How long do smoke alarms function? A cross-sectional follow-up survey of a smoke alarm installation programme.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the functionality of lithium-powered smoke alarms that had been installed through a community-based programme called Operation Installation (OI). METHODS: A random sample was chosen of homes that had received smoke alarms through OI, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years previously. Sampled homes were visited, and information collected included functional status of smoke alarms. For homes in the 6-, 8- and 10-year sample, smoke alarms were removed and tested for battery and alarm function. RESULTS: 800 homes were included in the survey results; 1884 smoke alarms had been installed through OI. The proportion of homes that had at least one functioning OI smoke alarm ranged from 91.8% for year 2 sample to 19.8% for year 10. Of the originally installed smoke alarms in year 10 sample, 45.5% had been removed and 59% (64/108) of those that were still installed were not functioning. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of at least one working alarm in the home was associated positively with the number of smoke alarms that were originally installed and whether the original occupant was still living in the home, and negatively with the length of time since the smoke alarm was installed, and whether there was a smoker in the home. Testing of the smoke alarms revealed that most non-functioning alarms had missing or dead batteries. CONCLUSIONS: Less than a quarter of the originally installed smoke alarms were still present and functioning by year 10. These findings have important implications for smoke alarm installation programmes.

Preventing deaths and injuries from house fires: an outcome evaluation of a community-based smoke alarm installation programme.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of community-based smoke alarm (SA) distribution programmes on the occurrence of house fire-related deaths and injuries (HF-D/I). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the rate of HF-D/I differed for programme houses that had a SA installed through a community-based programme called Operation Installation, versus non-programme houses in the same census tracts that had not received such a SA. METHODS: Teams of volunteers and firefighters canvassed houses in 36 high-risk target census tracts in Dallas, TX, between April 2001 and April 2011, and installed lithium-powered SAs in houses where residents were present and gave permission. We then followed incidence of HF-D/I among residents of the 8134 programme houses versus the 24 346 non-programme houses. RESULTS: After a mean of 5.2 years of follow-up, the unadjusted HF-D/I rate was 68% lower among residents of programme houses versus non-programme houses (3.1 vs 9.6 per 100 000 population, respectively; rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84). Multivariate analysis including several demographic variables showed that the adjusted HF-D/I rate in programme houses was 63% lower than non-programme houses. The programme was most effective in the first 5 years after SA installation, with declining difference in rates after the 6th year, probably due to SAs becoming non-functional during that time. CONCLUSIONS: This collaborative, community-based SA installation programme was effective at preventing deaths and injuries from house fires, but the duration of effectiveness was less than 10 years.