Fire brigade ‘unhappy’ after false alarm at Rosepark, inquiry told

May 6 2010 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

A FIRE OFFICER was unhappy at being called out to a false alarm at the Rosepark care home, the home’s owner this week told a fatal accident inquiry.

In his fifth day in the witness box, Thomas Balmer yesterday (Wednesday) referred to an incident, which took place prior to the fire of January 2004 in which 14 residents lost their lives.

However, he was “not quite sure” if the call-out had been recorded, and “assumed” the care manager would have carried that task out.

Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart asked Mr Balmer if he, as the owner of Rosepark, would have wished to take the matter further but Mr Balmer replied he did not think it necessary at that time.

He pointed out that while the staff nurse did not find the fire officer’s comments unacceptable, she was less than happy about the way the officer had talked with her at that time.

Sheriff Principal Lockhart put it to Mr Balmer that this incident had been taken by him to be “confirmation” that the procedure Rosepark had in place to deal with the fire brigade was a well-founded one and he replied that it was.

The inquiry had previously heard that Rosepark’s policy was for members of staff to first investigate on hearing a fire alarm, instead of calling the fire service immediately.

On the said occasion, referred to by Mr Balmer in his evidence, a fire alarm had gone off due to toast in a staff room and a staff nurse had dialled 999 immediately since she was a “relatively new” member of staff.

Sheriff Principal Lockhart put it to Mr Balmer that since the nurse was acting in “good faith”, and had been unhappy with the way she was spoken to by a fire officer, it had to be recorded.

Mr Balmer replied that he accepted that, adding: “But care managers deal directly with staff.”

The Sheriff Principal pointed out to Mr Balmer, however, that he was the registered person (responsible for the day-to-day running of the home). Mr Balmer replied: “I can accept that. Yes”

Referring to a questionnaire given to staff following a fire training video, advocate depute James Wolffe QC pointed to the number of options available in the event of a fire alarm sounding at night.

They were: A, evacuate; B, check if it is a fire alarm; C, tell residents to collect all valuables; D, ensure the fire brigade is called.

Mr Balmer said his answer would have been B and he expected the response of day staff would “possibly” be the same.

However, he thought night staff would give a mixed reaction.

Mr Balmer said he would be content with answer B since that was Rosepark procedure.

Questioned by Mr Wolffe, Mr Balmer said he would expect members of staff carrying out any induction to explain fire procedures.

Mr Wolffe asked Mr Balmer if it was “a satisfactory arrangement that new members of staff would be told one thing about procedure that applied to Rosepark, and then shown a video that appeared to tell them something different.”

Mr Balmer replied that it was important that staff felt “comfortable” with procedure but added that if there was any doubt there was always the option of dialling 999.

Mr Wolffe said the clear message given to staff was to investigate and then make a decision about phoning the fire brigade. Mr Balmer replied: “Indeed yes.”

The inquiry began at Motherwell’s Gospel Literature Outreach Centre in November and is expected to be completed by July.