COMPLIANCE
standard, nor do they close the compliance gap – they simply mask the risk. The decision to retrofit beds to meet the standard is not due to wilful neglect, but a lack of awareness or availability of viable alternatives.
The pressure on EBME teams This highlights another key issue that EBME teams face: the constant pressure to balance clinical demands with financial constraints. Nursing staff understandably push for updated equipment, but EBME departments are left juggling the cost of maintaining ageing assets versus replacing them outright, all under the close scrutiny of procurement teams. Budgets are consistently tight, and funding requests are often blocked without clear evidence of compliance gaps or long-term value. A major challenge lies in the lack of up-to-date asset registers, particularly where equipment has been purchased without EBME involvement. This results in poor visibility of product safety status, regulatory compliance, and part availability if a device fails. That is why it is imperative to support Trusts not only with product supply but with training and department-wide communications so staff teams understand long-term cost savings and how to use equipment to its best potential, along with providing detailed parts lists, service costings, and supporting asset registers and drafting business cases to procurement when needed. Our number one aim is to reduce the burden on stretched departments by delivering not just safer products but the insight and tools to manage them strategically. That said, the bottom line remains – without beds specifically designed for paediatric care, hospitals cannot confidently say they are meeting modern safety expectations for paediatric patients. And meanwhile, entrapment and falls injuries linked to unfit bed frames still occur when they are entirely preventable.
Setting the standard The wider context highlights a fundamental limitation of the standard itself – as it does not always translate effectively into real-world clinical settings. That is why we ensure that our products are independently verified against standards like EN 50637:2017, providing NHS Trusts with genuine, proven compliance. For example, in typical hospital beds,
side rails can be lowered by patients, often from inside the bed. This creates a major fall risk, especially for children or patients with cognitive challenges. However, our two-stage side rail lowering mechanism requires two separate actions to lower the rail – impossible to execute
98
by a patient lying in bed, but fast and fluid for a trained clinician. It is a smarter, more secure system that protects the patient without slowing staff down. Similarly, our solutions for infants are not only independently verified to meet the latest safety standards – including those governing side rail height – but go further, with design features that support early bonding between mother and newborn, such as side rails that drop vertically to allow safe, side-by-side contact, similar to popular ‘next-to-me’ cribs used at home, creating a sense of continuity for new parents and encouraging rooming-in where appropriate. This design is especially beneficial for mothers recovering from C-sections, who may struggle to reach into traditional crib styles.
More than compliance: solving real NHS problems A recent UNISON survey found that on 69 per cent of shifts, there were not enough nursing staff to deliver what clinical staff consider safe patient care – a significant rise from 63 per cent last year. This clearly illustrates the intense
pressure on wards across the NHS and underscores why equipping staff with smarter, safer technology is not just desirable, but essential to closing clinical safety gaps. With clinical teams drastically overstretched, steps like this safeguard staff and futureproof the NHS. Not only that, investing in better equipment delivers long-term savings for the NHS. When patients avoid hospital-acquired injuries like falls or entrapment caused by unfit equipment they recover faster, require less intervention, and are
discharged sooner, reducing overall care costs. To truly make a difference, it means thinking beyond tick-box compliance and creating smarter tools that actively support staff, enhance patient outcomes, and integrate seamlessly into clinical workflows.
Supporting Trusts long-term is also a
solution to dissipating this pressure. More than ever, NHS teams require suppliers who offer ongoing partnership, not just one-off transactions. Simply delivering equipment is no longer enough. With clinical time stretched and operational resources under scrutiny, Trusts need assurance that suppliers are proactively helping them maintain safety, compliance and cost-efficiency over the product’s full life cycle. This is where ongoing support such as auditing, service and maintenance, decontamination, and training become indispensable. Without accurate asset registers, Trusts risk costly equipment duplication and have no strategic view for replacement planning. Without structured maintenance, downtime rises and product lifespan shortens. For clinical teams, a lack of education and intuitive tools leaves frontline staff underprepared to use equipment safely and effectively, adding pressure to already stretched teams. Without connected technologies to
track usage and location data, administrative burden increases, visibility is lost, and the silent risks of non- compliance persist. These gaps are not minor – they directly impact patient safety, staff wellbeing, and financial sustainability. That is why wraparound support is not just a nice-to-have – it is crucial. Done well, it ensures equipment performs better, lasts longer, and delivers meaningful value; relieving pressure not
IFHE DIGEST 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
