Evacuation Is Personal: Turning PEEPs from Paperwork into Practice

A Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan, or PEEP, is sometimes treated as a form that follows a disclosure. It is completed, signed and filed, and the building is presumed ready. In practice, a PEEP is an operational arrangement. It sets out how a specific person will leave a specific building, using specific routes and specific assistance, under conditions that may be stressful and unfamiliar. If it has never been walked through, it is not yet a plan; it is an intention.

For responsible persons in UK premises, the legal and practical case for getting this right is clear. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires arrangements for the safety of relevant persons, and that includes people who cannot use a standard evacuation route without help. Equality duties also make dignity and reasonable adjustment part of the conversation. The difficulty is rarely the principle. It is the gap between a document in a folder and a procedure that survives a real evacuation.

Why the Gap Opens Before the Drill

PEEPs often arrive late because need is assumed to be visible. A member of staff who uses a wheelchair may prompt a plan, while a colleague with a heart condition, a temporary leg injury, anxiety in crowded stairwells or a hearing impairment may not. Visitors, contractors, event attendees and out-of-hours cleaners can be missed entirely. So can people whose needs change during the year.

The responsible person should not wait for a formal disclosure before asking whether anyone may need assistance. Nor should the process demand a diagnosis. The useful question is functional: can this person reach an exit without help, use the stairs at the required speed, hear the alarm, understand instructions and manage the route in poor lighting or crowding? Where the answer is no, or not always, a PEEP conversation should follow.

A proportionate system will pick up need at several points: staff induction, return-to-work conversations, visitor booking, contractor sign-in, workstation moves and periodic reviews of the emergency plan. It should also allow for temporary conditions. A broken ankle or late-stage pregnancy may require a short-term arrangement, and the person may not think to ask for one.

The Individual Is Not a Passenger

A PEEP written about someone without them is a guess. The person concerned should be involved in choosing the route, the type of assistance and the point at which help is offered. They may prefer to self-evacuate with a colleague nearby rather than use an evacuation chair. They may know that a particular stairwell is difficult at busy times. They may have good reason to avoid being carried, or to prefer one named assistant over another.

The conversation should be confidential, but not so confidential that the plan cannot operate. Consent to share the necessary details with nominated assistants and fire wardens is part of making the arrangement work. The plan should record what the individual has agreed to, not what has been assumed on their behalf.

This is also where the lazy buddy system fails. A buddy who is always on the same floor, always on shift and always able to help is a useful starting point, not a complete plan. What happens when the buddy is on leave, in a meeting, off sick or already helping someone else? A robust PEEP names a primary assistant, a backup and a simple way to identify who is responsible if neither is present. For visitors, reception needs a route to arrange assistance without making the person feel like an exception.

Routes That Survive Reality

The route should be walked, not merely described. Check the stair width, the door weights, the refuge area, the condition of any evacuation chair and the two-way communication at the refuge. Confirm that the chair is where the plan says it is and that the nominated assistants know how to use it. Look at the route at a busy time as well as a quiet one. Consider what happens if the usual exit is unavailable because of a fire alarm, a security incident or building work.

A PEEP should also account for the assembly point. Does the person need shelter, medication or a warm space? Who confirms that they have arrived? Who tells the fire and rescue service that someone requiring assistance is accounted for, or that they are not? These details matter more than a long narrative about medical history.

Drills and Debriefs

A plan that is never exercised will be tested for the first time under pressure. Not every drill needs to use every piece of equipment, but the PEEP should be included in the exercise programme. A walk-through, a tabletop discussion or a short practical session can reveal problems that paperwork cannot. Debrief afterwards with the individual and the assistants. Record what did not work and set a date for correction.

Review should be triggered by change: new staff, altered shifts, refurbishment, a change in the person's condition, a new visitor route or a different evacuation chair. An annual review is a baseline, not a substitute for keeping the plan current. The responsible person should be able to show that the plan is live, understood and available to those who need it.

The Blind Spots Beyond Employees

Contractors, temporary workers and visitors are often the weakest part of evacuation planning. A booking system can ask a simple question about assistance needs without demanding sensitive detail. A contractor induction can explain what to do if the alarm sounds and who to contact. A host can remain responsible for a visitor rather than assuming reception will manage. Out-of-hours cleaning and security teams need to know how PEEPs affect their own procedures.

Documentation should be short, clear and action-focused. It should name roles rather than rely on job titles that may change, describe the route and equipment, and state how communication will work. It should be stored securely but accessible to those who need it in an emergency. A plan locked in an office drawer is not an operational document.

Mercury Fire Safety sees PEEPs as part of the wider fire risk assessment and evacuation strategy, not as a separate HR form. The test is simple: if the alarm sounded this afternoon, would the plan work without the person who wrote it? If the answer is uncertain, the plan needs practice before it needs filing.