Recurring concern

Unreliable prison staff communication during safety-critical situations

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 16 May 2019•Latest report 23 Mar 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in prison-based communication arrangements for conveying the severity, scope, changing circumstances and required response to safety-critical situations between prison staff and relevant healthcare or custodial functions, including communication that should trigger enhanced observations, healthcare notification or other protective action.

Not included

  • Excludes the narrower existing concern concerning sharing safety-critical risk information within prisons when the assertion is specifically about transfer of a defined risk record or risk-information field rather than broader communication of a safety-critical situation.
  • Excludes generic prison staffing, training, documentation or leadership deficiencies unless they directly cause unreliable communication during a safety-critical situation.
  • Excludes prison-to-probation, prison-to-community, court-to-prison and other external information-transfer processes unless the assertion concerns the same internal prison safety-communication control.
  • Excludes clinical assessment or treatment failures after relevant prison staff communication has operated reliably.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2019–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
8

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 Service3
Care UK1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust1
Ministry of Justice1
Practice Plus Group1
St George's Hospital1
Swaleside Prison1

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. Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Daniel RUGGIERO · 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

    Thomas Daniel Ruggiero, a 39-year-old prisoner at HMP Swaleside, was found unresponsive in his cell on 16 November 2024 after ligaturing himself and died later that day. The report identifies concerns about the emergency cell bell system, incomplete ACCT documentation, confusion over calling a “code blue”, and staffing, experience and communication at the prison, with risks to future prisoners remaining.

    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 prison staff communication to relay the severity and complete scope of situations

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) Staffing / Experience / Communication etc. The evidence was that in November 2024, up to (and possibly more than) 90% of prison officers at HMP Swaleside were new in post and still in their probationary period. I was told in evidence by a Supervising Officer (SO) that on 16 November 2024, he 'possibly did not have the right mix of staff in terms of skills and experience to keep the wing safe'. In this inquest, the jury found that, "the communication between prison staff was insufficient and lacked clarity. Opportunities to increase formal observations or notify health care were missed. Staff communications failed to relay the severity and complete scope of the situation." The CCTV evidence clearly showed other prisoners regularly at Mr Ruggiero's cell door, silencing the call bell, banging and kicking at the door (including the wielding of a crutch to hit the door and observation panel), and verbally harassing Mr Ruggiero. The evidence from an SO was that he gave landing officers a clear instruction to intervene; however, it appeared that this did not happen. I was told that the level of officers still in their probationary period has now reduced. I was also told that additional staff training is now in place to address matters such as assertiveness, and that there is also an action plan (albeit I was not shown this). I was also made aware of the "Urgent Notification' (UN) from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in relation to HMP Swaleside (December 2025), which included in the rationale, "Staff, many of whom lacked experience, were not confident in challenging poor behaviour and there was a lack of order and control." While some action has been taken, I am not sufficiently reassured that this has addressed the concern and I therefore consider that the risks remain. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Daniel RUGGIERO · 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

    Embed practical emergency-response simulations, including Code Blue scenarios, within local training and mentoring arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Practical emergency response simulations, including Code Blue scenarios, are being embedded within local training and mentoring arrangements. Compliance and learning will be monitored through incident reviews and feedback reported to the Safer Custody Management Team. Joint exercises with healthcare staff will continue, this joined up approach will strengthen shared understanding and embed a multidisciplinary approach when responding to medical emergencies.”

    Source location

    Response from HM Prison & Probation Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 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

    Continue joint emergency-response exercises with healthcare staff to strengthen shared understanding and multidisciplinary response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Practical emergency response simulations, including Code Blue scenarios, are being embedded within local training and mentoring arrangements. Compliance and learning will be monitored through incident reviews and feedback reported to the Safer Custody Management Team. Joint exercises with healthcare staff will continue, this joined up approach will strengthen shared understanding and embed a multidisciplinary approach when responding to medical emergencies.”

    Source location

    Response from HM Prison & Probation Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 March 2026

    Open published response
  2. Kent and Medway

    AI-generated summary

    Azroy Dawes-Clarke · 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

    Azroy Dawes-Clarke died in hospital after self-ligaturing in HMP Elmley, followed by restraint, cardiac and respiratory arrest, and further arrests during conveyance and hospital treatment. The principal concerns included confused communication and unclear command structures among prison staff, healthcare professionals and paramedics, disproportionate and prolonged restraint, delays in obtaining medical assistance and starting CPR, and inadequate consideration of his breathing and positioning.

    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 establish a communication strategy during critical medical emergencies in custodial settings

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) As the jury noted, communication between attending prison staff, healthcare professionals and paramedics was confused. There was confusion as to who had command and control of the medical emergency, which public body took primacy and the difference in roles and responsibilities. Those attending the scene did not establish any sort of communication strategy or command structure. During prevention of future deaths evidence, there remained a lack of clarity and consistency as to how such a situation would be avoided if a critical medical emergency eventuated in a custodial setting again. (2) (3) ”

    Source location

    Azroy Dawes-Clarke · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report
  3. East Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Trevor Alan MONERVILLE · 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

    Trevor Alan Monerville, who had been detained at HMP Lewes, was found unresponsive in his cell on 18 April 2021 and died after suffering from epilepsy and non-epileptic attack disorder. The principal concerns were inadequate monitoring and management of his epilepsy after the ACCT closed, poor communication and information-sharing between healthcare, prison staff and family, and insufficient staff training in managing epilepsy and seizures.

    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

    Inadequate communication about prisoners’ health conditions

    Wider context from the report

    “b. Communication between healthcare and prison staff especially when Trevor was returned to the wing, between the prison staff and family, briefing by prison managers to officers on the wing about Trevor’s condition were all inadequate. Evidence was heard about the lack of integration of various IT systems which contributed to poor communication. In spite of the evidence from PPG regarding the sensitivity of medical records which should not be disclosed to the prison staff, I remain concerned that there was no effective monitoring and management of Trevor on the wing once the ACCT was closed. There was no mechanism in place for prison and healthcare staff to report their concerns about Trevor’s non compliance with taking his medication to Security, thus preventing the cell from being searched for retained medication. ”

    Source location

    Trevor Alan MONERVILLE · 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 Regional Multi Professional Complex Case Clinic escalation for the most complex patients.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Practice Plus Group operates an integrated healthcare model. Any patients pending transfer back to the main wing with ongoing needs are to be discussed at the Multi Professional Complex Case Clinic (MPCCC) prior to transfer. This allows oversight of all departments within the integrated team and a holistic complex care plan to be created. The MPCCC is led by the GP, attended by all clinical leads, and any relevant staff involved in patient care. For individual cases prison partners may be invited to attend and a care plan created with a named coordinator allocated. Practice Plus Group has now implemented a further point of escalation to Regional MPCCC. For the most complex of patients, attendees will include healthcare, prison staff and, on occasion, representatives from NHS England.”

    Source location

    Response from Practice Plus Group
    Page 4 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    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

    Work with NHS England to clarify routine health-information sharing and processes for risk or safeguarding concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “HMPPS recognises that, information sharing is vital to effective health management of people in prison and is working closely with NHSE to increase staff confidence and support effective information sharing by offering clarity about the general and routine sharing of health information and where risk/safeguarding concerns have been raised.”

    Source location

    Response from HM Prison and Probation Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    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

    Practice Plus Group cannot resolve integration of healthcare and prison IT systems because SystmOne is commissioned by NHS England and medical records are confidential.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As to lack of integration of various systems, this is not an issue that Practice Plus Group can resolve. SystmOne is commissioned by NHS England and Practice Plus Group is commissioned to use SystmOne. As with patients in the community, medical records are highly sensitive and personal to the individual. They are not shared with prison staff for reasons of medical confidentiality.”

    Source location

    Response from Practice Plus Group
    Page 4 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    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 information-sharing protocols and weekly meetings are considered appropriate for communication and management of complex safety concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There are Information Sharing protocols in place, as directed by national policy, which underpin the exchange of information between healthcare and prison staff. There are several regular meetings involving healthcare and prison staff where individual issues are raised and addressed, including the Safety Intervention Meeting and Multi-Disciplinary Complex Case Clinic, both of which are held weekly.”

    Source location

    Response from HM Prison and Probation Service
    Page 1 · response
    Published 19 January 2024

    Open published response
  4. East Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen COSTER · 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

    Stephen Coster died from meningoencephalitis owing to Streptococcus pneumoniae after becoming seriously unwell while detained at HMP Lewes. The inquest found delays in providing treatment and transferring him to hospital, with concerns including inadequate observations and assessment, poor record keeping, failures to escalate, and breakdowns in communication and leadership between prison and healthcare staff.

    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

    Breakdown in communication among junior prison staff

    Wider context from the report

    “g. Inadequate leadership by prison staff leading to a breakdown in communication amongst junior prison staff which caused the delay in transferring Stephen from the prison to hospital. ”

    Source location

    Stephen COSTER · 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

    Share the escort-review findings with healthcare staff to improve communication and clarify urgency during hospital escorts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Following the death of Mr Coster and the PPO’s recommendations, the Deputy Governor and Head of Safety conducted a review into the circumstances of the prison escort to hospital. Their findings identified a need for improved communication with and greater clarity from healthcare staff to ensure that urgency of the matter is made clear to prison staff. This has been shared with healthcare.”

    Source location

    Response from HM Prison and Probation Service
    Page 2 · response
    Published 20 March 2024

    Open published response
  5. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Daniel Davey · 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

    Daniel Davey, aged 21, died at John Radcliffe Hospital on 12 January 2018 after deliberately overdosing on propranolol in his cell at HMP Bullingdon Prison. The report raises concerns about healthcare attendance at ACCT reviews, risk assessments and management of in-possession medication, cell searches, and failures to share and act on information relevant to his safety.

    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

    Inadequate advance notification and information sharing for ACCT reviews

    Wider context from the report

    “1. Healthcare attendance at ACCT reviews – This concern relates to both the prison and healthcare. It was clear from evidence from prison and healthcare staff that it was not routine for healthcare to attend ACCT reviews. This is a significant concern and it is not in accordance with local and national policy. I understand that there were occasions when prison staff requested healthcare attendance, but no one was available. The system of providing advance notification to healthcare about the date of ACCT reviews was not comprehensive. It resulted in ACCT reviews, as in this case, taking place without information being available to the assessor/reviewer. For example, information about suicidal ideation/attempts and other information disclosed to healthcare and also information about ‘in possession medication’. Encouragingly, the evidence from prison and healthcare staff was that ACCT reviews no longer take place without healthcare attendance and/or input (perhaps over the telephone). It would be helpful if there could be a further level of reassurance provided, firstly, communications between prison and healthcare staff in the conduct of ACCT reviews and, secondly, a process of auditing ACCT reviews in order to pick up cases where there is no healthcare input. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Davey · 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

    Develop escalation procedures with Care UK and the prison for occasions when healthcare cannot attend an ACCT review.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Local Operating Procedure identifies there is an expectation that the staff attending the ACCT record this on SystmOne and future reviews are diarised for attendance. We will actively contribute to quality assurance checks of compliance with this Local Operating Policy including those done as part of the PROTECT audits and are committed to improving our service delivery in response to any actions identified within these checks. In addition we will work with Care UK and the prison in the development of procedures for escalation should healthcare, for any reason, be unable to attend an ACCT review.”

    Source location

    2019-0267-Response-by-Midlands-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 October 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 staff to update medication-in-possession risk assessments during medication reviews so changes feed into ACCT information for dispensing and prison staff.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Response: As was stated at the inquest, our prescriber’s always record on the prescription form whether the medication they are prescribing should be held in possession. We have reminded our staff to ensure when they are reviewing any medication that they, where necessary, include an update of the ‘Medication In possession risk assessment’ which goes onto SystmOne, which in turn will feed into the ACCT. This ensures that both dispensing staff and prison staff are aware of any changes and respond accordingly, this will include the removal of any medicines currently being held.”

    Source location

    2019-0267-Response-by-Midlands-NHS-Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 17 October 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

    Embed the new ACCT case-management process, including dedicated case managers, review booking oversight and daily healthcare attendance allocation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In June 2019, a new way of operating the ACCT case management system was implemented at Bullingdon, with a specific case manager being allocated to each ACCT case. This system allows ACCT reviews to be booked by the case managers on a spreadsheet that is overseen by the safer custody department. Reviews can be organised earlier through this booking system, giving healthcare better capability to ensure attendance at all reviews, and each day an identified member of healthcare staff is responsible for attending each review or allocating an attendee to go in their place. If there are any issues with healthcare attendance, case managers are asked to inform the safer custody department and remedial action is taken.”

    Source location

    2019-0267-Response-by-HM-Prison-Probation-Service
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 October 2019

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026