Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information
First to latest report 21 Oct 2013 — 17 Mar 2026
Reports that mention this concern
34
Times this concern has been raised
40
Stated actions linked to this concern
65
What this concern includes
Includes failures in police force control, incident, custody or inter-force communications where relevant risk or safety information is not reliably shared with attending personnel or partner services, including the anchor's omission of recent s136 detention information and failures to pass complete incident information to attending officers.
What is not included
Excludes generic clinical, social-care or non-police handover and documentation failures unless they are explicitly part of a police operational communication pathway.
Excludes failures concerning the content, training or policy of a police process where communication of safety-critical information is not itself the shared unsafe condition.
Excludes generic information-technology, staffing or supervision deficiencies that are not explicitly tied to the reliability of police operational communications.
Excludes communications about non-safety-critical administrative information.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, 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.
Department of Health and Social Care7
Metropolitan Police Service7
Home Office6
National Police Chiefs’ Council6
College of Policing5
West Midlands Police5
Crown Prosecution Service2
Devon & Cornwall Police2
Greater Manchester Police2
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
Ministry of Justice2
NHS England2
Northumbria Police2
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust2
South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust2
Police force25
NHS trust12
National policing body10
Ministerial department9
English county council2
English metropolitan district council2
Executive non-departmental public body2
Mayoral policing body2
Non-ministerial department2
English unitary authority1
Executive agency1
Fire and rescue service1
Healthcare site1
Health-system partnership1
Higher education regulator1
Reports and published responses 34 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Failure to pass relevant incident and vulnerability information to ambulance and hospital staff
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Metropolitan Police Service
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Metropolitan Police Service
Improve officers’ sharing of vital incident information with colleagues, ambulance crews and medical staff.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure to share complete relevant information between police and CPS
This report raised 21 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
CPS North West
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
CPS North West
Re-issue guidance to CPS Direct prosecutors requiring MG3 records to include details of relevant police conversations.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
CPS North West
The police are responsible for complying with prosecutor action plans and providing further evidence, material or information within agreed periods.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Other named respondents are responsible for addressing the coroner’s concerns; this response covers only broader learning-sharing issues within its remit.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Sunderland
Concerns raised1
Failure to share relevant police information with Probation
This report raised 8 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
HM Prison and Probation Service
Northumbria Police
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Northumbria Police
Operate the MK-flag and MASH process to queue relevant offender-record changes, share information with NPS, and retain emails for audit.
Northumbria Police
Update Category 2 Level 1 offender warning screens with instructions requiring officers to share risk-relevant information with the relevant probation area.
Northumbria Police
Disseminate force-wide bulletins informing and reinforcing officers’ responsibility to share relevant information with NPS.
Northumbria Police
Add newly notified Category 2 Level 1 offenders to Northumbria Police systems immediately upon notification from NPS.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
HM Prison and Probation Service
Existing Northumbria Constabulary information-sharing steps are accepted by MAPPA and NPS representatives as a permanent solution at this time.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Northumbria Police
The agreed police and probation information-sharing process is considered definitive and sufficient, although it may evolve with future IT development.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Inner West London
Concerns raised1
Failure to pass relevant rider age information to tactical decision-makers
Linked response
Metropolitan Police Service
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Metropolitan Police Service
Maintain a dedicated six-role police pursuits and follows pod supporting risk assessment and information gathering.
Metropolitan Police Service
Review the pod’s roles and responsibilities to maximise information and intelligence opportunities by 31 October 2019.
Metropolitan Police Service
Consider whether to introduce a mandatory checklist of information sources at the start of pursuits.
Metropolitan Police Service
Ensure Pan London courses and refresher training include information and intelligence-gathering instruction.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Metropolitan Police Service
The dedicated pursuits pod and its resources are considered sufficient to address the concern, although its practices will be reviewed further.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised1
Lack of radio read-back checks for critical information
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
North Northumberland
Concerns raised1
Failure to provide police control with essential incident information
This report raised 6 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Coventry
Concerns raised2
Failure to ensure the Police Search Advisor is aware of recommendations for a more thorough search
Failure to ensure the Police Search Advisor is aware of the cursory nature of a graveyard search
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Christopher Johnson
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Christopher Johnson
Refer the case to the National Missing Persons Operational Group to consider working with POLSA on amending search-coordination guidance.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
Christopher Johnson
The individual search decisions appeared reasonable, although a more comprehensive search strategy and recording process was needed.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Christopher Johnson
The National Missing Persons Operational Group will consider amending guidance on coordinating, tasking and recording similar searches with POLSA involvement.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
Failure to convey the need for urgent police intervention in a welfare-check request
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
North London NHS Foundation Trust
Whittington Health NHS Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
North London NHS Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust
The patient did not display behaviour indicating immediate risk, requiring detention, restraint, or an active police search.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
North London NHS Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust
The patient was not considered an immediate risk requiring detention, restraint, or an active police search.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
North London NHS Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust
Existing joint police protocols already govern communication about people who abscond or go missing, including conveying immediate-risk information.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
South London
Concerns raised2
Failure to inform the GP when a welfare check request is downgraded
Failure to share welfare check policy changes with the London Ambulance Service
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Provide the current Metropolitan Police welfare-check briefing note to address uncertainty about the policy version in force.
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Incorporate the March 2015 Metropolitan Police welfare-check policy into the LAS/MPS Joint Memorandum of Understanding through the annual review process.
Manchester South
Concerns raised2
Failure to pass complete incident information to attending officers
Failure to provide Appropriate Adults with relevant custody risk information
This report raised 26 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.