What is your take on the last sentence? Does it mean if AFDDs are used their operation might introduce a danger and therefore should be risk assessed or does it mean that AFDDs must be used on the proviso that a RA permits?
What is your take on the last sentence? Does it mean if AFDDs are used their operation might introduce a danger and therefore should be risk assessed or does it mean that AFDDs must be used on the proviso that a RA permits?
The intent of the last sentence is to give the designer and installer opprtunity to use an AFDD in a Group 0 location where they may consider an AFDD is of benefit to the building occupiers.
An example of this could be where patients purposely intend to create arcs in order to create an ignition source for lighting of materials such as cigarettes etc. The type of location where this risk exists are typically Group 0 locations.
The intent of the last sentence is that ordinarily AFDDs are not required. However, in order to counteract a specific risk (normally identified by clinicians), AFDDS shall be provided where a risk assessment demonstrating the use of AFDDs will avoid of such a specific risk.
An example of this could be where patients purposely intend to create arcs in order to create an ignition source for lighting of materials such as cigarettes etc. The type of location where this risk exists are typically Group 0 locations.
The intent of the last sentence is that ordinarily AFDDs are not required. However, in order to counteract a specific risk (normally identified by clinicians), AFDDS shall be provided where a risk assessment demonstrating the use of AFDDs will avoid of such a specific risk.
Seriously! It is decades since it was almost impossible to see from one end of a ward to another because of the patients' smoke generated by the very same people whose smoking had caused their heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory problems. In any event, that would be a Group 1 location.
I don't think that clinicians would be involved in risk assessment - they would not know where to start.
Chris
I dont know your experience in this part of healthcare design but I have given a specific example where clinicians would comment on this.
I think you are thinking about a general medical or surgical ward which is not the scenario i am discussing. Remember the regulations have to cover all areas.
Paul
Chris
I dont know your experience in this part of healthcare design but I have given a specific example where clinicians would comment on this.
I think you are thinking about a general medical or surgical ward which is not the scenario i am discussing. Remember the regulations have to cover all areas.
Paul
Paul, I think that I know where you are coming from - a secure mental health service? So yes, clinicians would determine what individual patients could obtain, and the patients will undoubtedly fight the system.
It seems to me that Section 710 is not well-suited to mental health institutions.
It seems to me that Section 710 is not well-suited to mental health institutions.
As Paul hinted at earlier, it's just one of the seemingly-infinite number of things that need to be considered when putting a standard like BS 7671 together ... which is one of the reasons parts of it seem an "odd" approach, because of the diversity of real-world applications.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site