I've dealt with electrically adjustable massage tables before (which I'm guessing are extremely similar) and if I remember rightly they don't fall under LOLER as they're not defined lifting equipment. I seem to recall them not being lifting equipment as the lifting was not the primary function of their operation.

I agree with the above, not LOLER. This is the key point to assess, and it's why pallet inverters, manual pallet trucks, non-double stacking electic pallet trucks etc. are not covered by LOLER.

Dentist Chairs are excluded from LOLER. Logic dictates hospital beds be excluded too.

Within our care premises, we do not follow LOLER for our height adjustable beds, changing plinths, riser chairs, etc. However, as others have noted following PUWER makes good sense as it needs to be maintained in good working order to manage the associated M&H risks.

RP whats the other function than just up or Down which therefore applies it to Loler. A Lift goes just goes up and down unless youve watched the original Willy Wonka film (Tongue in Cheek)! ATB Steve Can anyone tell me what the difference is between a Scissor lift and a mortuary trolley under Loler as Im stumped because technically a Mortuary trolley is a mini scissor lift.

Jay I appreciate the risk level issue and is why I am somewhat confused. Unfortunately their is empirical evidence of serious accidents involving patients and bed failure. Interesting enough an email from a colleague received a communication from Undertakers in that their trolleys are covered by Loler but Im hard pressed to see the significant risk as the deceased is classed for loler puposes as a non person (inanimate object). I ask the question again a Mortuary trolley is a sissor lift by any other name True or false? A Kings fund bed or electric profile bed uses the same or very similar mechanisms to lift to height. Therefore is this not covered under Loler?By the very nature the regs distinguish between lifting an object (inanimate load) and a person for period of Inspection and testing!

The design and name is irrelevant. The guidance asks us to a) consider the risk level and b) consider the primary function of the device. The mortuary trolley is clearly primirarily designed for the storage and transportation of bodies, as a secondary function it can lift and lower. As lifting is not its main purpose, it does not require inspection under LOLER. Same argument, it is irrelevant about design, it's primary function has already been discussed and that is not the lifting or lowering of an object / person, therefore it does not require inspection under LOLER. A seperate argument would be on the level of risk associated with faliure of the lfiting mechanism, but this is completely different to comparing beds to scissor lift etc. and would consider the bed / trolley on it's own and the level of risk associated with faliure (not what your question was about).