Recurring concern

Inadequate management of smoking-related fire risks in vulnerable people

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 10 May 2017•Latest report 3 Oct 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of controls specifically intended to prevent, detect or respond to cigarette-related fires involving vulnerable people who smoke, including smoking-risk assessment, supervision or protective equipment requirements, and prohibitions on unsafe smoking assistance.

Not included

  • Generic deficiencies in care planning, documentation, staffing or training that are not explicitly tied to smoking-related fire safety.
  • Medication, clozapine, food or fluid refusal, falls, self-harm, or other hazards merely involving people who smoke.
  • Smoking-related leave or nicotine-replacement guidance where the reported unsafe condition is absconding or mental-health risk rather than cigarette-related fire risk.
  • General fire-safety deficiencies not specifically connected to smoking by vulnerable people.
Reports
6

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2017–2024

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
18

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Care Quality Commission2
Bupa1
Devon County Council1
Guinness Care and Support Limited1
Lewisham Safeguarding Adults Board1
London Borough of Newham1
London Fire Brigade1
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government1
The Royal Society For The Prevention Of Accidents1
Welsh Government1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. East London

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Gabrielle Sarah Anne Steel · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mrs Gabrielle Sarah Anne Steel, who was bed bound and known to smoke in bed and drink alcohol, died after a fire on her bed at her home on 17 October 2023. The fire investigation identified the likely cause as unsafe disposal of smoking materials, and the flame-retardant duvet cover was not on the bed. The principal concerns were poor communication of the fire safety assessment and the absence of a shared written fire risk management plan for those caring for her.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to convey home fire safety findings to responsible carers

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The risk of fire, due to smoking in bed was recognised by a local authority occupational therapist. A request was made to the London Fire Brigade for a home fire safety visit. The assessment took place promptly, but neither the occupational therapist, nor the social worker enquired into the outcome of the home fire safety visit, so that a risk management plan could be put in place. 2. The findings of the home fire safety visit were shared only with Mrs Steel – a vulnerable, elderly lady. The findings were not conveyed to those with responsibility for caring for her. 3. A written risk assessment/risk management plan was completed by the London Fire Brigade. This was not left in the property or shared with Mrs Steel, her family, her carers or the agency who requested the fire safety check. 4. As a result of the poor communication from the LFB, there was no risk management plan in place to reduce the risk of fire harm to Mrs Steel. Had the findings of the fire assessor been communicated, carers would have been aware of the need to re-iterate the importance of stubbing out cigarettes in an ashtray and not leaving cigarettes to burn out; the need to dispose of all non-flame retardant bedding, to ensure that the safe bedding was in place at all times; the importance of keeping extraneous flammable materials away from the bed, as much as possible. ”

    Source location

    Mrs Gabrielle Sarah Anne Steel · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review information-sharing processes, the data-protection impact assessment and third-party disclosure arrangements, consulting information-management specialists and the Information Commissioner.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Noting HM Coroner's observations, we have started to review our processes and have engaged with our Information Management Team to discuss the data protection issues around sharing information with third parties where the resident has full mental capacity. LFB are reviewing the data protection privacy impact assessment and consulting the Information Commissioner to fully scope how we can best meet this need while ensuring privacy for the resident.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review Home Fire Safety Visit booking questions to identify in-home care and recommend that carers attend visits.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “LFB are reviewing the questions asked at the point of booking the visit to ensure that information is gained regarding whether there is the provision of care in the home and recommend that the carer attends the visit. LFB are also considering the best ways of communicating with the carer or family member if they are not present, for example leaving guidance in the property including information about flame retardant bedding where appropriate.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Scope options for leaving bespoke fire-safety information with residents, family members or carers, engaging other fire services to identify best practice.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “LFB are reviewing the questions asked at the point of booking the visit to ensure that information is gained regarding whether there is the provision of care in the home and recommend that the carer attends the visit. LFB are also considering the best ways of communicating with the carer or family member if they are not present, for example leaving guidance in the property including information about flame retardant bedding where appropriate.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Update Home Fire Safety Visit policy, guidance and staff training where necessary following the process review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following this review LFB will where necessary update the policy, guidance, and training to ensure all staff carrying out Home Fire Safety Visits fully understand this process.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing policy authorises sharing advice only with a resident who can understand and retain it, so staff followed the correct process.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Existing LFB policy, which follows national best practice, does not authorise staff to share findings with any other person. Providing staff are satisfied that the individual recipient is able to understand and retain the advice given, they share advice and observations face to face. During the booking of Mrs Steel's Home Fire Safety Visit it was confirmed that Mrs Steel was able to understand, process and retain the information provided – this was noted on our records and therefore the crews followed the correct process as outlined in the policy.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Care providers are responsible for planning and delivering care based on risk assessments, including assessing and mitigating fire risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Fire Service's statutory role does not include responsibility for a resident's care plan or for making or contributing to a personalised risk management plan for an individual resident. Home Fire Safety Visits are not intended to be personal risk assessments but to be provision of fire safety advice to the resident. Care providers are regulated to plan and deliver care based on risk assessments, and this should include assessing risk from fire. A care provider should not need an HFSV to prompt attention on any of the points raised above. However, we accept that there is learning around communication with the carer about identified fire risk within the limitations of UK GDPR/Data Protection A 2018 and for the HFSV process to reinforce the need for care providers to have regard to fire safety. We have set out above that we are taking steps to explore improvements.”

    Source location

    Response from London Fire Brigade
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 October 2024

    Open published response
  2. East Riding and Hull

    AI-generated summary

    Raymond BRATTLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Raymond BRATTLEY, a heavy cigarette smoker, died at the scene on 8 January 2024 after a fire caused by careless smoking engulfed him in his flat, causing widespread full-thickness burns. The report raises concerns about the risk of cigarette-related fires involving vulnerable people and the potential value of seeking Fire Service advice and considering measures such as metal wastepaper bins and fire-retardant materials.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Ongoing foreseeable risk of cigarette-related fires in vulnerable individuals permitted to smoke on the premises

    Wider context from the report

    “It was known to the staff at Portland Mews that this gentleman was a heavy smoker and that on a number of previous occasions, he set fire to waste paper bins in his flat as well as burning himself, carpets and soft furnishings due to careless smoking. On all previous occasions, the fires were contained or extinguished. Appropriate action was taken by the staff in respect of this issue. However, in the most general of terms, evidence was heard from a fire investigator, that if issues of this nature arise in other organisations or care settings, they should be brought to the attention of the Fire Service, who would freely provide advice about ways in which to mitigate the ongoing and foreseeable risk of cigarette related fires occurring in other vulnerable individuals. Such measures might include the provision of metal wastepaper bins and the use of fire-retardant materials. It is recognised that in similar institutions, tenants are permitted to smoke on such premises, but there is a tension between allowing smoking on the premises and risk of fires occurring, particularly in vulnerable individuals who may have similar mobility problems to Mr Brattley. ”

    Source location

    Raymond BRATTLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review and update website information materials on fire safety in sheltered premises.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Given Mr Brattle’s history, and the fact that he was moved into sheltered accommodation, it seems reasonable and proportionate that the provider should have engaged the Fire Service for advice on the prevention of further fires. RoSPA currently does not have specific guidance on fire prevention in sheltered premises, as this is generally an area where fire and rescue services have expertise. However, we acknowledge that fire incidents within sheltered premises would in many cases be classed as an ‘accident’. Therefore we will look to review our current advice education materials and activities around fire prevention in sheltered premises.”

    Source location

    Response from ROSPA
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 August 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Explore collaboration with sheltered-accommodation professionals to promote fire awareness.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Action | Timeline Reviewing and updating relevant information materials about fire safety in sheltered premises on our website | Q4, 2024 Exploring where we can work with professionals within the sheltered accommodation sector to promote fire awareness | Q1, 2025 Developing a policy position on fire safety in sheltered accommodation | Q1, 2025”

    Source location

    Response from ROSPA
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 August 2024

    Open published response
  3. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    James Golds · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    James Golds was rescued from a flat fire on 28 September 2020 after sustaining significant fire-related injuries and later died in hospital from complications of smoke inhalation. The report raised concerns about limited guidance for managing and escalating fire risks in supported accommodation, the absence of a statutory requirement for sprinklers, and smoke detectors not activating until a cigarette-related fire was well established.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of smoke detection systems to provide sufficiently early warning of cigarette-related fires

    Wider context from the report

    “2. In addition in relation to the design and fire prevention features for such accommodation the inquest heard that there was no statutory requirement for sprinkler systems. Smoke detectors were in the hallway areas of each flat but because of the way in which a cigarette related fire developed the detector would not be triggered until the fire was well established. This made it difficult to escape and increase the risk of the fire spreading further. ”

    Source location

    James Golds · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth Arthur Brincombe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Kenneth Arthur Brincombe, an 81-year-old man with severe mobility and visual impairments, accidentally set fire to himself while smoking on 31 October 2016 and died from his burns. Concerns included carers facilitating smoking without supervision, insufficient training to assess fire hazards, and smoke detectors that would not alert a fire station or enable him to take evasive action.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise that carers were not obliged to facilitate smoking despite the fire risk

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was an assumption that because Mr Brincombe wanted to smoke that the carers had no choice but to facilitate this despite putting Mr Brincombe and his neighbours at risk of death by fire. ”

    Source location

    Kenneth Arthur Brincombe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Use Care Act assessments, risk-based analysis and care planning to identify and address fire risks through support or assistive technology.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “6. The care management processes and documentation that support the assessment and support responsibilities under the Care Act, include risk based analysis against the Care Act eligibility outcomes as set out in Regulation 2(2) of the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014:”

    Source location

    Kenneth-BRINICOMBE-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 25 August 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Share incident learning and alerting options with the Provider Engagement Network, including reminders about robust risk assessment and escalation of concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “d) Learning from the incident, options and solutions will be shared with the Provider Engagement Network (for independent service providers) to include a reminder for the need to undertake robust risk assessments and alert the relevant social care team should ongoing concerns arise. By end April 2018”

    Source location

    Kenneth-BRINICOMBE-Response
    Page 4 · response
    Published 25 August 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct comprehensive customer, environmental and activity-specific risk assessments, with six-monthly or change-triggered reviews, led by trained senior care workers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “For all customers that we provide a service for we undertake a number of risk assessments. This includes a full assessment of the customer and their care needs and an environmental risk assessment that looks at the customers surroundings. We then carry out further risk assessments dependent on the two standard assessments already undertaken. In this case, and because the customer did choose to smoke, we carried out a risk assessment around that activity.”

    Source location

    Kenneth-BRINICOMBE-Response2
    Page 1 · response
    Published 25 August 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Provide carers with induction health and safety training covering risk assessment, hazardous substances and fire safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All of our carers receive health and safety training during induction. This includes:”

    Source location

    Kenneth-BRINICOMBE-Response2
    Page 1 · response
    Published 25 August 2018

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The provider should determine measures for carers facilitating dangerous activities under its internal policies, practices and CQC requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Describe what measures should be taken when carers are being asked to facilitate an activity which will endanger the lives of the individual concerned and others.”

    Source location

    Kenneth-BRINICOMBE-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 25 August 2018

    Open published response
  5. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Sheila Margaret Gaskin · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Sheila Margaret Gaskin was bedbound and living at home with support from carers. After a carer assisted her to light a cigarette in bed on the evening of 20 March 2017, she was found the following morning with burns and soot markings after a fire; concerns included the absence of a prohibition on carers assisting her to smoke in bed and ineffective day-to-day oversight by care management.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prohibit carers assisting the service user to smoke in bed

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The evidence revealed that there was an identified risk in the deceased's Care Plan of her smoking in bed. The Fire Service had been involved in risk assessing the situation and have provided flame retardant bedding and linen. Despite this obvious risk having been identified and implemented into the Care Plan there was nothing prohibiting carers assisting the deceased to smoke in bed which, the evidence revealed, was a regular occurrence. (2) Management of the care provided accepted that there was no effective oversight by them on a day-to-day basis and they were unaware that carers were assisting the deceased in this way. They agreed that what was required was a blanket prohibition on carers assisting the service user in smoking which would have given greater degree of clarity. ”

    Source location

    Sheila Margaret Gaskin · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Issue general guidance to care providers on assessing and mitigating smoking-related health and fire risks, including expectations for assisting service users to smoke.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We do want to respond positively to your recommendation and have agreed to issue general guidance to care providers on the following lines.”

    Source location

    2017-0328-Response-by-CSSIW
    Page 2 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continue reviewing regulated providers’ risk-management systems through inspections to identify unsafe care and care-plan breaches.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “However, that does not remove the requirement placed on providers and registered managers to ensure that they are delivering care in a safe way and doing all that is practicable to mitigate any risks. CQC will continue to review through its inspection processes the systems and processes being operated by those services it regulates and will challenge and if appropriate take enforcement action against the registered person where it finds that care is being provided in an unsafe way and is being provided contrary to the care plan.”

    Source location

    2017-0328-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
    Page 5 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A blanket smoking-assistance ban cannot be imposed because the regulator lacks power to make law or issue statutory guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “CSSIW regulates and inspects on behalf of Welsh Ministers. We do not have the power to make law nor issue formal statutory guidance. Therefore we are unable to impose such a ban. We have discussed your recommendation with a number of key agencies including Welsh Government policy officials, Social Care Wales which regulates the work force, the UKHCA and Care Forum Wales the two leading provider associations as well as Heath and Safety bodies and the Fire Service.”

    Source location

    2017-0328-Response-by-CSSIW
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A blanket prohibition lacks stakeholder support and could compromise service users' choice and control.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst people completely understand the reasons for your recommendation there is no support for the proposal to place a blanket prohibition on care workers assisting service users to smoke. It was considered such a ban would compromise choice and control of people who use services. What our discussions did reveal was a deep concern for care staff and the risks of passive smoking.”

    Source location

    2017-0328-Response-by-CSSIW
    Page 1 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A blanket prohibition on assisting smoking is not considered appropriate because person-centred care requires case-by-case risk assessment.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to the suggestion of a blanket prohibition on care workers assisting service users smoking, we are concerned that this approach is not consistent with the person-centred approach to care planning that we would expect to see. A blanket ban on this activity could inadvertently lead to a person’s care and support needs not being met in a way that promotes their needs and preferences; we would prefer that prohibition is risk assessed as appropriate on a case-by-case basis.”

    Source location

    2017-0328-Response-by-Care-Quality-Commission
    Page 5 · response
    Published 2 December 2017

    Open published response
  6. Inner South London

    AI-generated summary

    Cedrick Sykers · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Cedrick Sykers, a hemiplegic nursing-home resident who could not stand, reposition himself or propel his wheelchair, died in hospital after his clothes caught fire while he was smoking unsupervised in a garden. The report identified concerns about insufficient recognition and mitigation of the risks faced by immobile residents who smoke and cannot summon help, including the lack of clearly documented requirements for supervision, smoking aprons and alarm pendants.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to document required smoking-risk mitigations and responses to their refusal

    Wider context from the report

    “The management of the Care Home and its owners, BUPA, have undertaken a thorough investigation and implemented a detailed Action Plan which has reduced many of the risks to life of accidental fires from resident’s smoking identified in the inquest. But one area remains a concern. BUPA corporate guidance indicated, at the time of Mr Skyer’s death and now, that residents who wish to smoke must have risk assessments with their abilities, dependencies and special requirements taken into account. The concern relates to the process of mitigating the risks from personal risk assessment of immobile patients. A new safe smoking risk assessment form has been introduced, which requires assessment of safely lighting and smoking a cigarette now to be recorded. The only new question to be asked which would score a concern for a resident such as Mr Sykers, in a wheelchair, is one as to whether the resident has any difficulty in balance. If that is recorded as yes, the process requires the documentation of the steps to be taken to limit associated risks. Nowhere is the risk associated with immobility specifically recognised, yet patients who are immobile and smoke in bed are required to be supervised. A BUPA Fire Risk Advisor told the court that he would recommend the same requirement should be made for those who are immobile but smoking elsewhere. The present policy appears to leave the nurse with the discretion as to what may be inserted into the plan. A BUPA manager informed the court that residents would be offered an apron and alarm pendant. This was not apparent in the documentation. It was not documented that a person who declined these would be expected to accept supervision, nor the importance of these for someone who is completely immobile. If this too was declined, it would seem that if the resident insisted in continuing to smoke without supervision or apron, consideration should be given as to whether this should be recorded as being a choice against professional advice. Reviewing all the evidence, including the variation in skills of nurses in smoking risk assessment and particularly noting the fire investigator’s evidence that the resident’s clothes can be completely consumed by fire in two minutes, the mitigation of risks of death to those who smoke outside in BUPA homes and are immobile and cannot summon help seem to have not been sufficiently recognised. ”

    Source location

    Cedrick Sykers · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to recognise immobility and require supervision in smoking risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “The management of the Care Home and its owners, BUPA, have undertaken a thorough investigation and implemented a detailed Action Plan which has reduced many of the risks to life of accidental fires from resident’s smoking identified in the inquest. But one area remains a concern. BUPA corporate guidance indicated, at the time of Mr Skyer’s death and now, that residents who wish to smoke must have risk assessments with their abilities, dependencies and special requirements taken into account. The concern relates to the process of mitigating the risks from personal risk assessment of immobile patients. A new safe smoking risk assessment form has been introduced, which requires assessment of safely lighting and smoking a cigarette now to be recorded. The only new question to be asked which would score a concern for a resident such as Mr Sykers, in a wheelchair, is one as to whether the resident has any difficulty in balance. If that is recorded as yes, the process requires the documentation of the steps to be taken to limit associated risks. Nowhere is the risk associated with immobility specifically recognised, yet patients who are immobile and smoke in bed are required to be supervised. A BUPA Fire Risk Advisor told the court that he would recommend the same requirement should be made for those who are immobile but smoking elsewhere. The present policy appears to leave the nurse with the discretion as to what may be inserted into the plan. A BUPA manager informed the court that residents would be offered an apron and alarm pendant. This was not apparent in the documentation. It was not documented that a person who declined these would be expected to accept supervision, nor the importance of these for someone who is completely immobile. If this too was declined, it would seem that if the resident insisted in continuing to smoke without supervision or apron, consideration should be given as to whether this should be recorded as being a choice against professional advice. Reviewing all the evidence, including the variation in skills of nurses in smoking risk assessment and particularly noting the fire investigator’s evidence that the resident’s clothes can be completely consumed by fire in two minutes, the mitigation of risks of death to those who smoke outside in BUPA homes and are immobile and cannot summon help seem to have not been sufficiently recognised. ”

    Source location

    Cedrick Sykers · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct an independent Safeguarding Adult Review into the death, examining events, care, risk management, practice standards, causes and remedial actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. The Lewisham Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) has determined that the death of Mr CS satisfies the Care Act 2014 (Section 44) statutory requirement for a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR). The LSAB has decided that an overview model, which documents events and analyses their causes, is appropriate in the circumstances; thereby satisfying the statutory guidance that the approach taken to reviews should be proportionate according to the scale and level of complexity of the issues being examined.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham Safeguarding Adults Board
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Hold learning and service development seminars and produce and circulate a briefing note to disseminate review learning for service, policy and practice transformation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Learning and service development seminars will also be held, and a briefing note produced and circulated, to ensure that the lessons learned through the review lead to service, policy and practice transformation where appropriate.”

    Source location

    Response from Lewisham Safeguarding Adults Board
    Page 3 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Carry out a comprehensive inspection following the incident to assess risk assessments and staffing shortages.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to the receipt of your report, the CQC became aware of Mr Skyers death via Mr Skyers’ son, who told us of his father’s death on 14th March 2016. We were informed that on 13 March 2016 Mr Skyers was smoking unattended in the garden of Manley Court when a staff member saw that he had caught alight and alerted other staff who put the flames out and contacted emergency services. Mr Skyers was attended to by paramedics but sadly died later that day at Kings College Hospital.”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Undertake an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Manley Court, review documentation, and consider whether measures reduce risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are planning to undertake a further unannounced comprehensive inspection of Manley Court in July 2017 and will review the documentation and consider whether these steps further reduce the risk to people at the service. Again we would ask that this information not be passed onto any other Interested Person(s).”

    Source location

    Response from CQC
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Revise the smoking risk assessment process to require apron offers, capability assessment, pendant alarms for garden smokers, and supervision where protective clothing is declined.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Those actions included a review of the smoking risk assessment form used across all Bupa homes, which was considered by HM Coroner at the inquest. We note that there were some remaining concerns about whether residents were offered smoking aprons and pendant alarms, as this was not evident from the documentation.”

    Source location

    Response from BUPA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Require all safe smoking assessments to follow the updated Bupa Smoking Policy BFM 20.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In light of the prevention of future deaths report, Bupa has undertaken a further review of the smoking risk assessment documentation and process used throughout our care homes. I attach, for your information, the revised Bupa Care Services Safe Smoking Assessment document. The updated process puts an increased emphasis on the use of smoking aprons and supervision. You will note that the document requires staff to offer all residents a smoking apron and encourage them to wear it when smoking. It further takes staff through a process of considering the capability of an individual resident to smoke, and removes a significant amount of discretion which was previously available to staff completing the risk assessment.”

    Source location

    Response from BUPA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A capable resident’s right to make an unwise decision prevents smoking without supervision or an apron being prohibited wherever possible.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HM Coroner recognised that a provider should not override a capable individual’s right to make unwise decisions, and therefore if a resident insists on smoking without supervision or a smoking”

    Source location

    Response from BUPA
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 October 2022

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026