The death of Kevin O’Hara in a house fire in Frimley serves as a powerful reminder of why individualised fire risk assessment is not just best practice – it’s a matter of life and death.
His case demonstrates how understanding each person’s unique circumstances, needs, and vulnerabilities must be at the heart of effective fire safety planning.
Understanding the Individual Behind the Assessment
Kevin O’Hara was a 63-year-old man living independently in Frimley, but his circumstances were far from typical.
He was bedridden, smoked regularly, and would have been unable to evacuate his flat independently in the event of a fire.
These weren’t just characteristics to note in a file – they were critical factors that should have shaped every aspect of his fire safety plan.
In February 2023, Mr O’Hara died from smoke inhalation and burns after falling asleep while smoking.
The fire started when a lit cigarette ignited debris on a crash mat next to his bed.
Whilst smoke detectors were present in his flat, they were positioned in the hallway with his bedroom door closed – meaning precious minutes passed before the alarm was triggered.
The Power of Person-Centred Risk Assessment
This tragedy illustrates why generic, one-size-fits-all approaches to fire safety can be inadequate for vulnerable individuals.
Each person’s unique combination of circumstances creates a distinct risk profile that demands tailored solutions.
Recognising Individual Risk Factors
Mr O’Hara’s situation presented several interconnected risk factors that, when considered together, painted a clear picture of heightened vulnerability:
Mobility limitations: Being bedridden meant he couldn’t quickly move away from a fire source or evacuate independently
Smoking habits: Regular smoking, particularly in bed, created an ignition risk
Living arrangements: Independent living meant no immediate assistance was available
Health conditions: His overall health status affected his ability to respond to emergencies
The Importance of GEEPS and PEEPS in Individual Planning
This case perfectly demonstrates why understanding the difference between GEEPS (Generic Emergency Evacuation Procedures) and PEEPS (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) is crucial.
GEEPS work well for most people who can:
- Recognise fire alarm signals
- Move independently to exits
- Navigate stairs or corridors
- Follow standard evacuation routes
PEEPS become essential when individuals have specific needs, such as:
- Physical disabilities affecting mobility
- Sensory impairments that may delay fire detection
- Cognitive conditions affecting emergency response
- Temporary conditions like illness or injury
For Mr O’Hara, a comprehensive PEEP should have addressed his specific circumstances through targeted interventions.
What Person-Centred Assessment Reveals
When we truly focus on the individual, different priorities emerge:
Location-Specific Fire Detection
Rather than standard hallway placement, Mr O’Hara’s smoking habits and limited mobility called for detection equipment positioned to provide the earliest possible warning in his immediate vicinity.
Bedroom-based detection could have provided crucial extra minutes for emergency response.
Enhanced Communication Systems
His careline monitor placement became critical given his inability to reach a phone or move to the hallway intercom during an emergency.
The positioning and functionality of communication devices needed to account for his bedridden status.
Targeted Risk Reduction
Understanding his smoking patterns could have led to specific interventions:
- Fire-resistant bedding and furniture
- Safer smoking arrangements
- Heat-resistant surfaces around the bed area
- Improved disposal methods for cigarette materials
The Multi-Layered Nature of Individual Needs
Effective person-centred assessment recognises that individual needs often interact in complex ways:
Physical and Environmental Interactions
Mr O’Hara’s mobility limitations meant that environmental modifications became even more critical.
Standard safety measures needed to be enhanced because personal protective actions (like quickly moving away from danger) weren’t possible.
Behavioural and Safety Considerations
His smoking habits weren’t simply a lifestyle choice to note – they represented a significant fire risk that required specific management strategies, particularly given his inability to quickly extinguish or escape from a fire.
Independence and Vulnerability Balance
Living independently was clearly important to Mr O’Hara’s quality of life, but this independence needed to be supported by enhanced safety measures that compensated for his vulnerabilities.
Building Effective Individual Assessment Frameworks
This case highlights key principles for person-centred fire risk assessment:
Comprehensive Individual Profiling
- Physical capabilities: What can the person do independently?
- Cognitive abilities: How well can they recognise and respond to emergencies?
- Sensory function: Can they see, hear, and smell warning signs?
- Mobility status: How quickly can they move or evacuate?
- Communication needs: How can they summon help effectively?
Lifestyle and Behavioural Factors
- Daily routines: When and where do they spend time?
- Risk behaviours: What activities might increase fire risk?
- Support networks: Who is available to assist during emergencies?
- Medication effects: Do treatments affect emergency response ability?
Environmental Adaptation Requirements
- Detection placement: Where will early warning be most effective?
- Escape route modification: What adaptations support safe evacuation?
- Communication enhancement: How can emergency communication be optimised?
- Risk reduction measures: What environmental changes reduce fire likelihood?
The Collaborative Approach to Individual Care
Mr O’Hara received visits from both Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Adult Social Care, highlighting the importance of co-ordinated, person-centred approaches across agencies.
Sharing Individual Insights
When multiple agencies work with the same person, sharing insights about their specific needs and circumstances creates a more complete picture. Mr O’Hara’s smoking habits, mobility limitations, and independence preferences were relevant to both fire safety and social care planning.
Consistent Individual Focus
Each agency brought different expertise, but the common thread should have been understanding Mr O’Hara as an individual with specific needs, rather than applying standard protocols without adaptation.
Learning and Development: Keeping Individuals at the Centre
The improvements implemented following this case reflect a commitment to more person-centred approaches:
- Enhanced training helps assessors better understand how individual circumstances affect fire risk
- Improved quality assurance ensures that person-specific factors are properly identified and addressed
- Better inter-agency co-ordination supports comprehensive individual assessment
- New referral systems help identify individuals who need enhanced, personalised safety planning
A Testament to Individual Worth
Kevin O’Hara’s death was tragic, but the lessons learned from his case can help protect others in similar situations.
His story reminds us that behind every fire risk assessment is a real person with unique needs, circumstances, and vulnerabilities.
When we take time to truly understand each individual – their daily routines, their capabilities and limitations, their living environment, and their personal risk factors – we can develop safety plans that actually work for them.
This isn’t just about better fire safety; it’s about recognising the inherent worth and dignity of every person we serve.
The most fitting tribute to Mr O’Hara’s memory is ensuring that future assessments start with a simple but profound question: “Who is this person, and what do they need to stay safe?” When we answer that question thoroughly and honestly, we create the foundation for truly effective, person-centred fire safety planning.
