PFD report

Carlington Maurice Spencer · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Aug 2020•Lincolnshire

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
18

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised18

  1. Lack of training on confirmation bias affecting staff decision making
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to control confirmation bias in safety-critical decision-making
  2. Lack of clear escalation pathways for presumed Spice-related incidents
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable response to Spice-related incidents in prisons
  3. Failure to establish the timing, quantity and potency of drug consumption
    Part of recurring concern: Incomplete clinical history-taking
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 training on confirmation bias affecting staff decision making

Wider context from the report

“4. Training is needed to enable staff to appreciate the potential for their decision making to be affected by "confirmation bias" in addition to the need for diversity awareness training when dealing with detainees of Afro-Caribbean heritage; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to control confirmation bias in safety-critical decision-making.

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 clear escalation pathways for presumed Spice-related incidents

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable response to Spice-related incidents in prisons.

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 establish the timing, quantity and potency of drug consumption

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete clinical history-taking.

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 instructions on duration of conservative observation for presumed Spice consumption

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable response to Spice-related incidents in prisons.

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 meaningful training in self-induced intoxication and new psychoactive substances

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe controls for intoxication requiring medical attention.

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

Partial, incomplete and unverifiable record keeping by Discipline and healthcare staff

Wider context from the report

“5. Record keeping, both for Discipline and healthcare staff was established in this case to be partial, incomplete and undertaken in circumstances where the provenance of such records is unverifiable; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable clinical and care records.

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

Inadequate access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 appreciate, record or actively seek co-detainee concerns

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Inaccurate, irregular and unavailable records of incapacitated detainees

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording in police custody records.

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 consult Illicit Substance Misuse Programme information

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Inadequate knowledge and training in diagnosis, treatment and care of new psychoactive substance intoxication

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe controls for intoxication requiring medical attention.

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 diversity awareness training for dealing with Afro-Caribbean detainees

Wider context from the report

“4. Training is needed to enable staff to appreciate the potential for their decision making to be affected by "confirmation bias" in addition to the need for diversity awareness training when dealing with detainees of Afro-Caribbean heritage; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 escalation pathways for drug-related incidents developing into medical emergencies

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 escalation protocols recognising healthcare primacy in ongoing detainee care

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable response to Spice-related incidents in prisons.

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

Confusion and uncertainty over emergency alarm activation

Wider context from the report

“3. In this case, a "general alarm" was called and in evidence from both Discipline and Healthcare staff, there exists on-going confusion and uncertainty as to the calling of a general alarm or a "Code 1" or "Code 2" alarm or "Code Red" or "Code Blue" (the replacement codification) confirming the need for training or re-training on this issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of emergency alarm response.

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 challenge, test or verify presumed drug intoxication

Wider context from the report

“1. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the Discipline staff employed by Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with detainees with a known history of recreational use of drugs in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed and/or assumed to be under the influence of drugs, this presumption and/or assumption is not challenged or tested or verified (as an example, by meaningful searches of the detainee or his room; review of CCTV evidence or escalation for advice from healthcare personnel); b. Concerns of co-detainees are not appreciated or noted or actively sought; c. Record keeping and purported observations of detainees who are incapacitated by reason of presumed self-induced intoxication are inaccurate, irregular and unavailable for inspection by health care personnel; d. Discipline staff have no meaningful training on the categories of self-induced intoxication and in particular "new psychoactive substances" such as the synthetic cannabinoid known as "Spice"; e. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with a presumed "Spice" related incident; f. There is no adequate communication or working protocols as between Discipline staff and healthcare staff for clear escalation pathways when dealing with an incident that may have commenced as a drug related incident but develops into a potential medical emergency; g. Access, review, storage and retrieval of CCTV footage is inadequate and unsatisfactory; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe controls for intoxication requiring medical attention.

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 consider differential diagnoses and exacerbation of pre-existing co-morbidities

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to consider or reconsider serious alternative diagnoses.

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 clinically verify presumed recent drug consumption

Wider context from the report

“2. The case demonstrated the failures of existing systems, management and working practices within the healthcare provision for detainees at Morton Hall IRC namely: a. The existence of "confirmation bias" or "confirmatory bias" when dealing with a detainee with a known history of recreational drug use in such a way that when a detainee presents in a manner that is interpreted as being presumed or assumed to be attributable to recent self-induced intoxication, this assumption or presumption is not clinically evaluated by reference to a verification of evidence supporting of recent drug consumption (such evidence being available either from the patient, from Discipline staff, from other detainees, physical evidence in the room); b. In cases where a diagnosis of recent self-induced intoxication has been reasonably made, a differential diagnosis is not considered to evaluate the potential exacerbations of the patients pre-existing co-morbidities; c. No appreciation exists of the importance of establishing when the detainee had last consumed drugs and in what quantity and at what potency; d. Failure to consult information contained on the Illicit Substance Misuse Programme; e. An absence of protocols or clear instructions/expectations from healthcare staff to Discipline staff that in the event a conservative pathway of treatment is considered appropriate (the detainee being allowed to "sleep off" the effects of the drugs) how long this should be permitted in a case of presumed "Spice" consumption; f. An absence of protocols or clear escalation pathways or working practices between healthcare staff and Discipline staff that recognises the primacy of the role of healthcare staff in any case involving ongoing care for a detainee, in particular in a scenario of a detainee with relevant co-morbidities who is recovering from a presumed "Spice" incident; g. Inadequacy of knowledge and training in the diagnosis, treatment and care in cases of self-induced intoxication by reason of "new psychoactive substances"; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report
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
0/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.