Recipient

Medequip Assistive Technology Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 12 Aug 2024•Latest report 12 Aug 2024

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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Douglas ARMSTRONG · 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

    Douglas ARMSTRONG had an unwitnessed fall at home on 16 December 2023 and sustained a fractured neck of femur that was not identified by care agency responders or a district nurse. His hospital arrival and likely surgery were delayed by around 18 hours, and he died in hospital on 5 January from aspiration pneumonia resulting from the injury. The principal concern was that responders may lack the skills, knowledge, training, or communication needed to identify such injuries or recognise when further assessment is required.

    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 Medequip Assistive Technology Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of care responders to identify serious injuries from falls or recognise the limits of their diagnostic ability

    Wider context from the report

    “Following his fall at home the Deceased was visited by two representatives of the care agency. They did not appreciate that he had suffered a fractured neck of femur. They placed more reliance than was justified upon his assertion that he had not hurt himself and was not in pain. The information supplied during their verbal communication with the ambulance service did not result in the latter appreciating the need for a personal attendance or visual assessment. Fractured neck of femur is a common consequence of falls in the elderly and requires prompt attention. Those providing a response system should have the skills, knowledge and training necessary to identify the problem or to appreciate that they cannot do so, and to communicate the limits of their diagnostic ability to the ambulance service. I was told that the responders acted in accordance with their existing training and have had no additional training since these events, nor was I told that any is planned. I am concerned that responders attending a similar call might be unable to assist effectively and would appreciate their employers addressing this by considering whether opportunities exist to improve the situation. ”
    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 Medequip Assistive Technology Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate the limits of responders' diagnostic ability to ambulance services

    Wider context from the report

    “Following his fall at home the Deceased was visited by two representatives of the care agency. They did not appreciate that he had suffered a fractured neck of femur. They placed more reliance than was justified upon his assertion that he had not hurt himself and was not in pain. The information supplied during their verbal communication with the ambulance service did not result in the latter appreciating the need for a personal attendance or visual assessment. Fractured neck of femur is a common consequence of falls in the elderly and requires prompt attention. Those providing a response system should have the skills, knowledge and training necessary to identify the problem or to appreciate that they cannot do so, and to communicate the limits of their diagnostic ability to the ambulance service. I was told that the responders acted in accordance with their existing training and have had no additional training since these events, nor was I told that any is planned. I am concerned that responders attending a similar call might be unable to assist effectively and would appreciate their employers addressing this by considering whether opportunities exist to improve the situation. ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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