Sunrise Medical Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Sep 2014•Latest report 18 Sep 2014

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
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

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

  1. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    MARJORIE PHILLIPS · 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

    Marjorie Phillips, aged 82, fell from a hoist while being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair and landed on its metal supporting legs. She died several days later from resultant pneumonia. Concerns included possible sling design issues, lifting her with only one staff member present, inadequate adherence to hoist training, and unclear arrangements for calling emergency services, which delayed her transfer to hospital.

    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 Sunrise Medical Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure staff understand and follow hoist safety training

    Wider context from the report

    “In-house training is given to the staff at Faversham Nursing Home in connection with matters relating to Health and Safety. It was apparent that the staff had not heeded the training or had not fully understood its to the use of hoists. The training was said to include the fact that no-one should be lifted in a hoist when only one staff member was present. This was clearly not the case when Mrs Phillips was lifted.(FOR FAVERSHAM NURSING HOME) ”
    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 Sunrise Medical Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Tendency of sling material to bag at the sides

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the evidence I heard from an Inspector of the Health and Safety Executive that the sling had a tendency to “bagging” at the sides and if Mrs Phillips had leant her weight over to one side of the sling, this combined with the tendency of the sling material to “bag” might have allowed her to fall from the hoist.(FOR SUNRISE MEDICAL LIMITED) ”
    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 Sunrise Medical Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clear guidance on calling emergency services and decision-making authority

    Wider context from the report

    “When a very serious untoward incident had occurred and Mrs Phillips had fallen and was in obvious severe pain, there was no clear guidance as to how the emergency services should be called and by whom that decision could be taken. This resulted in her not being taken to hospital as quickly as should have been the case.(FOR FAVERSHAM NURSING HOME) ”
    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

    Publish a model-specific Sunrise hoist instruction manual containing sling safety, maintenance and operation guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The second IFU is the document in relation to Sunrise hoists. On the rear cover of the document you can see that the document was published as recently as July 2014. Page 1 starts with a clear advice that the equipment is not operated until the instruction manual has been read and understood. On the same page the reader / operator / customer is assured that Sunrise hold the CE mark and that the hoists meet a total of four CE directives. At the bottom of the same page specific reference is made to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). Safety instructions are clearly set out in easy to understand language at paragraph 3, page 3 with further guidance and illustrations at paragraph 9, page 7.”

    Source location

    2014-0413-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 September 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    If the hoist was an Oxford model no longer supplied, no action can be taken by the supplier.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The first IFU relates to the Oxford hoist which is no longer supplied by Sunrise Medical Ltd. It is submitted that if the IFU is a comprehensive document which at regular interval refers to safety precautions and bulletins helpful “do’s” and “don’ts”, specific references are made to the sling, maintenance of the same and operation of the hoist only with approved slings. On the basis that these hoists are no longer supplied by Sunrise Medical Ltd, it is submitted that if this was the hoist in question, no action can be taken by our client.”

    Source location

    2014-0413-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 September 2014

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing comprehensive instructions address equipment purchase, maintenance and operation, so no further action is proposed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The second IFU is the document in relation to Sunrise hoists. On the rear cover of the document you can see that the document was published as recently as July 2014. Page 1 starts with a clear advice that the equipment is not operated until the instruction manual has been read and understood. On the same page the reader / operator / customer is assured that Sunrise hold the CE mark and that the hoists meet a total of four CE directives. At the bottom of the same page specific reference is made to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). Safety instructions are clearly set out in easy to understand language at paragraph 3, page 3 with further guidance and illustrations at paragraph 9, page 7.”

    Source location

    2014-0413-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 September 2014

    Open published response
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