R D (Bromsgrove) Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Domiciliary care provider

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Sep 2023•Latest report 18 Sep 2023

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

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

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from R D (Bromsgrove) Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Worcestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Anthony John Friend · 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

    Anthony John Friend, who was living with the effects of a brain tumour and required regular personal care, sustained a significant head injury on 17 April 2023 after slipping through a sling while being hoisted from a chair to his bed. He was discharged home for palliative care and died there on 20 April 2023. The principal concern was that an old toileting sling had previously been judged unsuitable and unsafe, but remained at his property and continued to be used, with shortcomings identified in communication, supervision and arrangements for safer alternatives.

    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to remove unsuitable slings from the service user's property

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) As long ago as 28.11.22 (nearly 5 months before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ), ████████, an Occupational Therapist employed by HWHT, had concluded that the sling being used at the time of the accident on 17.4.23 ( the “old toileting sling” ) was no longer suitable for Mr. Friend, ensured that two more suitable slings were provided instead, but did not remove the old toileting sling from Mr. Friend’s property; 2) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 2.2.23, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used, and made clear to Mr. Friend’s family and carers that it was “not safe to use”, but again did not remove it from the property; 3) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 6.3.23, ████████, another Occupational Therapist employed by HWCT, noted that the old toileting sling was still being used by family and carers, and that although the two more suitable slings provided by her colleague ████████ would be difficult to fit, they were nonetheless safer to use. ████████ told the inquest that in hindsight she “should not have allowed [ carers ] to carry on using the unsafe sling” and that she did not know why she had not taken time to show carers how to use the safer slings which had been provided; 4) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 17.4.23 (just prior to the accident ) in order to assess Mr. Friend for a new sling, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used. However, she told the inquest that despite her misgivings about it, she did not remove it from the address, and still expected carers to carry on using it for the next two weeks until a new sling arrived. She described this decision as “an oversight” on her part; 5) ████████ also told the inquest that: (a) she should have ensured that Mr. Friend’s carers were present for the home visit and sling assessment on 17.4.23 ( which they were not ); and (b) she should have contacted his new carers ( Divine Health Services Ltd. ) after that visit, to discuss their use of the sling; 6) At no time did either ████████ appear to have communicated their concerns about the continued use of the old toileting sling in writing to either of the agencies which were providing care for Mr. Friend at the relevant times. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure by outgoing care providers to contact incoming care providers and provide handovers about care needs and safety concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) Bluebird Care provided care at home for Mr. Friend up to 16.4.23 ( two days before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ); 2) the reason Bluebird Care stopped providing care for Mr. Friend was that they had concerns about the sling which was still being used with his hoist; 3) Bluebird Care knew by 12.4.23 that Mr. Friend’s care at home after 16.4.23 would be provided by Divine Health Services Ltd.; 4) At no time did Bluebird Care try to make contact with, or provide any sort of handover to Divine Health Services Ltd. about Mr. Friend’s needs, or about any concerns they had concerning the sling. In her evidence to the inquest, ████████, Bluebird Care’s registered care manager, agreed that it was “common sense...for there to be a good handover between care agencies”, but that it “was not something which we had ever done”; 5) At no time did Divine Health Services Ltd. make any efforts to identify, contact or seek a handover about Mr. Friend from the previous care agency Bluebird Care. In his evidence to the inquest, ████████, Director of Divine Health Services Ltd., agreed that it would be “a matter of good practice” to have done so. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure by incoming care providers to identify previous care providers and seek a handover

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) Bluebird Care provided care at home for Mr. Friend up to 16.4.23 ( two days before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ); 2) the reason Bluebird Care stopped providing care for Mr. Friend was that they had concerns about the sling which was still being used with his hoist; 3) Bluebird Care knew by 12.4.23 that Mr. Friend’s care at home after 16.4.23 would be provided by Divine Health Services Ltd.; 4) At no time did Bluebird Care try to make contact with, or provide any sort of handover to Divine Health Services Ltd. about Mr. Friend’s needs, or about any concerns they had concerning the sling. In her evidence to the inquest, ████████, Bluebird Care’s registered care manager, agreed that it was “common sense...for there to be a good handover between care agencies”, but that it “was not something which we had ever done”; 5) At no time did Divine Health Services Ltd. make any efforts to identify, contact or seek a handover about Mr. Friend from the previous care agency Bluebird Care. In his evidence to the inquest, ████████, Director of Divine Health Services Ltd., agreed that it would be “a matter of good practice” to have done so. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide handovers between care agencies about care needs and safety concerns

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) Bluebird Care provided care at home for Mr. Friend up to 16.4.23 ( two days before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ); 2) the reason Bluebird Care stopped providing care for Mr. Friend was that they had concerns about the sling which was still being used with his hoist; 3) Bluebird Care knew by 12.4.23 that Mr. Friend’s care at home after 16.4.23 would be provided by Divine Health Services Ltd.; 4) At no time did Bluebird Care try to make contact with, or provide any sort of handover to Divine Health Services Ltd. about Mr. Friend’s needs, or about any concerns they had concerning the sling. In her evidence to the inquest, ████████, Bluebird Care’s registered care manager, agreed that it was “common sense...for there to be a good handover between care agencies”, but that it “was not something which we had ever done”. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate concerns about continued unsafe sling use in writing to care agencies

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) As long ago as 28.11.22 (nearly 5 months before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ), ████████, an Occupational Therapist employed by HWHT, had concluded that the sling being used at the time of the accident on 17.4.23 ( the “old toileting sling” ) was no longer suitable for Mr. Friend, ensured that two more suitable slings were provided instead, but did not remove the old toileting sling from Mr. Friend’s property; 2) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 2.2.23, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used, and made clear to Mr. Friend’s family and carers that it was “not safe to use”, but again did not remove it from the property; 3) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 6.3.23, ████████, another Occupational Therapist employed by HWCT, noted that the old toileting sling was still being used by family and carers, and that although the two more suitable slings provided by her colleague ████████ would be difficult to fit, they were nonetheless safer to use. ████████ told the inquest that in hindsight she “should not have allowed [ carers ] to carry on using the unsafe sling” and that she did not know why she had not taken time to show carers how to use the safer slings which had been provided; 4) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 17.4.23 (just prior to the accident ) in order to assess Mr. Friend for a new sling, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used. However, she told the inquest that despite her misgivings about it, she did not remove it from the address, and still expected carers to carry on using it for the next two weeks until a new sling arrived. She described this decision as “an oversight” on her part; 5) ████████ also told the inquest that: (a) she should have ensured that Mr. Friend’s carers were present for the home visit and sling assessment on 17.4.23 ( which they were not ); and (b) she should have contacted his new carers ( Divine Health Services Ltd. ) after that visit, to discuss their use of the sling; 6) At no time did either ████████ appear to have communicated their concerns about the continued use of the old toileting sling in writing to either of the agencies which were providing care for Mr. Friend at the relevant times. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure carers' participation in sling assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) As long ago as 28.11.22 (nearly 5 months before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ), ████████, an Occupational Therapist employed by HWHT, had concluded that the sling being used at the time of the accident on 17.4.23 ( the “old toileting sling” ) was no longer suitable for Mr. Friend, ensured that two more suitable slings were provided instead, but did not remove the old toileting sling from Mr. Friend’s property; 2) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 2.2.23, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used, and made clear to Mr. Friend’s family and carers that it was “not safe to use”, but again did not remove it from the property; 3) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 6.3.23, ████████, another Occupational Therapist employed by HWCT, noted that the old toileting sling was still being used by family and carers, and that although the two more suitable slings provided by her colleague ████████ would be difficult to fit, they were nonetheless safer to use. ████████ told the inquest that in hindsight she “should not have allowed [ carers ] to carry on using the unsafe sling” and that she did not know why she had not taken time to show carers how to use the safer slings which had been provided; 4) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 17.4.23 (just prior to the accident ) in order to assess Mr. Friend for a new sling, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used. However, she told the inquest that despite her misgivings about it, she did not remove it from the address, and still expected carers to carry on using it for the next two weeks until a new sling arrived. She described this decision as “an oversight” on her part; 5) ████████ also told the inquest that: (a) she should have ensured that Mr. Friend’s carers were present for the home visit and sling assessment on 17.4.23 ( which they were not ); and (b) she should have contacted his new carers ( Divine Health Services Ltd. ) after that visit, to discuss their use of the sling; 6) At no time did either ████████ appear to have communicated their concerns about the continued use of the old toileting sling in writing to either of the agencies which were providing care for Mr. Friend at the relevant times. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to discuss sling use with new carers

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) As long ago as 28.11.22 (nearly 5 months before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ), ████████, an Occupational Therapist employed by HWHT, had concluded that the sling being used at the time of the accident on 17.4.23 ( the “old toileting sling” ) was no longer suitable for Mr. Friend, ensured that two more suitable slings were provided instead, but did not remove the old toileting sling from Mr. Friend’s property; 2) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 2.2.23, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used, and made clear to Mr. Friend’s family and carers that it was “not safe to use”, but again did not remove it from the property; 3) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 6.3.23, ████████, another Occupational Therapist employed by HWCT, noted that the old toileting sling was still being used by family and carers, and that although the two more suitable slings provided by her colleague ████████ would be difficult to fit, they were nonetheless safer to use. ████████ told the inquest that in hindsight she “should not have allowed [ carers ] to carry on using the unsafe sling” and that she did not know why she had not taken time to show carers how to use the safer slings which had been provided; 4) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 17.4.23 (just prior to the accident ) in order to assess Mr. Friend for a new sling, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used. However, she told the inquest that despite her misgivings about it, she did not remove it from the address, and still expected carers to carry on using it for the next two weeks until a new sling arrived. She described this decision as “an oversight” on her part; 5) ████████ also told the inquest that: (a) she should have ensured that Mr. Friend’s carers were present for the home visit and sling assessment on 17.4.23 ( which they were not ); and (b) she should have contacted his new carers ( Divine Health Services Ltd. ) after that visit, to discuss their use of the sling; 6) At no time did either ████████ appear to have communicated their concerns about the continued use of the old toileting sling in writing to either of the agencies which were providing care for Mr. Friend at the relevant times. ”
    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 R D (Bromsgrove) Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to demonstrate safer sling use to carers

    Wider context from the report

    “In the course of the inquest, I heard evidence that: 1) As long ago as 28.11.22 (nearly 5 months before the accident which led to Mr. Friend’s death ), ████████, an Occupational Therapist employed by HWHT, had concluded that the sling being used at the time of the accident on 17.4.23 ( the “old toileting sling” ) was no longer suitable for Mr. Friend, ensured that two more suitable slings were provided instead, but did not remove the old toileting sling from Mr. Friend’s property; 2) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 2.2.23, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used, and made clear to Mr. Friend’s family and carers that it was “not safe to use”, but again did not remove it from the property; 3) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 6.3.23, ████████, another Occupational Therapist employed by HWCT, noted that the old toileting sling was still being used by family and carers, and that although the two more suitable slings provided by her colleague ████████ would be difficult to fit, they were nonetheless safer to use. ████████ told the inquest that in hindsight she “should not have allowed [ carers ] to carry on using the unsafe sling” and that she did not know why she had not taken time to show carers how to use the safer slings which had been provided; 4) During a home visit to Mr. Friend’s address on 17.4.23 (just prior to the accident ) in order to assess Mr. Friend for a new sling, ████████ noted that the old toileting sling was still being used. However, she told the inquest that despite her misgivings about it, she did not remove it from the address, and still expected carers to carry on using it for the next two weeks until a new sling arrived. She described this decision as “an oversight” on her part; 5) ████████ also told the inquest that: (a) she should have ensured that Mr. Friend’s carers were present for the home visit and sling assessment on 17.4.23 ( which they were not ); and (b) she should have contacted his new carers ( Divine Health Services Ltd. ) after that visit, to discuss their use of the sling; 6) At no time did either ████████ appear to have communicated their concerns about the continued use of the old toileting sling in writing to either of the agencies which were providing care for Mr. Friend at the relevant times. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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