Recurring concern

Inadequate prison reception safeguards

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 30 Oct 2013•Latest report 9 Feb 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of the prison reception or first-night reception process, including dedicated training, role guidance, template use and transfer or availability of information, where the failure can impair safe reception of prisoners.

Not included

  • Excludes generic staff training deficiencies not tied to prison reception or first-night reception.
  • Excludes failures in later custody processes that do not concern reception or initial induction.
  • Excludes unrelated deficiencies in prison documentation, case management or healthcare unless they directly impair the reception process.
Reports
24

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
38

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2013–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
54

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

HM Prison and Probation Service11
Care UK7
Ministry of Justice7
NHS England5
Pentonville Prison4
GeoAmey PECS Limited2
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust2
Office of the Chief Coroner2
Winchester Prison2
Belmarsh Prison1
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust1
Chelmsford Prison1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Durham Prison1
Family's solicitors1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Gareth Chumber-Kelly · 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

    Gareth Chumber-Kelly died after hanging himself while in custody at HMP Pentonville on 17 July 2023. The report identified concerns about lost or incomplete transfer documentation, inadequate recognition and management of suicide and self-harm risks, insufficient staff training, failures to provide basic life support, and inadequate staffing and support during crucial periods.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inefficiency and slowness of the prison reception process

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The court heard evidence from prison staff that the reception process at HMP Pentonville was inefficient and slow and that paperwork would be sometimes be lost. This creates a risk to the safety and well-being of prisoners as the documentation accompanying the prisoner as they are conveyed to prison may contain (as was the case with Mr Chumber-Kelly) very important information about the prisoners which is relevant to ensuring all appropriate steps and measures are put in place to protect them. The Governor at HMP Pentonville told the court that no steps have been taken to address this recurrent problem, and the risk of important documentation being lost, and there has been no dialogue with Serco to address this issue. ”

    Source location

    Gareth Chumber-Kelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to retain documentation accompanying prisoners during reception

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The court heard evidence from prison staff that the reception process at HMP Pentonville was inefficient and slow and that paperwork would be sometimes be lost. This creates a risk to the safety and well-being of prisoners as the documentation accompanying the prisoner as they are conveyed to prison may contain (as was the case with Mr Chumber-Kelly) very important information about the prisoners which is relevant to ensuring all appropriate steps and measures are put in place to protect them. The Governor at HMP Pentonville told the court that no steps have been taken to address this recurrent problem, and the risk of important documentation being lost, and there has been no dialogue with Serco to address this issue. ”

    Source location

    Gareth Chumber-Kelly · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    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

    Review reception procedures and implement necessary improvements identified through the review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To strengthen oversight of early days in custody, the prison has appointed a Head of Early Days with specific responsibility for the reception function. As part of their remit, they are leading a comprehensive review of reception procedures to identify any aspects, such as documentation handling, that may require improvement and to implement any necessary changes.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    Open published response

    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

    Conduct regular early-days exercises to test reception and induction processes and identify further improvements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition, the group safety team conducts regular early days exercises, which replicate a prisoner’s arrival and induction experience. These assurance activities are used to test the effectiveness and consistency of the reception process in practice, and to identify areas where further improvements may be required. These combined measures are intended to strengthen risk information management, enhance operational oversight, and support continuous improvement of the safety and experience of those entering HMP Pentonville.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    Open published response

    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

    Use a digital induction passport to consolidate, store and share key risk information during reception.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HMP Pentonville has introduced a digital induction passport to consolidate key risk information from paper records into a secure electronic format. This enables relevant information to be accurately captured, stored, and shared between departments, reducing the likelihood of omissions or data loss during the induction process.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    Open published response

    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

    Provide digital Person Escort Records for PECS movements and enable authorised professionals to update them before arrival.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the implementation of the Book a Secure Move (BaSM) system, the PECS Contract Management Team has ensured that digital Person Escort Records (DPERs) are available for all prisoners moved by PECS suppliers between courts, prisons and police stations. Recent system enhancements enable authorised professionals, including medical practitioners and L&D services, to update a prisoner’s DPER directly following assessment. These updates are visible to receiving establishments once the prisoner is booked in from court or prison, prior to arrival.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    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

    Qualified medical professionals and Liaison and Diversion services are responsible for creating, maintaining and transferring healthcare and associated risk information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Prison Escort and Custody Services (PECS) team within HMPPS recognises the importance of the timely and accurate transfer of risk and safeguarding information and treats this as a matter of serious operational priority. Responsibility for the creation, maintenance and clinical transfer of healthcare and associated risk information rests with qualified medical professionals. In this case, Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services are responsible for ensuring that relevant records are effectively shared with receiving prison healthcare teams. The PECS contracts do not place responsibility on PECS suppliers for the physical transfer of hard-copy medical or risk documentation between courts and prisons.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    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

    PECS suppliers are not contractually responsible for physically transferring hard-copy medical or risk documentation between courts and prisons.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Prison Escort and Custody Services (PECS) team within HMPPS recognises the importance of the timely and accurate transfer of risk and safeguarding information and treats this as a matter of serious operational priority. Responsibility for the creation, maintenance and clinical transfer of healthcare and associated risk information rests with qualified medical professionals. In this case, Liaison and Diversion (L&D) services are responsible for ensuring that relevant records are effectively shared with receiving prison healthcare teams. The PECS contracts do not place responsibility on PECS suppliers for the physical transfer of hard-copy medical or risk documentation between courts and prisons.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 2 · response
    Published 12 February 2026

    Open published response
  2. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Steven Roy Davidson · 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

    Steven Roy Davidson died while in prison after a history of self-harm during a previous prison stay. The report identifies concerns that healthcare staff at HMP Chelmsford could not sufficiently navigate or search System One records, or did not sufficiently understand the importance of previous self-harm information when assessing his mental health and risk.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to search clinicians’ records from previous prison stays during Reception Health Screens or mental health needs reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Health Care Staff at HMP Chelmsford say that they are: (i) not able to navigate the System One records sufficiently well to find information about previous incidents of self- harm in prison; and/ or (ii) not sufficiently aware of the importance of searching the records made by clinicians during previous prison stays when conducting Reception Health Screens and/ or reviews of a prisoner’s mental health needs. (iii) May not be sufficiently trained to understand and utilise System One records to find previous history, including incidents of self- harm in custody. ”

    Source location

    Steven Roy Davidson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Deliver structured SystmOne training through induction, refresher training, and equivalent training for long-term agency staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “SystmOne is the NHS electronic patient record system used in prison and custodial healthcare settings across the country. NHS North of England Commissioning Support (NECS) provides training and technical support for users of SystmOne, including system navigation, search functions and information retrieval. HCRG has amended its training provision so that all new staff will now receive structured SystmOne training as part of their induction, provided by NECS and recorded in the mandatory training schedule. This will include guidance on locating clinical information that may be stored in different parts of the system (see further below). Refresher training will also be provided to existing staff within three months and recorded in their personal training record.”

    Source location

    Response from HCRG Care Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 October 2025

    Open published response

    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

    Reinforce through clinical governance that practitioners consider risk-related history, including information beyond the default summary record view.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All Practitioners conducting clinical assessments should, as part of good practice, review relevant patient history when undertaking reception screenings, mental health reviews or risk assessments. In this case, it appears that practitioners focused primarily on Mr Davidson's current presentation rather than reviewing earlier records in depth. HCRG will reinforce through clinical governance that risk-related history should be considered when assessing patients, and that in some cases this may involve searching beyond the default summary record view.”

    Source location

    Response from HCRG Care Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 October 2025

    Open published response

    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

    Expand monthly clinical-note audits to check access to relevant historic information during risk assessments and report findings through governance and quality monitoring.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To ensure that records are being reviewed appropriately, the existing monthly audit of clinical notes will now include specific checks as to whether practitioners have accessed relevant historic information when assessing risk. Findings from the audit will feed into governance meetings and quality and performance monitoring available to NHS England commissioners.”

    Source location

    Response from HCRG Care Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 October 2025

    Open published response

    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

    Embed SystmOne training into governance and supervision processes to support consistent and safe use of the platform.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HCRG’s Performance and Quality teams are embedding SystmOne training into existing governance and supervision processes to ensure consistent and safe use of the platform. Staff may also contact the Performance and Quality Lead if further clarification is needed, either directly or via their line manager.”

    Source location

    Response from HCRG Care Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 October 2025

    Open published response
  3. Nottinghamshire

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Martin GOBELL · 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

    The supplied text does not describe the circumstances or date of Paul Martin Gobell’s death. It raises concerns about the absence of a welfare check and ACCT after a First Night Interview was missed, communication about cell-sharing risk, and the lack of Probation input into an assessment of his suitability for open conditions.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of arrangements for welfare checks when the First Night Interview cannot take place

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Paul Gobell was serving a life sentence for rape. He had served fifteen years in a closed prison, most recently at HMP Prison, Whatton. In August 2021, he was deemed by the Parole Board to be suitable for a move to open conditions and was therefore transferred to HM Prison Hollesley Bay on 20/10/21. He was there for just two and a half weeks. Within a few hours of his return to HM Prison, Whatton on 04/11/21 he was subject to a Control & Restraint incident. His behaviour at this time was reported to be refractory and aggressive. During the incident he received a soft tissue injury which necessitated a trip to the A&E department at the local hospital. As a result, the usual First Night Interview did not take place that evening, nor on the following day. As a result there was no welfare check and no ACCT was opened. There is no national or local policy in place stating what arrangements should be made to carry out a welfare check when, for operational reasons, the First Night Interview cannot take place. ”

    Source location

    Paul Martin GOBELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    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

    Update the induction policy to require late-arrivals forms when normal induction cannot be facilitated.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All prisons have well established first night induction processes and policies in place to ensure that prisoners receive appropriate care when entering prison custody. Welfare checks and conversations form part of this process and, in most cases, prisoners coming into reception are inducted in line with existing national and local policies. However, there may be exceptional circumstances when this does not happen, such as in the situation you have described involving Mr Gobell. HMP Whatton will update their Induction policy so that, when a normal induction cannot be facilitated, the prisoner will be asked to complete the “late arrivals form.” This form asks the prisoner to provide information that can then be used to consider the prisoner’s welfare until a face-to-face interview can be conducted.”

    Source location

    Response from HMPPS
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 January 2025

    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 published Expectations cover the identified prison safety issues, which inspectors will consider during inspections and follow up as appropriate.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against published inspection criteria known as Expectations. The Inspectorate sets its own inspection criteria to ensure transparency and independence. Many of the issues highlighted in your report are covered via our Expectations, and therefore matters which our inspectors will consider on each inspection. For example, in relation to first night interviews, one of our safety expectations states:”

    Source location

    Response from HMIP
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 January 2025

    Open published response
  4. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    Joseph Andrew Price · 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

    Joseph Andrew Price was found dead in his cell at HMP Durham on 20 September 2020, after being remanded there ten days earlier. The pathologist concluded that the medical cause of death was Sudden Cardiac Death, following evidence of a paternal family history of premature cardiac-related deaths. The principal concern was that this family history had not been recorded or elicited during healthcare assessments, making it unavailable to inform possible genetic screening; symptoms before death were also potentially confusable with drug withdrawal and mental or emotional distress.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ask about family history of sudden cardiac death during reception health screening

    Wider context from the report

    “The best, in some cases the only, way to predict a pre-disposition to a death of this nature is by reference to family medical history of such, or similar, occurrences. Once this is known, the person can then be referred for genetic screening. Sadly, in Andrew`s case no one in healthcare, some of whom had been familiar with him for years from previous terms of imprisonment, had any knowledge of the family history, as it did not feature on system one, and Andrew had never volunteered it. Equally, he had never been asked about it. This is not a criticism, simply a statement of fact made starkly relevant by the circumstances, unusual though they are. The head of healthcare at HMP Durham gave evidence, when asked directly by me, that provision for a question in the reception health screen template about any family history of sudden cardiac death could help to prevent deaths of this kind recurring at the prison. She, with the health care provider for HMP Durham (Spectrum Community Health), has helpfully and very pro-actively put this into immediate effect locally (at HMP Durham and those other prisons covered by the health care provider). Specifically, the second health screen template (see attached - at pages 7 and 8) now shows that a question with regards family history (FH) of a ‘FH: Cardiac Disorder (incl. Sudden Cardiac Death)’ has been added to the second reception screen. The updating of the first reception health screen template is currently in hand. ”

    Source location

    Joseph Andrew Price · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Refresh the secondary health screening template to add a specific prompt about family history of sudden cardiac death.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to your concern raised over a lack of appropriate read code for sudden cardiac death, there is no specific read code for sudden death syndrome on any clinical system, which is likely due to the fact there is no evidence to screen for it. NHS England is however refreshing the secondary health screening template to include a specific prompt for users to ask relevant questions relating to family history.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 January 2023

    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

    No specific read code for sudden death syndrome is provided because there is no evidence supporting screening for the condition.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In relation to your concern raised over a lack of appropriate read code for sudden cardiac death, there is no specific read code for sudden death syndrome on any clinical system, which is likely due to the fact there is no evidence to screen for it. NHS England is however refreshing the secondary health screening template to include a specific prompt for users to ask relevant questions relating to family history.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS England
    Page 2 · response
    Published 24 January 2023

    Open published response
  5. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Anthony John Larcher · 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

    On 21 March 2018, Anthony John Larcher, a serving prisoner at HMP Guys Marsh, was found in his cell. The report identifies concerns about monitoring prisoners under the influence of psychoactive substances, the lack of round-the-clock healthcare, healthcare involvement in ACCT reviews, the accessibility of medical information, and the reception of prisoners arriving in large cohorts.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify prisoners’ health information during large-cohort reception

    Wider context from the report

    “v. I have concerns with the movement of prisoners around the prison estate in large cohorts as it could result in information regarding a prisoner’s health not being identified which could result in a lack of healthcare provision to the prisoner which could result in a future death. I therefore request that consideration be given to the review of the processes when large cohorts are received at prisons and the resources available to prison and healthcare staff prior to the arrival of the prisoner and during the progression of the prisoners through the reception process. ”

    Source location

    Anthony John Larcher · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 5 · concerns

    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

    Maintain prison-specific SystmOne templates and prescribing modules adapted for secure healthcare settings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. Consideration is given to adapting SystmOne for better use in prisons to ensure information, especially where there are complex care needs, is easily assessable (sic) and highlighted to avoid crucial information regarding a patient’s care and safety being missed.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response

    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

    Provide reception healthcare staff access to digital person escort records before arrivals to identify risks and support correct reception processes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Progress in this area has already been made. Digital Person escort record (DPER) has been live across the prison estate since November 2020. All reception healthcare staff should have access to the DPER prior to arrival of persons at the site. This platform highlights risks pertaining to patients arriving and can be used to ensure the correct processes are followed at reception for healthcare teams.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response

    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

    Review and update healthcare reception and secondary-screening templates, then apply lessons learned across the male estate.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Further I can confirm that a review and update of the reception and secondary screening templates for healthcare is ongoing, and this is primarily within the female estate at present. This programme of work package will conclude by April 2022 and then, using lessons learned, the same system will be applied to the male estate during 2022.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement_Published
    Page 3 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response

    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

    Transfer prisoners in smaller numbers as pandemic-related exceptional delivery measures are withdrawn.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The third concern you have raised is that, as a result of the pandemic, prisoners have been arriving into prisons in large cohorts and this has put additional pressure on the reception procedures for prison and healthcare staff. While I recognise that this added to the pressures on staff assessing prisoners coming into prison, this has been necessary in order to keep prisoners safe, manage infection rates in line with public health advice, and to ensure that prisoners are receiving as full a regime as possible. This has only been possible through a cohort of prisoners arriving into prisons at the same time to begin a period of reverse cohorting together. As we begin to move away from the exceptional delivery measures, efforts are being made to transfer prisoners in smaller numbers and the aim is to return to standard delivery as was in place pre-pandemic.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-HMPPS_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response

    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

    Adopt GP2GP to enable electronic transfer of patient records into HJIS when patients enter the detained estate.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “8) Additionally, NHS Digital is currently supporting HJIS in the following related ways, and considers that these activities will also support improved access to a patient’s medical records within the HMPPS estate and between this and wider primary care:”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-Digital_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    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

    The bespoke prison SystmOne module, templates and integrated summary care record are considered adequate existing adaptations for accessing and highlighting relevant patient information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “4. Consideration is given to adapting SystmOne for better use in prisons to ensure information, especially where there are complex care needs, is easily assessable (sic) and highlighted to avoid crucial information regarding a patient’s care and safety being missed.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-England-and-NHS-Improvement_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    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

    Healthcare matters in the prison estate are commissioned by NHS England and Improvement, which has already provided a response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSEI) is responsible for the commissioning of healthcare for the prison estate. I am aware that NHSEI has provided a response to you on the matters of concern in your report relating to healthcare. I will not repeat the detail of that response. However, I offer the following comments.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-Department-of-Health-Social-Care_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    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

    Matters of concern i, ii, iii and v do not relate to NHS Digital, so it has no comment on them.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We do not consider that matters of concern i, ii, iii or v relate to NHS Digital and thus have no comment on these.”

    Source location

    2021-0356-Response-from-NHS-Digital_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response
  6. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew Patrick Jones · 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

    Andrew Patrick Jones, a 37-year-old male prisoner, died after being transferred from a vulnerable-prisoner wing, unlawfully segregated and deprived of healthcare assessment, basic amenities and prescribed medication. The report identified concerns about inadequate risk assessment and communication, the absence of effective personal-officer support and transfer protocols, inconsistent medication systems, unlawful segregation, and failures relating to adjudication and monitoring. The expert psychiatric evidence stated that these factors created the “perfect storm”, and the jury concluded that the prison regime contributed to the death and added a rider of Neglect.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to interview transferred prisoners and provide distraction materials on reception

    Wider context from the report

    “Finally, although SO ████████, the SO on C Wing would have liked more information, he neither asked the transferring wing SO for this nor interviewed Andrew Jones when he arrived on C Wing. No adequate interview was undertaken on C Wing of Andrew Jones before his death despite the fact he was segregated nor were any distraction materials provided. ”

    Source location

    Andrew Patrick Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report
  7. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    John Wright · 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 Wright, aged 32, died at Bullingdon Prison on 15 December 2017 after being found partially suspended by an electrical cable in his cell. He had expressed suicidal thoughts and had previously been kept on constant watch, but observations were reduced to twice hourly during reception. The concerns relate to the receipt and sharing of information about heightened suicide risk and the guidance and decision-making processes for reducing observation levels.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the pre-arrival process to ensure receipt of high-risk self-harm or suicide information

    Wider context from the report

    “The first concern which I raise applies to both the prison and healthcare and relates to the receipt of information by the prison and/or healthcare about a heightened risk of self-harm/suicide for a prisoner who has yet to arrive at prison. I heard evidence that it is not uncommon for outside agencies to pass on concerns, and, for example, copies of relevant mental health assessments, in anticipation of the prisoner arriving at the prison in a state of heightened risk requiring help and assessment. I also heard evidence that the software system operated by healthcare (System One) does not enable healthcare staff to make entries prior to the prisoner being received at reception and a prison officer opening a record on the computer and allocating a prisoner number. This being the case, I understand that the practice has been to email or print a hard copy of the document and take it to reception. In this case, a mental health nurse who was part of the secondary mental health team received a report about heightened risk and telephoned the nurse in reception to pass on details. The secondary mental health nurse said in evidence she would normally take a hard copy of the mental health assessment that she received and place it in a tray in reception. There was an alternative of emailing, but this was not considered the best way to bring it to the attention of the relevant healthcare staff in reception. Of course, information about an incoming prisoner, who is assessed at high risk of suicide, is precisely the sort of important information which should not be allowed to fall through any gaps. It is high priority. An outside person or agency has considered it necessary to bring the matter to the attention of the prison or health care. I understand that Care UK have set up a generic email address for healthcare staff in reception which may assist. Clearly, this still relies on healthcare staff checking to see if any such emails have been received. I appreciate that it is very busy in reception in the late afternoon/early evening. ”

    Source location

    John Wright · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of guidance for reducing observations of newly arrived prisoners from constant watch

    Wider context from the report

    “The second matter I wish to raise, also to the prison and healthcare, is in relation to the level of observations. I heard evidence that this is often a joint responsibility held by the prison and healthcare. In this case, Mr Wright had been on constant watch, but a decision was taken during the reception process to step down to twice hourly observations. Given that staff may not have access to all available information in those first few hours, and the fact that there will not have been an opportunity for a prisoner to be observed over a significant period of time, and the fact that a more detailed assessment will not have taken place yet, there should in my view be some guidance to staff when reducing observations from constant watch. I note that the Prison and Probation Ombudsman stated at the beginning of her report that ……. ‘Mr Wright had been under constant watch by police and court staff because he said he wanted to take his life at the earliest opportunity. Although prison staff started suicide and self-harm prevention procedures when Mr Wright arrived at Bullingdon, they reduced the level of observations from constant to twice an hour. In my view, this decision was misjudged and taken far too quickly, without a proper assessment of Mr Wright’s risk.’ I appreciate there is a great deal of responsibility on prison and healthcare staff when making assessments. Much depends on how they assess the prisoner in front of them. It may be appropriate to reduce a newly arrived prisoner from constant cell watch to less frequent observations on occasions. The concern which I raise relates to such decisions being made in reception and I enquire if there should be some guidance available to assist staff in their decision-making process? For example, should such a decision be postponed until a further assessment has been carried out the following day? I realise that this issue is not straightforward and there are significant resource implications in keeping a prisoner under constant watch. ”

    Source location

    John Wright · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure that reception staff have access to all available prisoner information

    Wider context from the report

    “There is a related concern about the availability and sharing of such information or documentation amongst prison or health care staff in reception. From the evidence I heard at inquest, it appeared to me that the system for ensuring the staff in reception have access to all available information is in need of improvement. The senior prison officer in this case did not have all relevant information and she said that, if she had, there may have potentially been a different decision (I understand her to mean that Mr Wright may have remained on constant cell watch). I understand the Governor has created a position of ‘Head of Early Days’ and a system is in place to improve the process of documentation so that it follows the prisoner. ”

    Source location

    John Wright · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Implement a reception communication process using direct telephone alerts, secure email, acknowledgement and routine inbox checks for incoming patient risk information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “A new process flow has been developed in partnership with the Liaison and Diversion team which specifies how to contact and share risk and special care needs information of patients from Police Custody (Via Court) to HMP Bullingdon Healthcare in Reception. The new process provides a direct telephone number to the Reception nurse from 08.00 to 20.45 Monday to Friday and 08.00-17.00 on Saturdays. The process flow now advises if there is no answer via telephone, the Reception nurse should be contacted via the prison communications room who will contact the nurse via their prison radio. Outside of these times detailed above, the prison communications team can contact the senior nurse on duty.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-CARE-UK
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Provide NHS email accounts to all reception staff, including agency staff, to securely access incoming risk information.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All staff, including agency staff, who work in Reception have been provided with an nhs.net email account to securely access the risk information in the email. In agreement with the Liaison and Diversion service this new system went live on 25th April 2019. The requirement of a prompt made via telephone which is clearly outlined in the new process flowchart, will provide assurance to Liaison and Diversion services that their information has been effectively communicated and received by Reception staff. A copy of the process is attached.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-CARE-UK
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Remind escort contractors to alert reception staff when constant supervision preceded a prisoner’s arrival.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to your second concern, setting the appropriate level of observations for a prisoner who has been identified as being at risk is a difficult decision, and we have recently issued a learning bulletin to all prisons providing guidance about the issues to consider when making it. At HMP Bullingdon, the Governor has reminded the escort contractors of the importance of alerting reception staff in all cases in which constant supervision has been in place prior to a prisoner’s arrival. In all such cases the process is that the duty governor is informed and all documentation is studied to establish definitively the level of observations to which the prisoner has been subject, in order to avoid confusion over different organisational terminology.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Remind reception staff to share and record risk information on prisoner passports, and audit passport recording and use.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All staff working in reception have been reminded of the importance of sharing risk information and ensuring that it is recorded on the prisoner passport. The first night custodial manager conducts regular audits of the prisoner passports to ensure that relevant information is being recorded, and that the document is being seen and used by staff working in reception.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Train staff to comply with PSI 64/2011 requirements for managing prisoners at risk of harm.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All staff are trained to adhere to the requirements of PSI 64/2011, Management of Prisoners at risk of harm to self, to others and from others. The PSI specifies that staff should be trained at least every three years. In addition, Care UK have substantially consolidated this training with it’s PROTECT initiative which upholds standards to protect patients and maintain safety, including thoroughly assessing all patients and proactive involvement with the ACCT process. A copy of the PROTECT initiative is attached.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-CARE-UK
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Consolidate self-harm and suicide-risk training through the PROTECT initiative, including comprehensive patient assessment and proactive ACCT involvement.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All staff are trained to adhere to the requirements of PSI 64/2011, Management of Prisoners at risk of harm to self, to others and from others. The PSI specifies that staff should be trained at least every three years. In addition, Care UK have substantially consolidated this training with it’s PROTECT initiative which upholds standards to protect patients and maintain safety, including thoroughly assessing all patients and proactive involvement with the ACCT process. A copy of the PROTECT initiative is attached.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-CARE-UK
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Provide internationally accredited ASIST training to all patient-facing staff to improve identification and management of suicide risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Staff meetings are held every two weeks to continue to improve and share knowledge and lessons learned regarding the management of prisoners in custody. Currently HMPPS are providing specialist HMPPS training for both healthcare and discipline staff; “Understanding Risk: Why is Risk Risky?” and “Defensible Decision Making”, both of which seek to reinforce rational and appropriate decisions when applying the ACCT process and understanding suicide risk. Care UK are providing ASIST - Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training, which is an internationally accredited and licensed 2-day course to all patient-facing staff to increase their confidence in identifying suicide risk. This improved learning, supported by SASH training will better inform decision making in all cases, including those cases where removal from constant watch is being considered.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-CARE-UK
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Issue a national learning bulletin guiding prisons on setting observation levels for prisoners at risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to your second concern, setting the appropriate level of observations for a prisoner who has been identified as being at risk is a difficult decision, and we have recently issued a learning bulletin to all prisons providing guidance about the issues to consider when making it. At HMP Bullingdon, the Governor has reminded the escort contractors of the importance of alerting reception staff in all cases in which constant supervision has been in place prior to a prisoner’s arrival. In all such cases the process is that the duty governor is informed and all documentation is studied to establish definitively the level of observations to which the prisoner has been subject, in order to avoid confusion over different organisational terminology.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Require duty governors to establish prior observation levels from documentation when constant supervision preceded arrival.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regard to your second concern, setting the appropriate level of observations for a prisoner who has been identified as being at risk is a difficult decision, and we have recently issued a learning bulletin to all prisons providing guidance about the issues to consider when making it. At HMP Bullingdon, the Governor has reminded the escort contractors of the importance of alerting reception staff in all cases in which constant supervision has been in place prior to a prisoner’s arrival. In all such cases the process is that the duty governor is informed and all documentation is studied to establish definitively the level of observations to which the prisoner has been subject, in order to avoid confusion over different organisational terminology.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Open an ACCT and require multidisciplinary review before reducing observations, recording decisions in the ACCT document.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In all cases in which constant supervision has been in place, an Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) is opened and any decision to reduce the level of observations will be taken at a multidisciplinary case review (including the Duty Governor, a nurse and a member of prison staff, as well as the prisoner) and recorded in the ACCT document. All duty governors have been briefed and will frequently be reminded that decisions about the use of constant supervision should be based on the level of risk and must not be affected by resource constraints.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response

    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

    Brief duty governors that observation decisions must be risk-based and unaffected by resource constraints, with continuing reminders.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In all cases in which constant supervision has been in place, an Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) is opened and any decision to reduce the level of observations will be taken at a multidisciplinary case review (including the Duty Governor, a nurse and a member of prison staff, as well as the prisoner) and recorded in the ACCT document. All duty governors have been briefed and will frequently be reminded that decisions about the use of constant supervision should be based on the level of risk and must not be affected by resource constraints.”

    Source location

    2019-0175-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 August 2019

    Open published response
  8. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Andrew Stephen Carr · 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

    Andrew Stephen Carr, a prisoner, was found unresponsive in his cell on 29 March 2018 and was pronounced dead at 22:53 after attempts to revive him were unsuccessful. The medical cause of death was recorded as the effects of a synthetic cannabinoid. Concerns included failures to identify and record information about his prior substance use, the known use of the prison plumbing system to pass drugs, and the role of contraband mobile phones in substance misuse.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to review information about prisoners entering the prison

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The inquest heard evidence that before his transfer to Birmingham prison on 19/02/18 Andrew had been involved in 4 incidents of taking psychoactive substances resulting in a code blue being called. In addition there was intelligence that he may be giving out drugs. This information was available and passed onto Birmingham Prison - however they were not aware of it and did not record the information. The inquest heard that there was no time to review information of prisoners coming into the prison. This is a major concern as key information may not be identified and this poses a risk to the individual and other prisoners. ”

    Source location

    Andrew Stephen Carr · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  9. Lancashire

    AI-generated summary

    John Martin Chapman · 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 Martin Chapman was transferred to HMP Wymott on 23 January 2014, and information about two previous self-harm or threatened self-harm incidents was not passed to the reception nurse. He was found hanging in his cell on 21 March 2014; the inquest concluded that he died as a result of accidental hanging. The report identified concerns about the lack of a formal mechanism for sharing relevant self-harm and welfare information between prison and healthcare staff during reception.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to routinely share prisoner self-harm and well-being information with reception healthcare staff

    Wider context from the report

    “1. TO THE GOVERNOR HMP WYмott Although evidence was heard to the effect that currently at reception at HMP Wymott the CNomis entries relating to a newly arrived prisoner are scrutinised by prison reception staff to ascertain whether there are any self-harm or welfare alerts, it did not appear that a direction exists to pass relevant information to the nurse carrying out the reception medical screen. 2. TO THE GOVERNOR AND HEAD OF HEALTHCARE There does not appear to be a mechanism at reception whereby information relevant to the self-harm or well-being of a prisoner is routinely shared by prison staff with medical staff carrying out a reception medical screen including alerts on the CNomis system. As a result, there appears to be a danger that significant alerts concerning a prisoner might not come to the attention of the reception nurse to enable the nurse to take appropriate action and make relevant entries within the medical records. Those in authority, giving evidence on behalf of the prison and healthcare on the subject of reception practice, saw merit in there being a formal procedure agreed between prison discipline staff on the one hand and healthcare staff on the other, for the sharing of information relevant to a prisoner’s well-being, and for this to be accomplished promptly. ”

    Source location

    John Martin Chapman · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    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

    Provide reception staff with PSI 07/2015, require them to read and comply with it, and monitor completion through performance records.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Every member of staff in reception at HMP Preston has been provided with a copy of the PSI and set an objective to read and comply with it in their Staff Performance and Development Record. Line managers will monitor the achievement of this objective. Copies of the PSI are also available in the reception area.”

    Source location

    2018-0007-Response-by-HM-Prison-and-Probation-Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 7 March 2018

    Open published response

    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

    Routinely pass PER forms to the reception nurse and require documentation in SystemOne that each form was received and considered.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you note in your report, you were advised during the inquest that the prison and healthcare intended to hold a meeting to discuss ways in which the sharing of information during the reception process might be improved. I can advise you that this meeting took place recently on March 1st. As a result of the meeting between the prison and healthcare it has been agreed that henceforth PER forms will be passed to the reception nurse as a matter of routine and the nurse must then document within the SystemOne record that the form has been received and considered. It is hoped that this “check” may be incorporated into the record system, as part of the existing reception health screen template, and this possibility is currently being explored. Thank you once again for bringing your concern to my attention.”

    Source location

    2018-0007-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 March 2018

    Open published response

    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

    Explore incorporating a PER-form receipt check into the existing reception health-screen template.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you note in your report, you were advised during the inquest that the prison and healthcare intended to hold a meeting to discuss ways in which the sharing of information during the reception process might be improved. I can advise you that this meeting took place recently on March 1st. As a result of the meeting between the prison and healthcare it has been agreed that henceforth PER forms will be passed to the reception nurse as a matter of routine and the nurse must then document within the SystemOne record that the form has been received and considered. It is hoped that this “check” may be incorporated into the record system, as part of the existing reception health screen template, and this possibility is currently being explored. Thank you once again for bringing your concern to my attention.”

    Source location

    2018-0007-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 March 2018

    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

    CNomis is not managed by healthcare, and reception nurses are not routinely granted access to it.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As a result there appears to be a danger that significant alerts concerning a prisoner might not come to the attention of the reception nurse” It is, of course, recognised that it is important to share relevant information and the reception nurse would expect prison officers always to communicate any significant information regarding risk or welfare of which they were aware – whether this be contained in a PER document, on CNomis, or otherwise. As you were made aware during the inquest, it was not the practice, at the time, for the PER document to be passed by prison officers to the reception nurse and, regards CNomis, this is not a system managed by healthcare and nurses are not routinely granted access to it.”

    Source location

    2018-0007-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 7 March 2018

    Open published response
  10. Preston and West Lancashire

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Talbot · 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

    Christopher Talbot, a prisoner at Preston Prison, was found with a plastic bag over his head after being identified as vulnerable and at risk of suicide. Resuscitation initially restored breathing and cardiac output, but he later died in hospital. Concerns included inadequate reception training, the absence of a breathing guard during resuscitation, insufficient sharing of information about similar deaths, and failures to request immediate assistance and maintain constant observation.

    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.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of formal training in reception duties

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The Supervising Officer on duty at Reception when Mr Talbot arrived had never received training in her duties but merely gained experience by shadowing another officer. It did not appear that any written material was provided so as to inform her of her duties, including the PSI “Early Days In Custody, Reception In, First Night In Custody And Induction To Custody” or a guidance document summarising the main provisions of the PSI. Lack of such written material and reliance solely on shadowing as a means of training might bring about a position where bad habits are proliferated or important considerations missed. ”

    Source location

    Christopher Talbot · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of written material informing reception officers of their duties

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The Supervising Officer on duty at Reception when Mr Talbot arrived had never received training in her duties but merely gained experience by shadowing another officer. It did not appear that any written material was provided so as to inform her of her duties, including the PSI “Early Days In Custody, Reception In, First Night In Custody And Induction To Custody” or a guidance document summarising the main provisions of the PSI. Lack of such written material and reliance solely on shadowing as a means of training might bring about a position where bad habits are proliferated or important considerations missed. ”

    Source location

    Christopher Talbot · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026