PFD report

Scott Darren TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Feb 2026•Essex

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
9

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Failure to remove arm and leg restraints from unconscious patients during conveyance to hospital
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe police restraint practices and controls
  2. Inconsistent ambulance response categorisation for Acute Behavioural Disturbance with active restraint
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbancePart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency-service incident grading and response-time coordinationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and communication of restraint-related acute behavioural disturbance risks
  3. Failure to clearly link Acute Behavioural Disturbance and active restraint to Category 1 ambulance triage
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbancePart of recurring concern: Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable recognition and communication of restraint-related acute behavioural disturbance risks
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Action

    Implement a standalone procedure for suspected or confirmed Acute Behavioural Disturbance, removing “excited delirium” terminology and requiring Category 1 escalation with clinical review for possible downgrade.

    Stated by East of England Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
  2. Action

    Update, approve and disseminate the detained-patient procedure and Emergency Operations Centre escalation guidance to reflect the Acute Behavioural Disturbance procedure.

    Stated by East of England Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
  3. Action

    Update restraint guidance to require removal where safe and appropriate, informed by circumstances and the National Decision Model.

    Stated by Essex PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 February 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    National ambulance response categories are determined by NHS England’s ECPAG, not by AACE.

    Stated by Association of Ambulance Chief ExecutivesRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to remove arm and leg restraints from unconscious patients during conveyance to hospital

Wider context from the report

“b. Whilst it would not have changed the outcome for Mr Taylor, arm and leg restraints were not removed by police officers in this case when it was understood that Mr Taylor was unconscious and when Mr Taylor was being conveyed to hospital. Police officers who gave evidence were not clear that this was a requirement of the policy. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe police restraint practices and controls.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inconsistent ambulance response categorisation for Acute Behavioural Disturbance with active restraint

Wider context from the report

“b. The East of England Ambulance NHS Trust provide ambulance services across 6 counties and that also includes police/healthcare professionals reporting Acute Behavioural Disturbance and active police restraint. There is concern that there is a different response applied and that this discrepancy between Category 1 and Category 2 responses is significant and could affect the survival of patients. Evidence heard from police trainers and expert witnesses is that Acute Behavioural Disturbance has a high rate of fatality and requires an urgent response, particularly where police officers with training in this condition are reporting to ambulance service and with active restraint. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbance; Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unreliable emergency-service incident grading and response-time coordination; Unreliable recognition and communication of restraint-related acute behavioural disturbance risks.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to clearly link Acute Behavioural Disturbance and active restraint to Category 1 ambulance triage

Wider context from the report

“a. Members of the public were restraining Scott Taylor on arrival of the police who quickly became concerned that Mr Taylor was exhibiting signs of Acute Behavioural Disturbance and made an emergency call to the ambulance service. The police, during the 999 call, were put on hold on three occasions by the ambulance service and became increasingly concerned about Mr Taylor’s deteriorating condition over an 18 minute period and confirmation that this remained a Category 2 call despite active police restraint with suspected Acute Behavioural Disturbance. Police decided to ‘scoop and run’ and urgently convey Mr Taylor to hospital due to the severity of their concerns. The EEAST Standard Operating Procedure requires escalation to Category 1 where there is active restraint, but this is not linked to Acute Behavioural Disturbance and remains unclear and may continue to cause confusion during triage by contact call handlers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbance; Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage; Unreliable recognition and communication of restraint-related acute behavioural disturbance risks.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of a national ambulance response standard for Acute Behavioural Disturbance with active restraint

Wider context from the report

“a. It was agreed in evidence that the set of symptoms consistent with Acute Behavioural Disturbance amount to a medical emergency with a significant mortality risk. The evidence was that the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives set the Categories nationally that dictate the required classification for ambulance response to emergencies, however in some ambulance localities the required response is allocated Category 2 and in others Category 1. This means that there is not a national standard for response Acute Behavioural Disturbance with active restraint. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbance.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Discrepancy in Acute Behavioural Disturbance recognition and alert training for Police Officers and Special Constables

Wider context from the report

“a. Whilst it was not causative of Mr Taylor’s death, there appears to be a discrepancy in the training for Police Officers and Special Constables in the potential recognition and actions for Acute Behaviours Disturbance. Special Constables are a valuable resource for police forces and may often be first on scene as in this case and should receive the same training in the potential recognition and alert of potential life-threatening conditions. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbance; Insufficient police training for safe recognition and response to mental-health and behaviour-related medical crises.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Confusing terminology for Acute Behavioural Disturbance in ambulance triage training materials

Wider context from the report

“d. The EEAST documents continue to use the term ‘Excited Delirium’ interchangeable in some of the training materials and this may lead to confusion with contact handlers triaging calls. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and respond to acute behavioural disturbance; Unreliable ambulance call triage and re-triage.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to apply consistent ambulance response coding based on clinical presentation rather than sectioning status

Wider context from the report

“c. The EEAST updated training on Acute Behavioural Disturbance, active restraint and reports received from police and correct coding remains confusing with the policy and training handouts in December 2023 with discrepancies between those who are sectioned and those who are not. Persons confirmed with Acute Behavioural disturbance and in active police restraint being coded as Category 2 and those in the same circumstances and ‘sectioned’ will require a Category 1 response. The difference appears to be one related to the Mental Health Act and not the presentation or clinical requirements of the person. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance response-time standards and prioritisation.

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 standalone procedure for suspected or confirmed Acute Behavioural Disturbance, removing “excited delirium” terminology and requiring Category 1 escalation with clinical review for possible downgrade.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the inquest a working group was set up with the intention of revising the guidance for patients exhibiting signs of Acute Behavioural Disturbance and establishing the most appropriate way to respond to those patients within the Emergency Operations Centre.”

Source location

Response from East of England Ambulance Service
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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

Update, approve and disseminate the detained-patient procedure and Emergency Operations Centre escalation guidance to reflect the Acute Behavioural Disturbance procedure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The procedure has also been updated to reflect that a Category 1 coding is now applied to all calls where the police are actively restraining a patient; or reporting agitation/behaviour changes; or the police use the term Acute Behavioural Disturbance. The call handler will immediately escalate this to a Call Handler Team Leader who will upgrade the call to a Category 1 and the response will be dispatched on this basis. If, at this point, the Call Handler Team Leader or Dispatcher believe this may not be a Category 1 call, the call will be highlighted to a Clinical Navigator who will complete a clinical review and triage to establish if a downgrade is required.”

Source location

Response from East of England Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 16 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

Update restraint guidance to require removal where safe and appropriate, informed by circumstances and the National Decision Model.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You also expressed concern that police officers did not remove handcuffs or leg restraints when Mr Taylor appeared unconscious, and that officers did not appear clear that the relevant policy required them to do so. The policy in place at the time contained an absolute instruction to “remove all methods of restraint,” in the case of unconsciousness which, when considered against the operational realities of ABD and the unpredictable nature of such presentations, was not sufficiently aligned with safe decision-making or with the principles of the National Decision Model.”

Source location

Response from Essex Police
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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

Incorporate the updated restraint policy into initial and regular refresher training for all officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following review at the inquest and subsequent policy analysis, Essex Police has updated this guidance to provide officers with clearer, more realistic direction. The revised policy now states that officers must remove restraints where it is considered safe and appropriate to do so, and that this decision must be informed by the prevailing circumstances and assessed through the National Decision Model. This updated wording removes the absolute instruction that did not reflect the operational complexities faced by officers, and instead reinforces the requirement for a considered, risk-assessed approach that is consistent with officer training and the realities of managing individuals experiencing ABD.”

Source location

Response from Essex Police
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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

Standardise Acute Behavioural Disturbance training for regular officers and Special Constables across initial and refresher training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to ABD, you noted that Special Constables may not have received the same depth of training as regular officers. Essex Police acknowledges the importance of ensuring that all officers, regardless of role, are equipped to identify life-threatening medical emergencies and respond consistently. As a result, all officers—regular and Special Constabulary—now receive the same level of training in relation to ABD.”

Source location

Response from Essex Police
Page 1 · response
Published 16 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

Develop, revise and publish clinical practice guidance for recognising, assessing and managing suspected acute behavioural disturbance, including safe restraint and urgent transfer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the ABD, over a number of years we have developed and further revised UK ambulance service clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. This has been based on learning from ABD cases we have been involved with, some of these via coroners’ inquests and preventing future death reports. We have published guidance for patients that are agitated, have delirium and have suspected ABD. This is to ensure that the recognition, assessment and management of these patient presentations are considered by ambulance clinicians. We emphasise in the ABD guidance that the condition is a clinical emergency and that the patient may suffer sudden cardiovascular collapse or cardiac arrest or both with little or no warning.”

Source location

Response from Association of Ambulance Chief Executives
Page 2 · response
Published 16 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

National ambulance response categories are determined by NHS England’s ECPAG, not by AACE.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the required classification for ambulance response to emergencies, AACE do not set the categories nationally of ambulance response. Ambulance call codes are determined by NHS England by the Emergency Call Prioritisation Advisory Group (ECPAG). We are aware that cases of suspected ABD should be assigned a Category 2 response, which is the immediate dispatch of an emergency ambulance. However, ambulance services are advised that a senior clinician within the”

Source location

Response from Association of Ambulance Chief Executives
Page 1 · response
Published 16 February 2026

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Grade procedural updates by priority and require staff to read and acknowledge high-priority updates before starting a shift.

    Stated by East of England Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
  2. 2

    Provide all call-handling staff with one hour of protected monthly time for policy review, mandatory and additional training, and one-to-one supervision.

    Stated by East of England Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 February 2026.
  3. 3

    Provide monthly one-to-one supervision and procedural updates to clinical staff based in the Emergency Operations Centre.

    Stated by East of England Ambulance Service NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 February 2026.

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

Grade procedural updates by priority and require staff to read and acknowledge high-priority updates before starting a shift.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All clinical staff based in the Emergency Operations Centre are also receiving monthly 1:1s with their Clinical Workforce Manager for supervision and updates to be shared. In addition, any procedural updates are being graded to assess whether they are high priority or not. If an update is identified as high priority, the member of staff may not start shift until they have read and acknowledged this update.”

Source location

Response from East of England Ambulance Service
Page 4 · response
Published 16 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 all call-handling staff with one hour of protected monthly time for policy review, mandatory and additional training, and one-to-one supervision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the inquest you requested further information in respect of the progress of introducing protected time for Emergency Operations Centre staff for 1:1 supervision and time to review procedure/policy updates.”

Source location

Response from East of England Ambulance Service
Page 3 · response
Published 16 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 monthly one-to-one supervision and procedural updates to clinical staff based in the Emergency Operations Centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All clinical staff based in the Emergency Operations Centre are also receiving monthly 1:1s with their Clinical Workforce Manager for supervision and updates to be shared. In addition, any procedural updates are being graded to assess whether they are high priority or not. If an update is identified as high priority, the member of staff may not start shift until they have read and acknowledged this update.”

Source location

Response from East of England Ambulance Service
Page 4 · response
Published 16 February 2026

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026