PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11601373

How new NFPA code can affect security department responsibilities.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The latest edition of the "101 Life Safety Code" published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides significant options for hospitals and other healthcare facilities during renovation and new construction projects in jurisdictions adopting the latest code and pertinent chapter. Changes in the healthcare chapters of the code effective February 11, 2000 stipulate conditions for the first time under which smoking may be approved, according to Tom Bulow, a Tucson, AZ, healthcare consultant and current chairman of the codes and standards review committee for the healthcare section of NFPA. Bulow also advises hospital officials "to expect a significant change in equipment and devices required in a hospital setting" as a result of an upcoming vote on a revision of the "NFPA 99 Health Care Facilities Code," an operational code.

Explore related subjects

Building CodesFiresHospitalsHumansSafety ManagementSecurity MeasuresUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

2001. How new NFPA code can affect security department responsibilities.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11601373/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Backyard swimming pool safety inspections: a comparison of management approaches and compliance levels in three local government areas in NSW.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Since 1992, swimming pool fencing has been a legislative requirement in New South Wales (NSW), yet compliance with the NSW Swimming Pool Act is mixed. Local councils are responsible for the enforcement of the act. However, their approach to enforcement and the management of backyard swimming pool safety inspections is varied. METHODS: A random sample of backyard swimming pools was inspected in Council A and existing compliance data for pools in two other councils (B and C) were obtained. Pool owners in Council A were surveyed regarding their attitudes to pool fencing and inspections. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with council employees. RESULTS: Pool compliance rates across the three council areas varied. In Councils A and C, 51% and 54% of pools, respectively, were found to be non-compliant at the first inspection. Following re-inspection in Council A of 227 pools, a further 125 pools reached compliance. In Council B, 97% of the inspected pools were compliant. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of poor backyard swimming pool safety compliance where local government inspection activity is minimal or non-existent.

Building Codes↗