PFD report

Lisa Marie Elizabeth Beatrice TAYLOR-PENNY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Apr 2026•Cheshire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
11

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to provide sufficient scope for call handlers to escalate RCRP calls for senior professional judgment
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure adequate supervision of emergency call handlers
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.4

  1. Action

    Conduct live and retrospective quality assurance of concern-for-safety incidents, provide feedback and arrange further development where required.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  2. Action

    Train FCC staff, supervisors, managers and wider force personnel in RCRP law, procedures, toolkits, escalation and professional judgment.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  3. Action

    Establish a supervisor and Force Incident Manager escalation process for disputed, uncertain or exceptional deployment decisions.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.

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

  1. Position

    Existing RCRP toolkits, structured questions, training and escalation procedures provide consistent decision-making and adequate review where deployment decisions are disputed.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 provide sufficient scope for call handlers to escalate RCRP calls for senior professional judgment

Wider context from the report

“"Right care right person" (RCRP) is being implemented in a very rigid manner suggesting that call handlers may be using it as "tramlines not guidelines". I am concerned that it does not leave sufficient scope for call handlers to escalate calls for a senior member of staff to consider exercising professional judgment. In particular, where other professionals who are familiar with RCRP are nevertheless indicating a professional view that they need police attendance to secure entry and are expressing a concern for life and limb. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure adequate supervision of emergency call handlers.

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

Conduct live and retrospective quality assurance of concern-for-safety incidents, provide feedback and arrange further development where required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Quality assurance is undertaken by the RCRP project and implementation team conducting live QA of incidents as they occur to ensure consistent application of RCRP in line with training. Direct feedback is given to FCC call handlers, and they can discuss decisions with the QA team as well as the FCC Supervisors. At the commencement of RCRP the FCC call handlers were all supported by RCRP subject matter experts (SME’s) and professionals from the mental health charity MIND who floor walked to assist call handlers become familiar with using the toolkits.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 7 · response
Published 29 April 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

Train FCC staff, supervisors, managers and wider force personnel in RCRP law, procedures, toolkits, escalation and professional judgment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is supported by a policy document that explains the legal and statutory obligations, as well as the context and considerations that underpin Right Care Right Person implementation in Cheshire. Every member of staff in the FCC received detailed training in the law, the process and the application of RCRP prior to implementation. This included all Force Incident Sergeants (“FIS”), Force Incident Managers (“FIM”), FCC Supervisors and the Senior leadership team. Wider engagement and training were rolled out within the force to all departments. The training and supporting documents have also been shared with partner agencies to assist their own training and approach to RCRP (RCRP Legal and Escalation slides attached as Appendix three).”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 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

Establish a supervisor and Force Incident Manager escalation process for disputed, uncertain or exceptional deployment decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Caller insists on deployment (after no deployment decision reached) and the matter thus requires escalation to a supervisor for review.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 4 · response
Published 29 April 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

Employ trained RCRP floorwalkers and subject-matter support staff to assist call handlers during implementation and operational rollout.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During go live and throughout 2024 RCRP floorwalkers were employed to support staff in making decisions and answering questions. This was via experienced staff who received additional training and were selected for their knowledge of law and procedure and their ability to consistently apply RCRP to reported incidents. This was complemented by the FCC Supervisors on duty, and the RCRP project team who worked alongside staff in FCC Calls room. The training is as follows:”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 6 · response
Published 29 April 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

Existing RCRP toolkits, structured questions, training and escalation procedures provide consistent decision-making and adequate review where deployment decisions are disputed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the RCRP process involves individual decision making, the toolkits and procedures ensure consistency and sound decision making to avoid differing interpretations of policy. The policy reflects decisions being made based on the information provided rather than decisions made based on who is providing the information.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 9 · response
Published 29 April 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.7

  1. 1

    Provide callers with scripted explanations and signposting to approved health and support services when police do not deploy.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  2. 2

    Apply THRIVE-SC assessments to missing-person reports initially and throughout incidents, enabling reassessment of risk and deployment decisions as information changes.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  3. 3

    Record every concern-for-safety report in an incident management log to document decision-making and support audit.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  4. 4

    Develop and adopt a policy and legal framework defining police duties, thresholds and decision-making requirements under Right Care, Right Person.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  5. 5

    Provide call handlers with RCRP toolkits, structured questions and a digital proforma to guide, record and justify deployment decisions.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  6. 6

    Implement the phased Right Care, Right Person operating model for concern-for-safety, healthcare walkout and section 135 warrant incidents.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.
  7. 7

    Share RCRP training materials and provide communication and education resources to partner agencies for their staff training and awareness.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Ambulance services, rather than police, were responsible for responding to concerns that the individual was unwell or required medical assistance.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The calls did not indicate an immediate and present threat to life, so they did not meet the threshold for police intervention.

    Stated by Cheshire ConstabularyDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 callers with scripted explanations and signposting to approved health and support services when police do not deploy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To support both public and professionals regarding when to call Cheshire police and to ensure we signpost when the police are not deploying to a request for assistance, Cheshire Police developed the public force website to host approved national and support service contacts. This website page contains links to NHS 111, Crisis Line, The Hub of Hope, and postcode specific services such as Live Well Cheshire (West and East), and others. When a call generates a no deployment decision, the FCC call handler will inform the caller of this by reading a prewritten script which avoids any misunderstanding. They will then direct caller appropriately (for example in respect of further enquiries they can make, avenues available to them) and can direct or send the caller to the website link verbally or by email or text.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 4 · response
Published 29 April 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

Apply THRIVE-SC assessments to missing-person reports initially and throughout incidents, enabling reassessment of risk and deployment decisions as information changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, RCRP supports the identification of cases where an individual should be treated as missing from home, in accordance with force policy and Authorised Professional Practice (APP) as set by the College of Policing. This ensures that responses are aligned with nationally recognised standards and best practice.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 8 · response
Published 29 April 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

Record every concern-for-safety report in an incident management log to document decision-making and support audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“They will apply their training and professional judgement to the report, applying the RCRP question set and seeking to identify what is being reported, and what the police can reasonably do given the report. An example of this is where a call is of a general concern for welfare such as when someone has missed an appointment or has elected to leave a hospital waiting area by choice. Whilst these raise a general concern for the reporting person or agency, they do not reach the threshold for a police response. The FCC call handler will add a digital ‘RCRP proforma’ to the Incident Management Log (“IML”) which captures their decision which they show by ticking the specific decision points they have been through. They will then add their THRIVE rationale to the incident which is their decision regarding the urgency of the deployment in line with their training as per all other incidents.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 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 and adopt a policy and legal framework defining police duties, thresholds and decision-making requirements under Right Care, Right Person.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Extensive advice was sought prior to implementation in respect of legal requirements placed on the police – including any issues surrounding duty of care - in various circumstances and how this might vary with vulnerable callers (including children and young people). Consideration was also given as to whether it was lawful and appropriate to conduct police system checks on calls where police did not have an obvious duty to respond. This considered existing force operating models, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigations and law. The RCRP approach was highlighted by HMICFRS in its 2018 report and was reviewed by the College of Policing as best practice on 3rd April 2023.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 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 call handlers with RCRP toolkits, structured questions and a digital proforma to guide, record and justify deployment decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The training at each stage was accompanied by personal issue ‘RCRP Toolkits’ to support decision making. These physical workbooks are used by operators to follow the flow chart which highlights policing obligations and are designed to positively triage each case.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 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

Implement the phased Right Care, Right Person operating model for concern-for-safety, healthcare walkout and section 135 warrant incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Cheshire Constabulary adopted the principles of Right Care, Right Person (RCRP) for reports of Concern for Safety (CFS) from 8th January 2024. The change in how these incidents are described and categorised from ‘concern for welfare’ to ‘concern for safety’ underpins the move away from ‘welfare checks’, as, in general terms, the police are not under any duty to act at common law regarding the general welfare of the public nor ought they do so. In many cases there simply wouldn’t be any police powers enabling them to do so (eg to force entry in the absence of the threshold being met to utilise such powers). The RCRP principles were adopted in phases as follows: -”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 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

Share RCRP training materials and provide communication and education resources to partner agencies for their staff training and awareness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This is supported by a policy document that explains the legal and statutory obligations, as well as the context and considerations that underpin Right Care Right Person implementation in Cheshire. Every member of staff in the FCC received detailed training in the law, the process and the application of RCRP prior to implementation. This included all Force Incident Sergeants (“FIS”), Force Incident Managers (“FIM”), FCC Supervisors and the Senior leadership team. Wider engagement and training were rolled out within the force to all departments. The training and supporting documents have also been shared with partner agencies to assist their own training and approach to RCRP (RCRP Legal and Escalation slides attached as Appendix three).”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 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

Ambulance services, rather than police, were responsible for responding to concerns that the individual was unwell or required medical assistance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At 14.40 hours the escalation to a supervisor was completed and the initial no deployment decision was ratified. The recorded rationale of this by the Supervisor was “Spoken to Amy. She has explained to me that female has bad anxiety and will not leave the house. I have asked if she has reason to believe female is in the property to which she has said yes as she does not leave the house. I have explained to her under RCRP this will not be a police deployment as if she believes the female needs medical assistance then this will be for ambulance.””

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 9 · response
Published 29 April 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

The calls did not indicate an immediate and present threat to life, so they did not meet the threshold for police intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These thresholds are clearly defined and apply only where the risk is present, continuing, and happening now. It is important to note that a general concern for an individual's welfare, while valid and taken seriously, does not meet the legal standard required to trigger these obligations.”

Source location

Response from Cheshire Police
Page 8 · response
Published 29 April 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026