFSV across all FRS.

The SEF focused on providing the best practice guide for FRS to evaluate SWV aimed at over 65s. However, this approach can be applied to a wider range of vulnerable adults. The SEF was a first step towards enabling FRS to generate and collect consistent data on the delivery of HFSV. The learning from the SEF guidance has supported the wider development of the National Data Analytics Capacity (NDAC) as detailed in this section of the document.

The National Data Analytics Capacity

The NFCC Digital and Data Programme has undertaken work to design a national data analytics capability (NDAC) which will make efficient and effective use of data to support current and emerging needs of the FRS and ongoing decision-making and policy development.  Once implemented, the NDAC will be a central function of NFCC comprising skilled people, standardised processes, and technology, providing national data analytics and data governance to the NFCC and UK FRS to solve problems and support decision-making.

The core services that will be provided by the NDAC will include problem-solving (through descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive analytics), data sourcing (from internal and external sources, including data cleansing), and data consulting (such as methodology and subject research). Additional NDAC functions will include:

  • a controlled, governed processes to identify, assess and prioritise issues where data could provide insight
  • support to local data teams for analysis at a national level
  • support to local data teams to supply data that shares insight to national trends and analytics
  • establishment of standards, agreements and processes that enable services and partners to share data in a controlled, secure, legal and ethical manner
  • capabilities to source, catalogue, enrich and manage data in support of developing insight to prioritised national issues
  • data sourcing, visualisation, analytics, and modelling
  • a data analysis capability which creates actionable insight in support of prioritised national issues
  • establishing arrangements with local FRS, partner agencies, academia, and industry in order to collaborate and share best practice
  • driving a culture of standardisation, consistency, and efficiency

When it comes to data capture for local risk assessments, not all services currently ask the same questions about the same things and will often use different categories, definitions, and layers of granularity in their data collection. This inconsistency has also made it prohibitively difficult to aggregate prevention data at the national level to gain insight on trend analysis, significant emerging factors, and to inform research and evaluation.

The Person-Centred Framework (PCF) addresses this by defining the 8 core components of a fire risk assessment that every service should apply and defines the common data requirements and definitions that will enable collection of consistent and comparable datasets. Adoption of the PCF by the UK FRS will ensure a core dataset is universally captured, whilst still allowing for local flexibility in supplementary data collection.

The Standard Data Requirement (SDR) for the PCF guidance uses a standardised approach around a core set of indicators which will enable comparisons to be made between different FRS approaches and will allow the aggregation of this anonymised data at a national level.

The list of measures and indicators is split into the following data sets:

  • Demographic Data
  • Visit and Follow up Data
  • Qualitative Data

These data sets are made up of essential criteria which are considered to be part of the minimum recommended dataset required to capture a HSFV against the eight core components of the PCF.

To generate good quality data, to maximise local and collective learning and to enable continuous improvement over time each FRS must assess its HFSV, ideally in a way that is consistent with other FRS. This enables evidence to be pooled across FRS, and it also enables individual approaches to be directly compared to identify best practice.

The SDR provides a pragmatic approach to data collection. It allows for complexity, variation in local delivery whilst still enabling a level of consistency.  It is not designed to be overly prescriptive or to stifle innovation.  It can be adapted to suit local circumstances.

It is recognised that introducing a SDR is a new approach for FRS and, as such, represents a challenge.  Many FRS across the country are currently implementing HFSV in varying ways and using different methods to collate data.  This framework is intended as best practice guidance and gives FRS something to work towards.  The more closely this approach can be followed, the higher the quality of data that can be generated across the country.

The Core Data Set for HFSV

The SDR has identified a set of core measures for every FRS to use when collecting data for HFSV interventions.

They have been selected because either they provide key background information to enable comparison, or they are the indicators that are most likely to see a change/impact as a direct result of the HFSV.

Whilst the list may initially appear long, it is not expected that FRS will directly collect data on all of the indicators listed, only those relevant to an individual visit. The suggested source of the data is listed alongside each indicator.

Supporting Guidance for the Standard Data Collection Portal

There is a recognition within the PCF that there is further work required to develop the SDR as part of the NDAC and the systems to support this approach. The SDR for the PCF has now been launched, and further work is underway to support FRS to start to use this tool to support local data collection.

7. Protection

As part of the work to develop and consult upon the PCF, NFCC colleagues have worked with NFCC Protection Committee to ensure that the definition and the implementation of a person-centred approach to the HFSV is compatible with the existing definition of person-centred as first outlined in NFCC’s Specialist Housing Guide (May 2017).

The Specialised Housing Guidance recognises that the scope of the fire risk assessment required by the Fire Safety Order (FSO) does not extend to the risk to residents from a fire within their accommodation, though in that risk assessment there is a need to consider, generically, the characteristics of residents for whom the premises are intended.

An assessment needs to be made of the physical ability of residents to evacuate in case of fire. The most critical stage of escape is evacuation from the resident’s accommodation. All residents’ accommodation should be protected by, at least, the minimum recommendations of the specialised Housing Guidance.

However, the person-centred fire risk assessment may identify the need for additional measures, particularly within a person’s accommodation. A simple template for documenting the significant findings of the person-centred fire risk assessment is available to all FRS through the Specialist Housing Guide. Assessments should, wherever possible, be completed with the person, or with others who can speak on their behalf.

Further work to ensure the person-centred approach is a shared component of the protection and prevention functions of FRS will be carried out through the respective NFCC Committees. This work will focus on the following factors that were raised by colleagues through the Regional Workshops:

  • Competency for fire safety of the person carrying out the home visit.
  • How protection issues are captured.
  • Engaging with the ‘responsible person’.
  • Evaluating the fire risk assessment against the person-centred risk assessment.
  • Awareness/understanding of the role/importance of social alarms/telecare.
  • Understanding evacuation strategies.
  • Develop further work with leaders in the housing sector and the social care sector to ensure the PCF is in line with national strategy for these sectors.

8. Evaluation

Introduction

The evaluation model described here focuses on the core fire safety element of the HFSV as described in part 2 of this document. Work is now underway to produce a national evaluation methodology for HFSV and is expected to be complete in 2023. This methodology will adopt the factors covered in this section of the PCF.

Measuring other potential benefits, such as health outcomes, is likely to be more problematic and it is recommended this should be undertaken in partnership with local strategic partners where possible. NFCC does not consider it necessary for FRS to take responsibility for measuring outcomes which fall outside of the core functions, but individual services are free to decide locally how many resources they can allocate to supporting partners’ objectives.

It is important to use, and contribute to, high-quality evidence to inform decisions so that practitioners can be confident in the effectiveness of their interventions. Furthermore, using evidence to underpin decisions means taking a step back to assess the possible outcomes of intervention activity, looking at what has worked in the past, and ensuring that planned intervention activity meets an agreed objective.

All of which helps to ensure cost-effectiveness in the approach to design and evaluation of intervention activity. In other words, to adopt the evidence-based practice.

Evaluating the effectiveness of prevention interventions, such as delivering the HFSV, adds to the available evidence and allows us to continuously improve. It’s important to be prepared to change or even stop what we are doing if an evaluation or other evidence shows that our interventions are not effective or in any way harmful.

HFSV, in common with most of our prevention programmes, are designed to encourage safer behaviours. Therefore, it is useful to adopt behaviour change practices (including evaluation techniques) that are effective in other disciplines such as public health. For example, each intervention should be aimed at a defined audience and should use behaviour change theory to predict how people will react and change their behaviours.

It is essential to understand the behaviours that put people at risk before we can design the intervention, and the evaluation method to measure the predicted changes. Unfortunately, very little empirical research has been undertaken into home fire safety, so this evidence base will need to be built over time by the sector.

The methodology described in this section of the PCF has been designed for adoption by FRS regarding the core components of the HFSV. It follows that if all services adopt the guidance in this document, then HFSV will be more standardised across the country.

Theory of Change

To be able to undertake an evaluation of a behaviour change programme it is useful to develop a Theory of Change with an underpinning behaviour theory. The model is based on work developed by the National Social Marketing Centre for Kent Fire & Rescue Service, drawing on the Protection Motivation Theory and identifies the following factors for the HFSV.

Problem = A low perception of fire risk and fire safety behaviours not consistently maintained.

Solution = Educate people on the severity of the threat and recommend safer behaviours. Support and motivate change by encouraging safer behaviours and increasing self-efficacy.

Activities = Home visits to inform, educate and support, including one-off and repeat visits and referrals. Environmental changes including fitting smoke alarms & other equipment.

Impacts = Positive changes in knowledge and perception of risk. Self-reported changes in behaviour. Physical changes to the environment. Reduction in fires, fatalities and casualties.

Image showing the Theory of Change

Logic Model

With the theory of change in place, it is possible to develop a logic model for evaluation. The model identifies a logical link between inputs, outputs and desired outcomes. The intention here is to show whether the HFSV is likely to have a positive impact and to ensure that the data being collected directly relates to this outcome. For example, if an outcome of the HFSV is weekly testing of smoke alarms, then the logic model prompts thinking about how and when this could be measured. If it cannot be measured directly then a proxy would need to be thought about, and if it cannot be measured at all it should be considered whether this is a viable objective. Any data that does not contribute towards the evaluation should be discounted.

The link between outputs (e.g. completed HFSV) and long-term outcomes (sustained behaviour change and fewer fire fatalities) may not be proven statistically but should where possible be supported by other evidence, such as follow-up assessments of behaviour and observable risks in the home. As detailed above, using a well thought out logic model can help practitioners to think about these steps early in the process to ensure that evaluation meets the objectives of the intervention activity.

Image showing the logic frame

Inputs = This is simply the resources used to complete the HFSV over the period being evaluated. These items can also be costed if necessary.

Outputs = Put simply this is the measure of activities completed. This includes the number of visits, where they were completed, and the nature of the people visited.

Outcomes = This section shows the incremental changes that occur as a result of the outputs. Broken down into short, medium and long term. Short term outcomes include an immediate increase in knowledge and awareness, physical changes to the home at the time of the visit. Medium-term outcomes include changes in attitude and an intention to adopt safer behaviours. Long term outcomes are sustained behaviour changes leading to fewer fires, casualties and fatalities.

Whilst it is relatively easy to collect data for inputs, outputs and short-term outcomes it becomes increasingly difficult to collect meaningful data for medium or long-term outcomes. Using a logic framework, with supporting behavioural change theories and other evidence, allows us to be more confident about contributing reductions in fires/casualties/fatalities through the HFSV.

The Planning Cycle

All interventions should go through a planning cycle (illustration1). It is important to note that it is essential to include evaluation methods within the planning stage, BEFORE starting an intervention. Trying to undertake evaluation on a completed or existing intervention is not impossible, but, likely, data collected in the past will not be entirely suited to evaluation.

By taking the Logic Model approach it is possible to collect data over a relatively short period to undertake meaningful evaluation.

Plan = Identify the problem or question e.g. the behaviour which needs to change. Background research. Design the intervention.

Do = Deliver the intervention e.g. undertake the fire safety visits

Study = Evaluate the intervention

Act = Review the intervention. i.e. do more, do less, improve, stop.

Image showing the planning cycle

An Evaluation Method for HFSV

The evaluation aims to understand the impact of the HFSV including the perception of risk, changes in behaviour (or intention to change) and referrals.

For HFSV a cross-sectional post-intervention survey is recommended. The method used for data collection depends on the budget available, but any evaluation should be proportionate to spend, and the quality of evidence required.

Although the evaluation outlined here is post-intervention (Illustration 2), some data should be collected for evaluation routinely when undertaking visits. For example, the demographics of the individuals visited, the risks identified in the home and solutions put in place, as well as the behaviours and attitudes observed during the visit. This data can then be used to compare behaviours and risks at the time of the visit (e.g. advised to test their smoke alarms) with those found post-visit (e.g. testing smoke alarms weekly).

Image showing the evaluation method

Research is important to establish evidence to support the theory of change and logic model. What evidence supports a link between the outputs achieved and the desired outcomes?

As stated earlier there is not much weight of evidence in this area and individual fire services must share findings and collaborate to improve the evidence base. Case studies and other qualitative evidence can be collected as part of the SDCP and shared through NFCC research portal. As the weight of evidence grows, it will not be necessary to repeatedly complete evaluation unless something changes e.g. the nature of the visits, the advice given or there is reason to believe the risks have changed.

The chosen method of collecting post-intervention data from customers/service users will largely depend upon the resources available. A large sample size is not essential, and it is far more important to gain good quality, often qualitative, data. For an in-depth qualitative study, a sample size of around 30-50 participants would be expected. For quantitative survey-type studies, a minimum sample size of 100-150 is expected. If statistical analyses are to be conducted it would be worth consulting with a quantitative researcher to establish a specific sample size for the study.

Taking a qualitative approach allows for a more detailed discussion with the customer about their behaviours and motivations and may help find out ‘why’ they adopt a certain behaviour.

Quantitative research allows a bigger reach and allows more generalisations but is more rigid and less detailed in the type and amount of information that can be gathered. For example, only allowing certain answers which might not capture specific nuances in the customers’ experience. A sample should be selected from people that have received a visit recently (the period to be selected). The sample should be selected to ensure it is representative of those people visited – depending on the criteria for visits the following could be used to select the sample: postcode to ensure a good geographical spread, type of referral, the date the visit was completed and age of the participants.

Structured or semi-structured interviews (in person or via the telephone) and/or focus groups are likely to be more suited to this type of evaluation than questionnaires. In part, this is to find out specific details about the customers’ experience and also to allow a robust evaluation accounting for small numbers of people willing and able to take part, as well as drop-out rates where it is not possible to follow-up with an individual.

Furthermore, using interviews or focus groups encourages further discussion and the ability to probe deeper into any interesting responses, or prompt for more information if needed. This part of the research intends to gather the short term (and potentially some medium-term) outcomes only.

The key areas to explore therefore are:

  • Recall of advice and equipment provided
  • Intention to change behaviour
  • Adoption of safer behaviours
  • Changes in perception of risk

It is useful to have the same measures collected at the time of the visit, or before the visit, if possible (i.e. advice is given, commitment to change behaviour, perception of risk), to be able to identify change.

It’s also important to understand the views of staff that undertake the fire safety visits as they will have the insights into what works and what doesn’t work.

The outcomes being measured can be summarised as follows:

  • Reaction – did the customer find the visit useful and would recommend?
  • Learning – did they acquire knowledge, skills and have they changed attitude to fire risk?
  • Behaviour – have they applied/intend to apply what they learnt?

Ethical consideration

As with any research involving people, some precautions need to be taken to ensure evaluation is undertaken ethically. Care must be taken not to cause any harm, for example raising anxiety for vulnerable people.

It is recommended to exclude some of the most vulnerable people from the sample for the interview, including people with dementia, mental health issues or at risk from domestic violence.

Precautions need to be taken to protect personal data and ensure legal compliance. Each FRS will need to consider its data governance issues to ensure it remains compliant with the Data Protection Act 2018. Informed consent from individuals to take part in the research should be obtained.

Example questions

Questions are designed to measure the outcomes contained in the logic model. For example:

  • Can you tell me about any advice you were given during the visit?
  • Was this advice useful?
  • Based on that advice, can you tell me about any changes you agreed to make after your Fire Safety Visit?
  • Did you make those changes after the visit?
  • Do you feel that making these changes [this change] has made your home safer?
  • In your view, how likely is it that people in Kent who are similar to you will experience a house fire?

The inclusion of some open questions provides qualitative data and allows for further clarification and prompting where necessary – providing richer data.

Data analysis and results

Results will need to be analysed and presented using proportions. For example, the percentage of individuals who made changes or intend to adopt safer behaviours. Open-ended questions should be analysed by reviewing the answers and looking for common themes that arise, which will need to be coded – this is probably the hardest part of the analysis, and it is recommended this is done by someone who is qualified and experienced in undertaking qualitative research.

Part 3. Recommendations and Next Steps

Recommendations

  1. NFCC will continue to consult upon the Person-Centred Framework with all UKFRS to develop this thinking as a practical approach to an evidence-based approach to the Home Fire Safety Visit, and will work through the recognised governance structures and complementary work streams of NFCC in this work.

The Person Centred Approach

  1. That all FRS will work towards adopting NFCC working definition of the Person Centred Approach to the Home Fire Safety Visit.
  2. That the Home Fire Risk Check and the Safe and Well Visit will be seen as components of a single approach to fire prevention in the home, which will be referred to as the Home Fire Safety Visit.
  3. NFCC will work with strategic partners to develop a consistent approach to the prevention training of all FRS staff to ensure a consistent and professional approach to prevention delivery in the home is adopted and strengthened.
  4. NFCC will work with the Fire Standards Board to incorporate the PCF into the Prevention Standard and to develop the occupational standards required to carry out a person-centred Home Fire Safety Visit
  5. NFCC will undertake further consultation with FRS on a shift away from a property focus towards a person-centred approach and increased multi-agency working to tackle fire risk in the home
  6. NFCC, Home Office and FRS will consider if, in the medium to longer-term, new person-centred IT systems will be needed to meet future service requirements

Risk Stratification

  1. That FRS work towards adopting the baseline risk stratification guidance outlined in this document.
  2. The development of further risk stratification work to support the person-centred approach will be progressed through NFCC Community Risk Programme.
  3. NFCC will consider the implementation of the use of predictive analytics at the national level, using data science and national data to create insight for the sector.  This work should draw in local analysts, to work alongside Data Scientists, providing context and to facilitate problem-solving using data, with the added benefit of knowledge transfer to analysts.

The Core Components of the Home Fire Safety Visit

  1. NFCC Home Safety Committee will further develop the core components of the Home Fire Safety Visit in partnership with FRS.
  2. All FRS will work towards adopting the eight core components of the Home Fire Safety Visit as part of their delivery of fire prevention in the home and the Hierarchy of Risk methodology they are based upon.

Data Collection

  1. NFCC through its Digital and Data Programme will work with FRS and the Home Office to develop the Standard Data Collection Portal to support the person-centred approach to Home Fire Safety Visits
  2. NFCC should act as a repository of FRS data, defining a core set of data that should be recorded nationally, for prevention activity.
  3. Consideration should be given to unique identifiers such as NHS and NI number to complement the UPRN, and robust solutions for data collection systems should be found that resolves the differences in the local recording.
  4. NFCC should develop standards, training and development for the Role of an Analyst.

Protection

  1. NFCC Prevention Committee will continue to work with NFCC Protection Committee to align the person-centred approach across the disciplines of prevention and protection and will develop the themes raised in Part 2. Point 6 of this document.
  2. Alignment of the fire investigation process to support risk stratification that underpins the HFSV.

Evaluation

  1. FRS will consider how they will adopt the principles outlined in this document to introduce a Theory of Change and Logic Model to the evaluation of the Home Fire Safety Visit
  2. In partnership with NFCC, the Home Office should look at how research and development are funded for the Fire and Rescue Service, using the College of Policing as a comparison model.
  3. NFCC should develop research programmes and work streams that support risk stratification, creating an evidence-based culture.
  4. NFCC and FRS should consider ways to build evaluation skills and capacity in FRS in the UK through the identification of appropriate training and developing skills and relationships with academic partners.

Annex 1. Core components of the Home Fire Safety Visit – Position Statements

Deliberate Fires

Sector Challenge

The National Framework documents for FRSs set out the strategic expectations to identify, assess and target risks which could affect their communities with arson and deliberate fire-setting being specifically referenced; England in section 2.4, and Wales in sections 1.11, 1.19 and 1.25. Scotland’s strategic priority No.2 covers the need to identify and target inequalities. Northern Ireland’s Corporate Plan takes cognisance of the three National Framework Documents capturing the reduction of deliberate fires in strategic objective No.1.

The level of risk posed when dwellings are subject to a deliberate fire or arson attack, is HIGH; with consequences ranging from loss of life, personal injury, property damage, financial loss and environmental damage.

NFCC Position

NFCC will work towards an integrated and coordinated approach, in collaboration, in partnership, and where necessary take action as a standalone agency, to reduce the incidence of arson and the consequential effects that arson has on victims and communities.

Working with partners

NFCC will work with strategic partners including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office National Anti-Social Behaviour Steering Board to promote collaboration and partnership opportunities; develop closer working relationships and promote the consideration of arson in wider Government agendas.

FRS are encouraged to work with Crime & Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), Local Strategic Partnership Boards and Local Safer Partnerships; to embed an integrated and coordinated approach to addressing local needs and reducing the impacts of arson on local communities.

Advice and guidance

NFCC has produced, agreed and published standardised advice and guidance relative to arson reduction in a domestic, business and rural setting;

  1. NFCC will provide standardised advice for all FRSs to adopt or adapt, and make available to domestic residents
  2. NFCC will provide a framework of areas for advice and education that can be assessed during a Person-centred Fire Risk Check
  3. NFCC will provide a ‘toolkit’ of potential options for interventions that could reduce the occupants assessed level of risk from arson

NFCC Recommendations

NFCC Support:

  1. All FRSs to embed the assessment of ‘risk from arson’ within their Person-centred Risk Checks / Safer Home Visits
  2. All FRSs to fully provide arson reduction advice, education and interventions within their Person-centred Risk Checks / Safer Home Visits
  3. All FRSs to develop and share through the national toolkit, solutions to arson and use of community empowerment tools.

Person Centred Fire Risk Check

As a minimum NFCC advises the following:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Remove and secure property items and outbuildings which may not be secured that present risk of theft and use of arson as a method of crime concealment, introduce boundary security to reduce opportunist arson. Consider improvements to external deterrents (CCTV, lighting, letterbox lock, bin security)
  2. Reduce the hazard, Change behaviours to avoid the hazard of opportunist Arson. (household waste management, waste collection day routine, neighbourhood pride)
  3. Isolate the hazard Examine options in terms of fire fuel availability within premise curtilage (hoarding, waste storage, abandoned or end of life vehicles / caravans / furniture etc.)
  4. Control the hazard Promote public empowerment tools for public to refer local community issues. Remind and prompt business owners about the fire safety issues. Provide information and follow-up advice via further visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. Refer to local Police Force for security check.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide, recommend or refer for interventions appropriate to risks identified, including; devices, education and behavioural change programmes e.g. fire-setter intervention services.

Countries this position applies to :

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Electrical Safety

Introduction

NFCC is committed to creating safer, healthier and more resilient communities. In support of this objective, it is considered that continued work to prevent electrical fires will contribute to reducing casualties, fatalities and material losses arising from fires.

The intent of this statement is to outline the challenge, the strategic and tactical approaches to preventing electrical fires, and NFCC’s position. In the statement, figures referenced are fire incidents in the UK where electrical ignition source was defined as faulty appliances and leads, faulty fuel supply and misuse and articles placed too close to heat.

Sector Challenge

Fires relating to electrical equipment and supplies are the second-highest cause of accidental dwelling fires in the home and of accidental dwelling fire related injuries and deaths. Faulty electrics (appliances, wiring and overloaded sockets) cause around, 40001 fires in the home across the country every year.

Electrical safety in the home covers both the electrical items we use and how we use them. Areas covered include fixed mains wiring and associated equipment, portable appliances such as white goods, plug in devices and chargers, and battery powered devices (e.g. vaping devices, tablets and phones).

NFCC will continue to review emerging and future technologies, such as home energy storage systems or the ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT), in order to identify potential new fire risks to the public and fire service. However, due to the cross-over between Prevention and Protection risks, battery energy storage systems are being considered as part of a wider piece of work – Alternative Fuel and Energy Systems.

With changing consumer behaviours including more goods being purchased online and via online auction sites, there appears to be a significant concern regarding ‘fake’ goods, notably smaller electrical appliances such as hair straighteners, phone chargers and battery powered devices. While some larger companies are proactively seeking out these potentially dangerous counterfeit goods, Trading Standards may struggle to effectively conduct market surveillance activities due to other pressures, limited resources and limited reporting from consumers/communities. The issue is not solely an online one, various dangerous goods ranging from Christmas lights to electric heaters have been sold at local markets. One challenge for the fire service is that is can be exceptionally hard to identify products that have been involved in a fire. Also, there is evidence of unmodified products and unregistered goods that are subject to a safety recall due to potential fire risks, being sold online or via second hand retail outlets.

Re-chargeable batteries when used safely power millions of devices every day such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets and mobility scooters. However, batteries can present a fire risk when over-charged, short-circuited, submerged in water or if their cases are damaged. There is growing concerns about e-scooters and e-bikes with non-compliant battery packs being used, particularly if they are being charged or stored on means of escape or in communal areas.

Working with Partners

As fire trends and potential risks are identified, the NFCC will continue to provide evidence to stakeholder groups while campaigning for appropriate safety standards (and where appropriate, regulation) to be implemented.

Sometimes electrical products (as with other types of products) become subject to a safety recall notice after a potentially dangerous fault is discovered and therefore need to be registered, so that consumers can be informed. A recent recall of potentially unsafe tumble dryers and washing machines affected as many as one in sixty homes across the UK, highlighting the potential scale of the problem when a product is found to be potentially unsafe. The NFCC have undertaken significant work in recent years to ensure that recalls are undertaken in a timely and effective way and contributed to an industry guide on recall ‘best practice’ (PAS 7100).

NFCC Recommendations

  1. Products should be registered to ensure that consumers can be alerted in the event of a safety issue being discovered
  2. The public are encouraged to report fires to the relevant body, be it the FRS (fire or fire all out), Trading Standards and or the manufacturer (small events, such as localised burning to an appliance with no fire development or spread)
  3. Encouraging anyone who has purchased potentially unsafe goods, either new or second hand (via a retail or online outlet) to inform their local Trading Standards
  4. FRS encountering a potentially unsafe product (fire event), should notify their local Trading Standards, the manufacturer or retailer and can also notify the Office of Product Safety & Standards2 (OPSS) via the following email address: OPSSIncidentManagement@beis.gov.uk
  5. All electrical products in homes should be used safely and in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions to reduce or remove the risk of fire
  6. Li-ion battery products such as Care should be taken with Li-ion battery products such as e-bikes and e-scooters. Care should be taken to only use genuine batteries and appropriate chargers purchased from reputable sources. E-bikes and scooters should not be charged or stored in communal areas/access or egress routes. Follow safe charging guidance.

Person Centred Fire Risk Check

As a minimum NFCC advises the following:

  1. Eliminate the hazard, Work with the homeowner or local landlord to ensure that the homeowner registers electrical products, particularly white goods or devices powered by li-ion batteries. The main channel for registering white goods is currently via AMDEA’s ‘Register My Appliance’ site. Promote and communicate product recalls Encouraging anyone who has purchased potentially unsafe goods, either new or second hand (via a retail or online outlet) to inform their local Trading Standards
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the incorrect, inappropriate use of electrical products. Products in homes should be used safely and in accordance with manufactures’ instructions. Remove overloaded extension leads and adapter plugs. Don’t overload plug sockets – an extension lead or adapter will have a limit to how many amps it can take so, to help reduce the risk of fire, be careful not to overload them. Extension leads should be uncoiled before use to avoid overheating. Unplug appliances when not in use – this helps to reduce the risk of fire. Unplug appliances when you go to bed or when you go out unless they are designed to be left on, like fridges and freezers.
  3. Isolate the hazard Ensure electrical equipment is used and located in appropriate locations – for example not to charge phones, tablets or laptops whilst they are on bedding or covered (risk of overheating).
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt landlords and homeowners of all of the above.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection in areas where more risk is evident.

We will:

  • Regularly review our position statement in line with emerging risks, trends and evidence.
  • Provide a platform for sharing information and learning, to prevent electrical fires in the home.
  • Understand the fire risks associated with electrical safety and provide advice for the sector, our partner organisations and the public.
  • Work with stakeholders and partner organisations to push for appropriate safety standards (and where appropriate, regulation) to be implemented.
  • Encourage FRSs to provide appropriate advice and guidance relating to electrical safety and fire risk as part of a Home Fire Safety Visit.
  • Support relevant safety campaigns.

Countries this position applies to:

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Safer Heating

Introduction

NFCC is committed to creating safer, healthier and more resilient communities. In support of this objective, it is considered that continued work to prevent heating related fires will contribute to reducing casualties, fatalities and material losses arising from fires.

Fires involving heaters have a particularly high mortality rate. This may be due to the circumstances they start in such as where bedding or blankets are too close to a heat source and people are more likely to trip over them, especially those with mobility issues, this can mean that the injuries sustained are far more likely to be fatal.

There are different ways of heating homes, not just electrical heaters, but also different types of portable heaters like gas fires, as well as open fires. Some kinds of heaters may also present a carbon monoxide (CO) risk.

Sector Challenge

Preventing injuries and fires by reducing the use of unsafe heating methods and encouraging safe behaviours around all heating methods.

The Gas Safety Regulations 1998 place a statutory duty on all landlords of residential property to ensure that all gas appliances, pipe work and flues are maintained in a safe condition.

An inspection of all gas appliances that are provided within the property by the landlord must be inspected annually by a Gas Safe Registered Engineer. After inspection, a warranted Gas Safety Certificate will be issued for proof of inspection; both tenant and landlord should keep a copy

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord has responsibility to keep good repair and order of installations in a property, including heating.

Issues can arise and risk can increase when this legislation is not adhered to. Enforcement of these duties and penalties for a lack of compliance may help to improve standards.

Preventing heating related fires

  1. Eliminate the hazard Not advised as heating is required to reduce health risks associated with cold homes. Can advise on the use of hot water bottles/thicker clothing at night.
  2. Reduce the hazard Advice about the use of unsafe heaters and potential referral to organisations that can offer support and potentially funding for central heating, oil filled radiators etc.
  3. Isolate the hazard Suggest that heaters are only used during the daytime and not kept on when asleep.
  4. Control the hazard Advise that controls are put in place to reduce fire risk involving unsafe heaters, for example moving heaters away from furniture, bedding etc. Give advice about risks associated with emollients.
  5. Fire safety equipment Suggest provision of fire safety equipment such as detection, fire retardant throws and bedding.

We will ask FRSs to share the following safety messaging at Home Fire Safety Checks:

All Heating Methods:

  • Make sure heaters are well maintained and in good working order
  • Ask people to check that your heater isn’t on a recall list
  • Never install, repair or service appliances yourself. Make sure anyone who does is registered with the Gas Safe Register (for gas appliances), the Heating Equipment Testing and Approval Scheme (HETAS) (for solid fuel appliances), or the Oil Firing Technical Association (OFTEC) (for oil appliances)
  • Don’t take risks with old heaters – if it’s electrical and getting older, get it tested by a qualified electrician or buy a new one
  • Where appropriate, secure heaters against a wall to stop them falling over, or fit wall-mounted heaters
  • Keep heaters well away from clothes, curtains and furniture and never use them for drying clothes
  • Always sit at least one metre away from a heater as it could set light to your clothes or chair
  • Before attempting to move your heater, turn it off and allow it to cool first

Gas Fires and Biofuel Fires:

  • Gas heater cylinders should be changed in the open air, if you have to change them indoors make sure all rooms are ventilated, open the windows and doors
  • Store spare propane cylinders upright and outside whenever possible. Never store them in basements, under stairs or in cupboards containing electric meters or equipment
  • Ensure empty cylinders are collected regularly. Fireboxes and containers should always be placed on a stable surface. When using biofuel, always follow the manufacturer’s guidelines and instructions
  • Don’t overstock fuels of any type including paraffin or biofuel and store them safely
  • Never add fuel to a burning fire or refill a firebox fuel container that is still hot.
  • Guidance for FRS
  • Encourage FRSs to collect, store and analyse robust data collection from incidents involving methods of heating
  • Encourage FRSs to produce literature which can be left at the home giving prevention advice
  • Ask FRS to update websites to have current information around safe heating
  • Support national safer heating campaigns using a variety of communications methods
  • Ask FRSs to engage with carers and care homes to ensure that safer heating messages are reached by the most vulnerable and those who look after them
  • The NFCC will work with the NHS and will ask FRS to also do so locally to ensure those using medical equipment are aware of the dangers of being near naked flames.
  • Support local partners to identify fire risks associated with unsafe heating and refer for a HFSV where applicable.

Fuel poverty

Fuel poverty occurs when a household’s income fails to meet the cost of heating and powering the home adequately. There is significant overlap between fuel poverty and the risk of fire, resulting from some of the actions people take to keep warm while keeping energy bills down.

We will:

  • Encourage Central Government to shape policy around utility provision to vulnerable people;
  • Encourage FRSs to refer people who meet the criteria to the UK Power Network (UKPN) Priority Risk Register. This ensures that they are given support if there is a power cut
  • Advise people to contact their energy supplier or Citizen’s Advice Bureau if they need information about grants or benefits;
  • Work with partners such as fuel poverty charities to support those experiencing fuel poverty;
  • Seek to support national campaigns to raise awareness of fuel poverty and initiatives that may help reduce it.

Carbon monoxide

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a potentially lethal and highly poisonous gas. It is formed when there is not enough oxygen present to completely burn fossil fuels such as coal, gas, oil and wood. If appliances are faulty, not serviced regularly, incorrectly fitted or used, CO emission can occur. This can also happen when flues and chimneys are blocked or poorly maintained.

We will:

  • Encourage FRSs to provide literature to inform people of the dangers of CO
  • Be represented at the All Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group
  • Work with the National Association of Chimney Sweeps to understand the risks from solid fuel. Ask FRSs to ensure chimney sweeps are aware of any referral forms for their local area which can be issued to those who may qualify for a visit from their local FRS
  • Support government recommendations on the 2015 regulations which require all landlords to supply CO alarms and continue to lobby for further change
  • Recommend CO alarms in rooms where there is a fuel burning appliance
  • Support seasonal campaigns around portable heaters and BBQs
  • Ask FRS to provide information and advice on external websites and provide information and advice on the NFCC website
  • Be represented on the COMed group – a group of medical professionals whose aim is to reduce CO incidents and improve diagnosis and patient pathways

Countries this position applies to:

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Clutter and Hoarding

Introduction

Clutter and hoarding increases the risk of fire occurring and makes it more difficult for people living in the property to evacuate safely. Fire can spread to neighbouring properties if the level of hoarding is severe or if flammable items such as gas containers are being stored.

It can also pose a high risk to firefighters when attending the scene, hampering firefighting and rescuing operations.

Hoarding disorder has been recognised as a distinct mental health problem which may present in isolation or as part of another mental health problem.

Sector Challenge

Fire and Rescue Services do not routinely collect data on hoarding. So, it is very hard to see the numbers of incidents occurring. Some collect data on their own database, but in different ways, e.g. housekeeping, clutter, hoarding, rubbish.

Rule 43 (now Reg.28) Long Eaton, Derbys Mrs Parkes, 2011 and Durham and Darlington, Mrs Bradshaw 2013 with regard to hoarding have resulted in multi-agency working and making others aware of hoarding in properties. The CFOA group was set up following the latter Rule 43 and guidance, framework and tips were produced for all FRS’. Since this other Reg. 28 Liverpool, Cain 2016 was issued requesting a review in law as the Regulatory Reform Order does not cover homes, only businesses. The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (s.45) allow powers of entry relating to road traffic accidents and emergencies (read terrorism etc.)

The only legislation that is used for hoarding is by Environmental Health using the Public Health Act 1936 (Sections 79, 83 and 84 being the most used), Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 80.

In a situation where the person has care and support needs, the Care Act 2015 can be used under self-neglect, however, this is dependent upon which council is accepting or not accepting the referral.

Multi-Agency Hoarding Panels across the country are seeing some positive outcomes.

Working with partners

FRSs are encouraged to work with local safeguarding boards, local multi-agency groups, Local Strategic Partnership Boards and Local Safer Partnerships to explore, develop and embed an integrated and coordinated approach to addressing local needs and reducing the impacts of clutter and hoarding on those living in local communities.

NFCC Recommendations

NFCC Support:

  1. All FRSs to embed the assessment of ‘risk from clutter and hoarding’ within their Person-centred Risk Checks / Safer Home Visits
  2. All FRSs to fully provide clutter and hoarding advice, education and interventions within their Person-centred Risk Checks / Safer Home Visits
  3. All FRSs to develop and share through local strategic boards, safeguarding and health partnerships, any future developed national toolkits

Person Centred Fire Risk Check

As a minimum NFCC advises the following:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Work with the homeowner or local landlord to ensure that the homeowner is keeping exits and entrances clear, being able to shut doors and has a good night time routine. Give advice regarding the benefits of clearing items. Help can be provided through local health and social care referral pathways.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the hazard of clutter and hoarding and storage of items (household waste management, waste collection routine, individual pride).
  3. Isolate the hazard, Examine options in terms of removal of items of clutter. This must be done with carer/health professional input to ensure there is no detriment to the mental health of the homeowner.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt landlords and health partners about the fire safety issues. Provide information and follow-up advice via further visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. Work with local safeguarding boards to address issues through multi-agency involvement.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection in areas where more risk is evident. Consideration should also be given to the working with local authority partners to secure a care line link in the event of an emergency. Request that the homeowner shares details with the Fire Service with regard to where they are sleeping in the property and consider the clutter rating level.

Countries this position applies to :

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Domestic Fire Detection & Assisted Technology

Introduction

NFCC is committed to creating safer, healthier and more resilient communities.

In support of this strategic objective, it is considered that improving the standard of fire detection within dwellings would contribute significantly to reducing fire casualties and fatalities and also materially reduce fire losses arising from accidental fires.

In addition, it is important that public fire safety information and advice keeps pace with changing technical standards, advances in technology and also reflects the range of products being manufactured, supplied and retailed in the UK.

The primary intent of this position statement is to revise the version issued in May 2015, to harmonise and update the information and advice being provided to the public and others in respect of domestic fire detection.

Background

In 1987, only 9% of households in the UK had a working smoke alarm. Current figures show that approximately 91% of households now have a working smoke alarm. This improvement has largely resulted from a significant programme of home safety visits undertaken by Fire and Rescue Services, and from regular publicity campaigns around the simple messages of fitting smoke alarms and testing them regularly.

Current Position

NFCC believes every home should have smoke alarms and no home should be unprotected. Despite the significant increase in ownership of working smoke alarms, dwelling fire fatalities still occur, even in properties where smoke alarms are fitted and working. In some instances, smoke alarms are not fitted in the right place or are not suitable for the occupiers needs. Advances in technology also mean that we have a greater understanding that different types of smoke alarms respond in different ways to some types of fires.

To prevent fire injury and minimise fire damage, it is crucial that any outbreak of fire in the home is quickly detected, and the alarm raised at the earliest possible stage of smoke production and fire growth.

Given these issues, the fact that current advice is more than 30 years old and smoke alarms are less expensive and benefiting from advances in new technology, NFCC is updating its advice as follows:

  • Fitting a smoke alarm on every floor of a home should be recognised as a minimum standard (in a circulation space such as a hall or landing).
  • It is recommended that, additionally, smoke alarms are fitted in every room in the house which is regularly inhabited (i.e. bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms) based upon the fire risk to the occupants.
  • NFCC recommend that the smoke alarm has a sealed battery compartment to prevent tampering or removal of the battery.
  • NFCC recommend an optical multi sensor smoke alarm with a ten-year life span.
  • It is additionally recommended that a heat alarm should be fitted in the kitchen.
  • Where possible, these alarms should be inter-linked so that all will actuate within the property irrespective of the fire location.
  • All smoke alarms (including hard-wired or those with removable batteries) should be replaced after ten years, or by the ‘replace by’ date indicated on the base or earlier if found to be defective.

Public Safety Information

Key public fire safety messages and prevention activities such as home safety visits should be aimed at protecting all occupants of dwellings.

NFCC encourage those who can (or have a legislative responsibility to do so) to provide suitable and sufficient fire detection and warning and support those who can’t, due to age, ill health and/or social circumstance to get the help and assistance needed to adequately protect themselves from fire.

Specialist domestic fire alarms are readily available for persons with impaired hearing to increase audibility, and consideration should be given to the provision of an interlinked smoke alarm within the bedroom.

NFCC aims to ensure that all homes within the UK are provided with a standard of fire detection and warning that is appropriate to the layout, fire risks and hazards within the home and best suited to the health and circumstances of the occupants.

Scotland

In 2018 changes were made to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation to fire and smoke alarms which will apply to all homes in Scotland.

The main requirements are:

  • at least one smoke alarm installed in the room most frequently used for general daytime living purposes,
  • at least one smoke alarm in every circulation space on each storey, such as hallways and landings,
  • at least one heat alarm installed in every kitchen,
  • all alarms should be ceiling mounted, and
  • all alarms should be interlinked.

There will be a two-year period for compliance once the regulations are in force, meaning homeowners would have until early 2021 to comply.

Assistive Technology (AT)

The NFCC is committed to making people safer in their homes by identifying and championing new and effective technological solutions to support the prevention or early warning of fire in the home.

Assistive technology (AT) is an umbrella term for any device or solution which assists someone in living a safe and healthy life, while maximising personal independence.

It should be noted that AT is not an alternative to person centred risk assessments or providing appropriate standards of fire safety. A holistic approach that considers the person, their specific needs/risks and their living environment is essential. Provision of AT is not confined only to those with age related conditions, AT can be essential for a broad range of individuals who wish to live safe and healthy lives, as independently as possible, for as long as possible.

Using a person-centred approach, FRS’s should be able to determine what specific AT is relevant for their prevention and protection strategy locally, through discussions with the individual, family members or the responsible person in buildings such as sheltered housing or blocks of flats.

Preventing Fires

The three means of fire prevention most commonly used by AT solutions are:

  • Fire prediction
  • Fire detection
  • Fire suppression

A range of solutions and devices exist. Prediction solutions monitor individuals and raise the alarm when a person’s behaviour crosses a set threshold of risk making them likely to experience a fire. These high risk individuals can then receive highly targeted and person-centric interventions. Fire detection linked to monitoring services can summon a fire response automatically, even if the individual is unable to do so. Automatic fire suppression systems (other than sprinklers) can detect fires in their early stages, suppress them and even summon a fire response. There are also devices that aim to address specific vulnerabilities, such as hard of hearing alarms.

NFCC Position

The NFCC will support UK Fire and Rescue Services to understand best practice in terms of AT, and to maximise the knowledge of reliable risk reduction equipment and standards locally. This is with the view to reduce preventable fire deaths and injuries, which fall within the Fire and Rescue Service remit.

Person-Centred Fire Risk Check and detection

As a minimum, the NFCC advises the following:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Fit a smoke alarm on every floor of the home as a minimum standard (in a circulation space such as a hall or landing) additionally, smoke alarms should be fitted in every room in the house which is regularly inhabited (i.e. bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms) based upon the fire risk to the occupants.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to ensure that everyone in the home understands the importance of working smoke alarms and the role that they will play during a fire. Fire safety messages and prevention activities such as home safety visits should be aimed at protecting all occupants of dwellings. Encourage those who can (or have a legislative responsibility to do so) to provide suitable and sufficient fire detection and warning and support those who can’t, due to age, ill health and/or social circumstance to get the help and assistance needed to adequately protect themselves from fire.
  3. Isolate the hazard Remove any immediate fire threats. Advise owners against smoking and using candles and any other use of naked flame.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt homeowners about fire safety issues. Provide information and follow-up advice via further visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. involve other agencies as appropriate such as local health or social care providers. Work with Registered Landlords as appropriate.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions and advice or recommend that further interventions be provided from other agencies which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection or specialist equipment for those who are more vulnerable. It is additionally recommended that a heat alarm should be fitted in the kitchen. Where possible, these alarms should be inter-linked so that all will actuate within the property irrespective of the fire location.

Medicines and Medical Devices

Introduction

UK Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) have a statutory duty to deliver services which support the prevention of fire within domestic dwellings. As we have developed an evidence-based approach to prevention FRS have been increasingly recognised for their contribution towards developing safer communities; in particular, how FRS can affect wider health and well-being determinants.

Sector Challenge

Older people and those who are in receipt of care and support have an increased chance of being seriously or fatally injured in a fire. They may be less likely to escape safely in the event of a fire incident due to restricted mobility and/or more likely to display unsafe behaviours due to being less dextrous or having declining physical or mental health .

More than twice as many people aged 50 and over die in dwelling fires compared with those aged under 501. The over 65s are the fastest growing age group in the UK and will represent 26% of the population by 20432. With increasing age many people experience poorer health which places increasing pressures on the NHS.

Preventing Medical and Medical Devices Related Fires

In 2015 NFCC signed a consensus statement with the National Health Service, Public Health England, Local Government Association and Age UK in which we outlined our intent to work together, use our collective capabilities and resources more effectively to enhance the lives of the people we work with and encourage our local networks to do the same in their communities

The Care Act 2014 also gave local authorities a duty of care to work effectively and in partnership with the emergency services and third sector organisations to ensure that individuals can continue living independently and safely in their own homes for as long as possible.

NFCC is committed to making everyone safer within their homes. Our guidance will direct FRS to identify and support those who are older, have a disability, long term health condition or reduced manual dexterity.

FRS target their prevention work by taking an intelligence-led approach to identifying people who may share health and wellbeing vulnerabilities and therefore may be at higher risk of fire. FRS should utilise data such as that provided by local authority joint strategic needs assessments, GP patient data (England and Wales), fire incident mapping tools and localised partner information.

We will:

  • Recommend that all FRS work with their NHS partners, local authority, other emergency services and third sector partners to identify those at risk of fire at the earliest opportunity; carry out home visits; identify their health and well-being needs and try to mitigate those risks by delivering interventions which may include smoke detection, advice, early signposting or referrals to partner agencies.
  • Recommend FRS should work collaboratively with partners to develop referral pathways, information sharing agreements and training programme which will enable them to deliver appropriate services to those with combined vulnerabilities.
  • Encourage care providers and health professionals to integrate fire safety into any person- centred risk assessments they carry out and to refer people to their local FRS if they have any concerns about their fire safety. Fire prevention teams will provide advice and support as determined by their local arrangements to reduce the risk of fire to the identified individual.
  • Ask FRS to aim to fit smoke detection in accordance with the NFCCs position on smoke detection which recommends that, in addition to fitting at least one smoke detector on every floor of a home, detectors should also be installed in every room which is regularly lived in, where a risk has been identified. Where necessary, a linked detection system should be fitted or a referral made to the telecare provider.

Medication that may cause drowsiness or dizziness

Some medication is designed to relax or induce calmness or sleep whilst others commonly cause drowsiness as a side effect. These medicines include those used to treat pain, anxiety, depression, high blood pressure and allergies. The effect of these medications can inhibit someone’s ability to hear and respond to a smoke detector actuation. Drinking alcohol, in addition to taking medication, can also enhance levels of drowsiness or affect someone’s alertness.

NFCC advises:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Not to cook, smoke or sit too close to open fires or heat sources if a person is under the influence of medication that may cause drowsiness. Issue verbal and written advice about these activities and the associated fire safety issues i.e. the person at risk should not cook, smoke, sit to close to open fires or other heat sources if there is any chance they are under the influence of a medication that causes drowsiness or dizziness – especially if they live alone.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the hazard. Where possible, advise people to cook before they take the medication; use alternative devices to cook with such as microwaves; or eat food that is already cooked or does not need cooking. NFCC also advise people should not drive while under the influence of such medication. Advise people to quit smoking or only smoke outside the property and when they are fully alert. Offer signposting information or a referral to a smoking cessation service.
  3. Isolate the hazard Switch to alternative non-drowsy medications, where possible. Advise people who smoke or are concerned to approach their health professional to see if any alternative non-drowsy medications can be prescribed.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt people about the fire safety issues. Provision of information and follow-up advice via follow-up visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. as appropriate.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend to others that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection, fire retardant throws, safety ash trays, smoking aprons, cooking timers and fire guards

Oxygen

Home oxygen therapy helps prevent damage to the heart and brain which can be caused by low levels of oxygen in the blood and is commonly prescribed for people with conditions such as COPD, heart failure and smoking-related lung disease. Poor storage and maintenance of oxygen equipment and unsafe behaviour by the patient and/or their visitors can lead to an increased risk of fire within the property due to increased levels of oxygen saturation in the atmosphere, soft furnishings and personal clothing. FRS will continue to work closely with health professionals and oxygen suppliers to identify and minimise fire safety risks within the homes of oxygen users.

NFCC advises:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Not to smoke, cook or use open flames or static heat sources if oxygen is in use or has been in use within the previous 30 minutes. Issue verbal and written advice about these activities and the associated fire safety issues. Encourage the person to share this advice with their household and any visitors. They should also ensure rooms where oxygen is in use or stored are well ventilated. Oxygen equipment should be placed at least 3 metres away from open fires and 1.5 metres away from other heat sources including portable heaters, ovens and static electric sources such as televisions, hairdryers and cooling fans. Firebreak valves should be checked to ensure they are present and positioned correctly.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the hazard. If people cannot wait to eat following oxygen therapy, advise them to eat food which is already cooked or does not need cooking. Advise people to quit smoking; offer signposting information or a referral to a smoking cessation service. If applicable, advise about safe emollient use.
  3. Isolate the hazard Stopping oxygen therapy. NFCC recognises that oxygen therapy is vital for the treatment and comfort of many people. In extreme circumstances, where a person persists in unsafe behaviour, placing themselves or others at risk FRS may liaise with the prescribing health professional, asking them to consider withdrawal of therapy.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt people about the fire safety issues. Provision of information and follow-up advice via follow-up visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. as appropriate.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend to others that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection, linked detection systems, fire retardant throws or bedding and smoking aprons.

Additionally, NFCC recommends that trailing tubes should be checked to ensure they are not causing a trip hazard.

Emollients

here have been more than 50 fire fatalities in the UK since 2010, where emollients are believed to have contributed to the development of the fire. In the majority of these cases the ignition source was found to be smoking materials such as cigarettes, lighters and matches.

Emollients are creams, lotions and ointments which are prescribed, or bought over the counter, and used to treat long term skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis. They are also used on open ulcers and sores which may arise when someone is less mobile or bedbound. They may contain paraffin, or they may be paraffin-free.

Recent academic research3 has confirmed, where emollients have dried onto fabrics such as clothing, bedding and bandages and an ignition source is introduced, a fire will ignite quicker, develop more rapidly and burn hotter than fabric which is uncontaminated.

Emollients are used widely by people of all ages but the main risk of serious injury or death by fire involves those smokers who are aged 60 years and over and may have restricted or slower mobility4.

NFCC will:

  • Continue to work with academic experts and stakeholders to develop our understanding of the risks, potential risks and advice relating to emollient products.
  • Work nationally to highlight the risk, and any new advice, as our knowledge develops, to ensure:
  • FRSs and their communities have the most up to date guidance.
  • Work closely with health and care partners to develop and help deliver targeted advice to those most at risk and reassure those at low risk.

NFCC advises:

  1. Eliminate the hazard People should be advised not to smoke, cook, sit close to or go near to any heat source if there is any chance that their clothing, towelling, bedding or bandages are contaminated with emollients. Issue verbal and written advice about these activities and the associated fire safety issues. It should be noted that regular washing of clothing, towelling etc may reduce the risk but will not remove it completely. Encourage the person to share this advice with their family and carers. FRS will try to ensure that all those using emollients, professionals concerned in the prescribing, dispensing, application of emollients and those caring for people are aware of the fire risks associated with unsafe emollient use. Advise professionals that the fire safety risks from emollient use should be considered in any person-centred risk assessments.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the hazard. The majority of fire fatalities, where emollients have been involved in the fire’s development have involved smokers. Therefore, advise people to quit smoking; offer signposting information or a referral to a smoking cessation service is preferable. If this is not possible, they should be warned not smoke in bed or wearing contaminated clothes or bandages.
  3. Isolate the hazard Stopping emollient use. NFCC recognises that emollients are essential treatment for many skin conditions. In extreme circumstances, where a person persists in unsafe behaviour, placing themselves or others at risk FRS may liaise with the prescribing health professional, asking them to consider withdrawing treatment.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt people about the fire safety issues. Provision of information and follow-up advice via follow-up visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. as appropriate.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend to others that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection, linked detection systems, fire retardant throws or bedding and smoking aprons.

Dynamic airflow pressure-relieving mattresses and cushions

Dynamic airflow pressure-relieving mattresses and cushions are usually provided for the prevention and treatment of pressure sores and are used by people who have restricted mobility or are confined to bed. If a fire starts or a detector actuates, the person will be less likely to respond or escape without assistance. Additionally, the flow of air can contribute to the rapid development of a fire if the mattresses is pierced or burnt by a heat source or flame. The most common cause of fires involving these mattresses is smoking in bed.

NFCC advises:

  1. Eliminate the hazard People should be advised not to smoke in bed. Issue verbal and written advice about smoking in bed and the associated fire safety issues. Advise people not to use or place any electrical items such as electric blankets, hairdryers or styling appliances on or near to a mattress or cushion. If applicable, also advise about the safe use of emollients. Encourage the person to share this advice with their family and carers.
  2. Reduce the hazard Change behaviours to avoid the hazard. Advise people to quit smoking; offer signposting information or a referral to a smoking cessation service.
  3. Isolate the hazard Switch to alternative mattress. NFCC recognises that airflow mattresses are extremely useful and appropriate for those people who have no mobility or very limited mobility. In extreme circumstances, where a person persists in unsafe behaviour, placing themselves or others at risk FRS may liaise with the prescribing health professional, asking them to consider safer alternatives such as gel mattresses.
  4. Control the hazard Remind and prompt people about the fire safety issues. Provision of information and follow-up advice via follow-up visits, phone calls, information on websites, partner agency newsletters, campaigns etc. as appropriate.
  5. Fire safety equipment Provide interventions, or recommend to others that interventions be provided, which are appropriate to the risk. These may include additional smoke and heat detection, linked detection systems to telecare monitoring services, fire retardant throws or bedding and smoking aprons.

Incontinence pads

Incontinence pads are often issued to people who are immobile or less mobile; they are made of highly combustible material. NFCC recommend they are stored away from any heat and ignition sources.

Incident reporting

NFCC encourage FRS to report any fire incidents, where a medicine or medical device has been involved (or is suspected of being involved) in the ignition or development of the fire, to the Yellow Card reporting system which is managed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency


1 Fire Statistics, United Kingdom 2008. Published 26 November 2010. Ageing Safely (CFOA; March 2013)

2 Ageing Safely (CFOA; March 2013)

3 The flammability of textiles when contaminated with paraffin base products; Fire Safety Journal, Volume 104, March 2019, Page 109-116. S. Hall, L Franklin, J Bull, A.Beard, G.Phillips, J. Morrisey

4 Data collected by West Yorkshire FRS from other services as part of the NFCC Emollient Working Group for fire fatalities between 2010 and 2019

Kitchen, Candles and Escape Planning

Sector Challenge

More fires and fire injuries are caused by carelessness in the kitchen than anywhere else in the home, and two fires a day are started by candles (around 900 a year).

A fire can start in any room and the effects can be devastating. Taking some simple precautions can prevent fires from happening and make you and anyone else in your home a lot safer.

General fire safety advice is covering kitchens, candles and escape planning is available via the NFCC safety messaging and the Home Office Fire Kills campaign.

NFCC Recommendations

  1. You are more at risk from a fire when asleep. So, it’s a good idea to check your home before you go to bed.
  2. Do not use candles in the home, especially where young children or older frail householders are present, as they may be at higher risk of an accident, injury or fire.
  3. Heat alarms fitted in kitchens can detect the increase in temperature caused by a fire, but will not be set off by cooking fumes. Over half of fires in the home start in the kitchen, so we recommend heat alarms are fitted.
  4. Be prepared and ensure your household is prepared by making a plan of escape in the event of a fire. This should take account of all members so the household, including children, older people and those with mobility or cognitive impairments.

Person Centred Fire Risk Check

As a minimum, NFCC advises the following:

  1. Eliminate the hazard Avoid cooking when under the influence of alcohol or medications which may make you drowsy. Keep tea towels and clothes away from the cooker and hob and keep cooking appliances free from grease build up. Double-check your cooker is off when you’ve finished cooking. Use a thermostat controlled electric deep fat fryer rather than a chip pan. Consider using safer ways of scenting rooms that do not involve the use of candles, consider using dimmer switches or low wattage table lamps instead of lit candles to reduce the level of luminance in the home. Replace wax candles with safer battery operated candles.
  2. Reduce the hazard Spark devices are safer than matches or lights to light gas cookers, because they don’t have a naked flame. Don’t leave the white goods running when you are asleep or away from the home, unless they are designed to stay on, such as in the case of a fridge or freezer. Avoid charging electrical devices when you are asleep or away from the home. Avoid getting distracted or leaving cooking unattended. If you have to leave the kitchen whilst cooking, it’s safer to take pans off the heat and turn off the hob, oven and/or grill. Make sure candles are fully extinguished. Do not leave children or persons with reduced mobility alone with candles.
  3. Isolate the hazard Close doors at night to help stop the fire and smoke from spreading if an incident should occur, make sure candles are secured in a proper holder and away from materials that may catch fire – like curtains. Tea lights get very hot and without proper holders can melt through a plastic surface like a TV or bath.
  4. Control the hazard Make sure saucepan handles don’t stick out – so they don’t get knocked off the stove If the oil starts to smoke – it’s too hot. Turn off the heat and leave it to cool. Take care if you’re wearing loose clothing – they can easily catch fire if they come in contact with heat or naked flame. Keep the oven, hob and grill clean as a build-up of fat and grease can ignite a fire. If a pan catches fire, don’t take risks – Don’t tackle the fire yourself and don’t attempt to move the pan. Turn off the heat if it is safe to do so. Never throw water over a fire as it could create a fireball. Leave the room, close the door, shout a warning to others and call the fire service by dialling 999 – Get Out, Stay Out, and Call 999. Make a home escape plan. Plan an escape route and make sure everyone knows what to do and how to escape. The plan may include waking and helping children or vulnerable persons. The best route is the normal way in and out of your home. Make sure exit routes and exits are kept clear and clutter-free. Plan a second route in case the first one is blocked. Practice your escape plan and keep door and window keys where everyone can find them.
  5. Fire safety equipment The easiest way to protect your home and family from fire is with working smoke alarms. For maximum protection, at least one smoke alarm should be fitted on each level, every room of your home. Additionally, smoke alarms should be fitted in rooms which are most regularly inhabited (i.e. bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms) based upon the fire risk to the occupants. Smoke alarms should not be fitted in the bathroom, kitchen and garage. A heat detector should be fitted in the kitchen.

Countries this position applies to :

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Smoking-Related Fires and Tobacco Control

Introduction

NFCC is committed to creating safer, healthier and more resilient communities.  In support of this objective, it is considered that continued work to prevent smoking-related fires will contribute to reducing casualties, fatalities and material losses arising from fires.
The intent of this statement is to outline the challenge, the strategic and tactical approaches to preventing smoking-related fires, and the NFCC’s position. In the statement, fire incident statistics where the ignition source was ‘smokers’ materials’ (cigarettes, cigars, pipes or tobacco) have been used to outline the challenge.  However, it is acknowledged that a wide approach to fire risk reduction for smokers must also be cognisant of smoking paraphernalia such as matches and lighters.

Sector Challenge

Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) have a moral, financial and legal1 obligation to prevent fires and this is recognised and prioritised in UK FRS frameworks2. Fire prevention work carried out by the sector and its partners, alongside regulatory and cultural change, has resulted in a reduction in smoking-related fire incidents. Despite this, the challenge to further reduce smoking-related incidents and harm remains.

Smoking is one of the top causes of primary fires in the UK. The number of smoking related fires is falling but, in England, between 2010/2011 and 2020/2021, the total number of primary fire incidents fell by 33%, whilst primary fire incidents caused by smokers’ materials fell by only 22%3. Importantly, fires caused by smokers’ materials result in more fatalities than fires caused by any other single ignition source. In 2020/21, smoking materials were recorded as the main ignition source in 21% of fire fatalities in England4, 38% of fire fatalities in Scotland5 and 29% of fatalities in Wales6.

The proportion of adults smoking in Great Britain has been declining since 1974 when national government surveys on smoking among adults first began. In the UK, in 2019, 14.1% of people aged 18 years and above smoked cigarettes, which equates to around 6.9 million people7.  Furthermore, smoking remains the primary cause of preventable illness and premature death, accountable for approximately 91,860 deaths a year in the UK8.

Preventing Smoking Related Fires

Efficient and effective prevention of smoking-related fires requires the delivery of activity at universal, community and individual9 level, to reach all smokers, whilst targeting those most at risk.

Universal approaches, such as universal campaigns or online advice, are crucial in reaching all smokers. Community level approaches, such as targeted partnerships or events, protect specific at-risk groups.

Approaches delivered at individual level provide more intensive interventions to those who are most at risk and will not necessarily benefit from other approaches. Within the sector, Home Fire Safety Visits provide an opportunity to deliver at this level by working with individual smokers, in their homes.

Across all levels, continued effort is required to tackle risk resulting from smoking in combination with other factors, notably oxygen therapy, emollient products, air flow pressure relieving mattresses, substance misuse, impaired mobility or dexterity, memory impairment and hoarding.

Person Centred Home Fire Safety Visit

It is important to establish and record the smoking status of occupants in all Home Fire Safety Visits. Where a smoker is resident, this is a key consideration within the person-centred fire risk assessment which should recognise the individual’s needs, capabilities, unique smoking behaviours and living environment, as well as their right to smoke and the addictive nature of smoking.
Within the sector, methods to prevent smoking-related fires in the home vary. To encourage a consistent and person-centred approach, methods can be aligned to the ‘hierarchy of risk control’10. It promotes risk control measures in order of effectiveness (and therefore preference), starting at the top with ‘eliminate the hazard’. Interventions for smokers, to support each method, are identified below and the NFCC is committed to working with the sector, and with partners such as the UK Health Security Agency, the Office for health Improvement and Disparities and Action on Smoking and Health, to support FRS to develop and deliver these interventions.

1.    Eliminate the hazard Quit smoking – Delivery of ‘Very Brief Advice’ (VBA)11 to encourage people to make a quit attempt.
2.    Reduce the hazard Switch from smoking to vaping – Provision of information about the health12 and fire safety benefits of switching from smoking tobacco products to vaping.
3.    Isolate the hazard Have a ‘smoke-free’ home – Provision of information about the health13 and fire safety benefits of having a ‘smoke-free’ home.
4.    Control the hazard Practice safer smoking habits – Provision of traditional fire safety advice to support smokers who are unable to eliminate, reduce or isolate the hazard, to adopt safer smoking practices. (Example, put it out, right out, use a proper ashtray, never smoke in bed).
5.    Fire safety equipment Use fire safety equipment – Provision of fire safety equipment in accordance with risk, local funding and arrangements. Examples include fire retardant bedding, smoking aprons and self-extinguishing ashtrays.

NFCC Position

NFCC is committed to supporting the sector and its partner organisations to deliver the strategic and tactical fire safety approaches described previously in this statement.

In addition, it is important that strategies to prevent smoking-related fires are integrated into national and local tobacco control strategies and plans. Reducing smoking prevalence is crucial to fire risk reduction; fewer smokers is likely to equate to fewer smoking-related fires.

Other tobacco control measures which happen to underpin fire risk reduction include smoke-free legislation, fire safer standards for cigarettes, tackling the illicit tobacco trade and supporting the safe operation of Shisha establishments. Furthermore, proactive involvement in tobacco control provides FRS with opportunities to work with Stop Smoking Services, the NHS and others to help identify and reach people who smoke and deliver fire safety interventions to them.

NFCC does not enter into activity with, or affiliated with, tobacco companies; a position which is underpinned by the requirements of Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

We will:

  • Regularly review our position statement in line with emerging risks, trends and evidence.
  • Work to improve the level of detail recorded by the sector about smoking-related fire incidents and vaping-related fire incidents.
  • Provide a platform for sharing learning and resources, to prevent smoking-related fires.
  • Understand the fire risks associated with smoking and provide clear smoking-related fire safety advice for the sector, our partner organisations and the public.
  • Work with the Home Office, Welsh Fire and Rescue Services and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to develop and support campaigns that aim to prevent smoking-related fires.
  • Participate in tobacco control approaches to improve and uphold legislation, reduce smoking prevalence and prevent smoking-related harms (including smoking related fires).
  • Develop a guide/toolkit to support FRS to deliver smoking-related fire prevention advice and interventions.
  • Encourage and support FRS to deliver Very Brief Advice (VBA) to smokers, as a means of fire risk reduction. Support the sector to build this intervention into Home Fire Safety Visits.
  • Encourage and support FRS to promote vaping to smokers, as a means of fire risk reduction. Support the sector to build this intervention into Home Fire Safety Visits.
  • Encourage and support FRS to promote smoke-free homes to smokers, as a means of fire risk reduction. Support the sector to build this intervention into Home Fire Safety Visits.
  • Share information, evidence and learning about fire risk reduction equipment (such as fire retardant bedding or smoking aprons) that can be used to prevent smoking-related fires.

Countries this position applies to :

England Yes
Wales Yes
Scotland Yes
Northern Ireland Yes

Acknowledgements

Prepared by:

Ged Devereux – Strategic Health Lead, National Fire Chief Council

Acknowledgments to the development of the Person-Centred Framework, particularly:

Rick Hylton, Essex Fire and Rescue Service
James Webb, Home Office
Mark Thomas, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
Mandy Harris, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
Glynn Luznyj, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Howard Watts, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
James Bywater, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Marvin Ikua, London Fire Brigade
Victoria Lowry, London Fire Brigade
Charlie Pugsley, London Fire Brigade
Mark Andrews, West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service
Ellie Houlston, Derbyshire County Council
Lyndsey Bell, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service
Sarah Hardman, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service
Emma Dean, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service
Claire Talbot, West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
Richard Stanford-Beale, Kent Fire and Rescue Service
Joanne Mann, Humberside Fire and Rescue Service
Steve Johnson, Cleveland Fire and Rescue Service
Monica Perez, National Fire Chiefs Council
Jane Eason, National Fire Chiefs Council
Sally Savage, Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service

Thank you to all those who have contributed and continue to support the development of the PCF.