Recipient

Intastop Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Aug 2021•Latest report 18 Aug 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
6stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Intastop Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (Eastern)

    AI-generated summary

    Steven Paul KIRKHAM · 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

    Steven Paul KIRKHAM was an informal resident in Osprey Ward, Swallownest Court, Sheffield, and on 30th April 2019 used a device-fitted door without an alarm sounding. Concerns were raised about a potential “blind spot” in the door alarm system and the possibility that other facilities using these systems had not been informed of the potential danger or of steps taken to address the issue.

    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. The report was sent to Intastop Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to inform users of door alarm mechanisms about potential dangers

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) I have been informed that, although Swallownest have replaced the doors with an alternative, that these door alarm systems may still be used in a variety of places where vulnerable people are housed. I am concerned that other users of these mechanisms may not have been informed of the potential danger. (3) I was not given any information with regard to what, if anything, has been done to rectify the “blind spot” area by Instatop and therefore have concerns that other users of the doors may be unaware of the issue. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Intastop Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Blind spot in the relevant area

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) It appears that there is a “blind spot” on the ████████ ████████. ”
    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

    Amend the door-alarm design by adding a mechanical fixing between the hinge and alarm, and notify NHS trusts that the redesigned alarm is available.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Intastop door top alarm is designed to reduce the risk of ████████. Unfortunately it is impossible to completely eliminate any chance of ████████ and this has been communicated to all users of the product. However, in response to this tragic event, and in an effort to prevent any future death, our client has undertaken the following actions:”

    Source location

    2021-0280-Response-from-Instastop-Ltd_Published-1
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 August 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
67%33%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026