PRODUCT TESTING
environment to do more. It’s all about choosing the right risk level for different areas. What a door manufacturer, for example, will be able to do, is issue a certification to the market saying: “This is the graded performance of my door against the DIMHN / BRE standard. It has a ligature rating of ‘4’, the second highest, and, I believe, is appropriate for your bedroom design. It will allow you to achieve X, Y, and Z.” The client can then look at what the grading ‘4’ means – for example no ligature anchor point was created, and the release of load was less than 6 kg, after testing the product to destruction. This should enable, say, an NHS Trust’s clinical team to determine whether the door is appropriate for its patients.”
Up to the manufacturers The onus, Philip Ross stressed, will be on NHS specifiers and architects to demand certified performance from the products they use. He said: “This will help them de- risk their decisions, and ensure they have made evidence-based choices. Equally, it will be up to manufacturers to have their products tested, and then, when ‘introducing’ them to the client, to issue the certification as evidence of performance, in much the same as they would with a fire door.” One of the key anticipated benefits of the guidance is a need for less extensive product testing by specifiers. Philip Ross said the BRE/DiMHN team had had NHS Trusts approach it saying they had spent six months delaying a project, trying to make a decision about doors or windows, because they had had no option but to undertake testing during the project timeline. He said: “You then not only have the costs of all those involved, but also delayed access to the new facility. An NHS specifier might spend 3-4 months assessing and procuring doorsets and then testing them, but with all the associated costs, may only have been able to test products from two manufacturers. Now, specifiers will be able to go online, look at a number of certificates, and assess five different manufacturers within an afternoon. They can then shortlist their preferred 2-3, meet with the suppliers, and discuss the products in more detail, as a result spending much less time assessing ligature or anti-barricade performance, because they already have that information, and more on the more subjective things - such as which product will be better from a patient perspective, and which will create the optimal recovery environment. Let’s also get clinical teams to think about usability and functionality at a much deeper level, because they can push to one side the detail and demands for assessing ligature performance and robustness.”
The testing regime
For the DiMHN/BRE product testing guidance initiative to be widely adopted, a good number of manufacturers will need to submit products for testing /certification.
16
One of the staff at Safehinge Primera testing the robustness/resilience of a seclusion room doorset.
Philip Ross said: “The DiMHN’s role in the project has very much been about contributing knowledge and expertise about the challenges within mental health. The BRE is ultimately the testing expert, with first-class test facilities.” While the possibility of opening up the testing to enable any reputable and established testing organisation to undertake it was considered, the DiMHN and BRE team recognised this ‘was not a good option’ – not least because much of the testing will entail using human, manual testing, rather than mechanical rigs. Philip Ross added: “With an area such as ligature, you must factor in human ingenuity, and by ensuring that the same person tests the same product, or product type, time and time again, the individual is not only accumulating expertise, but you also increase repeatability.”
Philip Ross emphasised that for a manufacturer to achieve a certification and grading for its product, it will need to submit it to the BRE for independent evaluation. He said: “We have made it a condition –the testing guidance is copyrighted between BRE and ourselves – that manufacturers cannot claim performance for any product unless it has been certified by BRE; they cannot test and certify to the criteria set out in the guidance themselves. Given that a poor product purchasing decision in a mental
For a manufacturer to achieve a certification and grading for its product, it will need to submit it to the BRE for independent evaluation
health setting could result in loss of life, we had to take the gravitas of that decision on board, and ensure total confidence in the testing system. There is, however, nothing to stop a manufacturer carrying out internal assessments as to how its products may perform, and using these to develop and design products better, prior to submitting them for testing.”
Testing prices yet to be finalised Manufacturers and others wishing to submit products for testing by BRE will have to pay for the service. Philip Ross said that while the prices were still being finalised, they would be ‘comparable to other testing regimes’. He said: “The real efficiencies for the manufacturer will come from financial savings in having to provide a reduced number of samples, and minimising any delay in a new product’s launch. They should also be able to get innovation adopted earlier – in what is traditionally a risk-averse sector. I believe we will be able to use the new testing guidance to push better products, and more innovation, potentially hugely benefiting patient and staff wellbeing. It’s all about giving specifiers the best information to make informed choices.” The DiMHN and BRE hope the BRE can begin offering the testing this autumn, after which manufacturers will be able to approach the BRE direct and request that its experts test particular products. Assuming the item tested passes, they will then receive the grading and certification. Philip Ross said: “One of the main messages we want to get out to manufacturers serving the mental healthcare arena is: ‘Go out and look at the testing guidance now. You can now get prepared, so that when the doors open for testing, you are ready to test’.”
n JULY 2020 | THE NETWORK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38
