Sunnyside Nursing HomeIncludes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.

Private and voluntary organisations · Nursing home

First report 22 Jul 2021•Latest report 22 Jul 2021

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 Sunnyside Nursing Home linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to: Managing Director, Sunnyside Nursing Home.

    West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    John Dickinson · 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

    John Dickinson was admitted to hospital after falls and treatment for a gall bladder infection, then moved to a care home. He later developed poor nutritional and fluid intake, dehydration, acute kidney impairment and a urinary tract infection, and died on 9 August 2020 while receiving palliative care. Concerns included inconsistent and insufficiently detailed record keeping, failures to document or act on advice about monitoring food and fluid intake, and delayed recognition of deterioration.

    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to check food records before assessing food refusal

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inconsistent and insufficiently detailed recording of general wellbeing

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to create a plan for monitoring fluid and food intake

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delay in assessing deterioration

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record GP advice communicated at handover

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to place an instruction in the room to prompt monitoring

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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 Sunnyside Nursing Home; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a single document providing a holistic view of the person

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The record keeping was inconsistent and lacked detail on general wellbeing. (2) The volume of forms to be completed meant that there was not a single document from which a holistic view of him could be obtained. (3) Assumptions were made regarding generally refusing food when if the food records had been checked it would have been noted that he consistently refused the fourth meal of the day until the 28th July 2020. (4) Advice from the GP on 15th July 2020 were handed over orally at a ‘huddle’ and no record was kept as to this being mentioned. (5) Following the GP’s visit, no action planned regarding monitoring his fluid or food intake was created nor was any instruction placed in his room to prompt monitoring. (6) The inconsistent and sometimes non-existent record keeping meant that Mr Dickinson was not assessed as deteriorating until 48 hours before his admission to hospital rather than 5-6 days before he began refusing lunch and evening meal. ”
    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