PFD report

Frank Steve Rios OSPINA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Oct 2024•West London

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
25

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 raised4

  1. Failure to provide accessible multilingual communications for arranging visits
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable arrangements for facilitating prisoner visits
  2. Restriction of Rule 35(2) report generation to general practitioners
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Rule 35 reporting for vulnerable detainees
  3. Failure to make Rule 35(2) reports when detainees are suspected of suicidal intentions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Rule 35 reporting for vulnerable detainees
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.16

  1. Action

    Develop and disseminate clinical guidance advocating a multidisciplinary approach to Detention Centre Rule 35 and Short-Term Holding Facility Rule 32 assessments.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Jointly develop a stakeholder engagement session to share revised assessment requirements with IRC providers and operators before full implementation.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Amend the Adults at Risk policy and Rule 35 assessment process to support multidisciplinary assessments by registered IRC healthcare professionals.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 July 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    NHS England will respond separately regarding concerns about the operation of Detention Centre Rule 35.

    Stated by Home OfficeRedirects 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 provide accessible multilingual communications for arranging visits

Wider context from the report

“(3) Frank's mother does not speak English and found it very difficult to arrange a visit. In fact rather than successfully navigate the system, she just turned up and was permitted to see her son as set out above. Telephone calls were not facilitated with an interpreter. The web site where visits should be booked is entirely and only in English. This is a facility that by definition detains foreign nationals and predictably some of the family members do not speak English. A quick check of the local authority website (Hammersmith and Fulham) revealed a full immediate translation facility into over 100 languages, and so this is readily available technology. The Home Office and MITIE should consider the communications currently available to relatives trying to visit their loved ones and whether these can be improved by reasonable adjustments. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable arrangements for facilitating prisoner visits.

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

Restriction of Rule 35(2) report generation to general practitioners

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the inquest evidence was heard about the use of Detention services order 09/2016 Detention centre rule 35 (2) The purpose of rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, as set out in Detention - general guidance (chapter 55), is “to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention. Rule 35 (2) states 2. ‘The medical practitioner shall report to the manager on the case of any detained person he suspects of having suicidal intentions, and the detained person shall be placed under special observation for so long as those suspicions remain, and a record of his treatment and condition shall be kept throughout that time in a manner to be determined by the Secretary of State. ‘The manager shall send a copy of any report under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) to the Secretary of State without delay. Despite Frank Ospina being witnessed as having made an attempt to take his life, and self-reporting a further attempt during his detention, no R35 report was made. The GP evidence was that there was a long waiting list of 4 weeks of over 100 individuals who were dealt with in separate dedicated surgeries, that he had only made "a small number" of R35 (2) reports and that he would usually await and rely on additional evidence such as that from a Consultant Psychiatrist before submitting a R35 (2) report. In contrast, the Home Office evidence was that they were "surprised" that a R35 report had not been submitted. If it had been it would have been considered by a responsible officer within 2 working days. There was a clear mismatch between the healthcare and Home Office expectations and practical application of the R35 provisions. HMC was advised that this is under review currently by the Home Office and NHS England and so this report is written to inform and assist that review process by raising the concerns from this inquiry. HMC would also question the restriction of the report having to be generated by a general practitioner, although detainees were seen by a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals, many of whom could potentially carry out this task. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Rule 35 reporting for vulnerable detainees.

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 make Rule 35(2) reports when detainees are suspected of suicidal intentions

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the inquest evidence was heard about the use of Detention services order 09/2016 Detention centre rule 35 (2) The purpose of rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, as set out in Detention - general guidance (chapter 55), is “to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention. Rule 35 (2) states 2. ‘The medical practitioner shall report to the manager on the case of any detained person he suspects of having suicidal intentions, and the detained person shall be placed under special observation for so long as those suspicions remain, and a record of his treatment and condition shall be kept throughout that time in a manner to be determined by the Secretary of State. ‘The manager shall send a copy of any report under paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) to the Secretary of State without delay. Despite Frank Ospina being witnessed as having made an attempt to take his life, and self-reporting a further attempt during his detention, no R35 report was made. The GP evidence was that there was a long waiting list of 4 weeks of over 100 individuals who were dealt with in separate dedicated surgeries, that he had only made "a small number" of R35 (2) reports and that he would usually await and rely on additional evidence such as that from a Consultant Psychiatrist before submitting a R35 (2) report. In contrast, the Home Office evidence was that they were "surprised" that a R35 report had not been submitted. If it had been it would have been considered by a responsible officer within 2 working days. There was a clear mismatch between the healthcare and Home Office expectations and practical application of the R35 provisions. HMC was advised that this is under review currently by the Home Office and NHS England and so this report is written to inform and assist that review process by raising the concerns from this inquiry. HMC would also question the restriction of the report having to be generated by a general practitioner, although detainees were seen by a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals, many of whom could potentially carry out this task. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Rule 35 reporting for vulnerable detainees.

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 control and document access to closed visits

Wider context from the report

“(2) Visits. The inquest was advised that Frank Ospina's mother visited him in the Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre on one occasion, and that was conducted as a "closed" visit. Her son was accompanied by 2 Officers and their meeting held behind a glass screen where no physical contact was possible. The Officers were overhearing the family conversation and making notes. MITIE who are responsible for the day to day running of the IRC were unaware that a "closed" visit had occurred and apologised for this, confirming it was inappropriate and Frank Ospina and his mother should have been allowed to meet in the usual communal area where they could have embraced and had a private conversation. This was the last time Frank Ospina was seen alive by his mother and the visit greatly distressed her. HMC is concerned that any "closed" visits could take place seemingly without the knowledge and consent of the Duty Manager, that no documentation had to be presented and the "closed visit" room was accessible even though rarely required (the inquest was advised it had not been used at all during the past few months). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 and disseminate clinical guidance advocating a multidisciplinary approach to Detention Centre Rule 35 and Short-Term Holding Facility Rule 32 assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The NHS England Health and Justice Clinical Reference Group developed Detention Centre Rule 35 and Short-Term Holding Facility Rule 32 clinical guidance, which advocates this multidisciplinary approach. This guidance was disseminated to all IRC healthcare providers via an online event chaired by the NHS England Health & Justice National Clinical Lead in April 2024. The IRC Partnership Group provides the governance and oversight of the attainment of the NHS England and Home Office Detention joint priorities and assures the national system of the quality and consistency of healthcare provisions and reduction of health inequalities.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Jointly develop a stakeholder engagement session to share revised assessment requirements with IRC providers and operators before full implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is working with the Home Office policy team to amend the Adults at Risk policy and Rule 35 assessment process. The aim of this work is to move the assessments towards a multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that completion of the assessment can be undertaken by a registered healthcare professional at the Immigration Removal Centre (IRC). Introducing this approach will ensure the management of safeguarding and vulnerability are not solely the responsibility of general practitioners. NHS England and the Home Office will, prior to full implementation during 2025, jointly develop a stakeholder engagement session to share the revised requirements with IRC providers and operators.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Amend the Adults at Risk policy and Rule 35 assessment process to support multidisciplinary assessments by registered IRC healthcare professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“NHS England is working with the Home Office policy team to amend the Adults at Risk policy and Rule 35 assessment process. The aim of this work is to move the assessments towards a multidisciplinary approach, ensuring that completion of the assessment can be undertaken by a registered healthcare professional at the Immigration Removal Centre (IRC). Introducing this approach will ensure the management of safeguarding and vulnerability are not solely the responsibility of general practitioners. NHS England and the Home Office will, prior to full implementation during 2025, jointly develop a stakeholder engagement session to share the revised requirements with IRC providers and operators.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 and publish visits guidance introducing annual self-audits and quarterly assurance reviews of closed and banned visits, incorporating learning from the estate review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Officials have also considered longer term assurance and revised the draft DSO on visits to introduce annual self-audits and quarterly assurance reviews of both closed and banned visits. Learning from the recent review of closed visits is currently being considered and will be incorporated into the DSO. The updated DSO is expected to be published before March 2025.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Translate IRC and residential holding facility visitor information into the top 20 languages and develop supporting translation-enabled webpages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My officials have taken action to explore options to translate the visitor information for IRCs and Residential Short-Term Holding Facilities on Gov.uk and the development of web pages to enable translation is underway. Officials have commissioned the translation of the current visitor information into the top 20 languages of those in detention. Allowing time to translate the relevant information and the development of relevant web pages, we expect this work to be complete by the end of January 2025.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 publish interim DSO 09/2016 guidance requiring healthcare staff to report suicidal-intention concerns and clarifying relevant indicators.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The first issue relates to a mismatch in the healthcare provider and Home Office expectations and practical application of the Rule 35 provisions. This is being addressed through the development of an interim update to the published guidance Detention Services Order (DSO) 09/2016. The interim guidance will make clear that healthcare staff must inform the doctor of a detained person if staff have concerns of suicidal intention.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Issue staff communications clarifying when closed visits may be used and associated responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In line with published Home Office guidance DSO 04/2012 ‘Visitors and visiting procedures for detained individuals’, ‘closed visits’ (those which take place behind glass, with no physical contact between the detained individual and the visitor) should only take place in certain circumstances, such as suspicion of drug smuggling, or risk to visitors or children. Any decision to impose a closed visit should be taken on a case-by-case basis, following a documented risk assessment by the IRC supplier. In response to this concern, officials have undertaken a review of closed visits across the estate covering the past 4 months and have issued communications to staff to ensure understanding of when a closed visit can be used and responsibilities around doing so.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Review the Adults at Risk policy and Rules 34 and 35, including whether eligible healthcare professionals should produce Rule 35 reports.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the limitations on the production of a Rule 35 report, where only a General Practitioner can produce a Rule 35 report, the Home Office is currently conducting a review of the statutory Adults at Risk (AaR) policy and Rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The option to remove this restriction and extend the production of Rule 35 reports to other relevant healthcare professionals is being considered and will form part of an external engagement process. The review is expected to be completed in Spring 2025. Any changes would require new statutory instruments to be laid before Parliament.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 translation-project learning with suppliers and endorse translated visitor-information pages on supplier websites.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Learning from this undertaking will be shared with our suppliers, and we will be endorsing the translation of visitor information pages on their respective websites.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Review closed visits across the detention estate for the preceding four months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that a closed visit was imposed for Mr Ospina and his mother, which the inquest found to be inappropriate and unnecessary. Work has been undertaken in relation to your concern that under current practices, closed visits could potentially take place without the knowledge or consent of the Duty Manager, or without the necessary documentation being completed.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Issue staff instructions requiring authorised approval, Home Office notification, visitor explanations, translation support and wellbeing monitoring for closed visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A Notice to Staff was issued to all C&C staff at HIRC in relation to closed visits on 28 November 2024 (see Appendix 1). The Notice to Staff confirmed that placing a resident on closed visits can only be approved by the Head of Security, or the Duty Director in their absence. The Head of Security and/or Duty Director will then inform the Home Office Compliance and Detention Engagement Team of the closed visit, in accordance with the requirements of DSO 04/12. The”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Place signage at closed-visit rooms and visitor-centre reception reminding staff that rooms require an approved closed-visits form.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Signs have also been placed on the door to the closed visit rooms, and in the reception of the visitor’s centre of HIRC as a reminder to staff that closed visit rooms are only to be used if a resident has an approved closed visits form on their file (see Appendix 2). We considered placing coded locks on the closed visit room doors, however this may create a fire evacuation risk for visitors and residents in the event of an emergency, and secondly, whilst closed visits are put in place to prevent security breaches, adding a lock to the door would make the room more formal and potentially intimidating for visitors and residents. For these reasons the closed visit rooms will remain unlocked.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Add closed visits to the DSO 04/12 audit programme and conduct managerial spot checks for compliance and quality assurance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to further ensure that closed visits do not take place without the required authorisation, the Company will include audits of closed visits within its audit programme which ensures compliance with DSO 04/12, and managers will carry out spot checks to ensure compliance with these requirements and for quality assurance.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Introduce electronic-profile flags and weekly security-team circulation of closed-visit information to relevant visitor-centre and visits-hall staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“By way of further control measures: if a resident is placed on closed visits then this will be identified on the scrolling bar of their electronic Detainee Management System profile, to which all staff members have secure access to; a list of residents on closed visits is circulated weekly by the Company’s security team; which is in turn provided to the visitor’s centre reception team and each visits hall to ensure that all staff are aware of residents allocated to closed visits. The security team will circulate an updated list should that information change during the week, and they will also confirm if no residents are subject to closed visits, ensuring that staff have accurate and up to date information on who is subject to a closed visit at all times.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 Recite website service across immigration-removal-centre visitor pages, providing translated web content and accessibility customisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of website translation services, C&C has now implemented a website translation and accessibility service called ‘Recite’ for use by visitors across each of its immigration removal centres, including HIRC. As such, there is now an accessibility button on the bottom right-hand side of each page of the Company’s website, which provides multiple options including the translation of all web content into 100 written languages and 65 ‘text to speech’ voices. Users are also able to utilise the ‘Recite’ function in order to customise the text to their preference, including colour, font style, spacing and layout. The Recite function is available across the entire mitie.com website.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Review closed-visit policies and procedures at HIRC to prevent unauthorised closed visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As confirmed by ████████ and ████████ during the Inquest, in March 2023 there was a clear policy in place in relation to closed visits, in accordance with the requirements of Detention Services Order 04/12, ‘Visitors and Visiting Procedures’ (“DSO 04/12”). A number of administrative steps and safeguards were required before a closed visit could be authorised. In light of Mr Ospina’s case the Company has reviewed its policies and procedures in relation to closed visits within HIRC to ensure that such a situation cannot arise again.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

NHS England will respond separately regarding concerns about the operation of Detention Centre Rule 35.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that officials from NHS England will write to you separately with regards to your concerns about the operation of Detention Centre Rule 35. I understand that Mittie Care and Custody will also be writing to you, and their response may touch on some of the issues which I address below.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 1 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Coded locks will not be installed on closed-visit rooms because they may create fire-evacuation risks and intimidate visitors and residents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Signs have also been placed on the door to the closed visit rooms, and in the reception of the visitor’s centre of HIRC as a reminder to staff that closed visit rooms are only to be used if a resident has an approved closed visits form on their file (see Appendix 2). We considered placing coded locks on the closed visit room doors, however this may create a fire evacuation risk for visitors and residents in the event of an emergency, and secondly, whilst closed visits are put in place to prevent security breaches, adding a lock to the door would make the room more formal and potentially intimidating for visitors and residents. For these reasons the closed visit rooms will remain unlocked.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

No known in-call two-way translation system is available between people inside and outside the centre, so email remains the preferred communication method.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Company has worked with the Home Office to identify what reasonable adjustments may be made to its systems in order to make the process of visiting HIRC more accessible. As confirmed at the Inquest by Frances Hardy, Director of Detention Services for the Home Office, whilst all efforts are made to accommodate visitors whose first language is not English, such as utilising a member of staff who also speaks the same language and the Big Word translation service, there is currently no known system which would act as an in-call two-way translation service between those inside and outside of HIRC. The preferred method of communicating information or submitting a visit request is therefore by email, as this can be translated where required, and details on how to contact HIRC (including details of the Safer Community Helpline) is set out clearly on the Company’s website.”

Source location

Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
Page 4 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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.9

  1. 1

    Discuss all Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share relevant learning across NHS national and regional teams.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Review IS91 RA Forms A–C and develop guidance on their risk-assessment use for the Detention General Instructions.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  3. 3

    Update and publish accommodation standards guidance to reflect learning from the assurance review.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  4. 4

    Revise and publish ACDT guidance embedding thematic-review and inquest learning on observations and personal items for people at risk of self-harm or suicide.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  5. 5

    Strengthen the IS91 RA vulnerability identification and reporting mechanism through communications, training and guidance.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  6. 6

    Develop and implement a strategy to prevent future deaths in immigration detention, including suicide-prevention research, near-miss learning and work with the Samaritans.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  7. 7

    Undertake an assurance review of accommodation certification and record keeping across the detention estate.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  8. 8

    Share guidance on observation responsibilities and personal-item management with staff through safeguarding bulletins.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.
  9. 9

    Provide wearable wrist call bells as an alternative communication method in the Colnbrook care suite until call-bell repairs are completed.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2025.

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

Discuss all Regulation 28 reports through the national working group and share relevant learning across NHS national and regional teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Frank, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.”

Source location

Response from NHS England
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Review IS91 RA Forms A–C and develop guidance on their risk-assessment use for the Detention General Instructions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is wider improvement work, both complete and ongoing, to ensure we continue to learn from the death of Mr Ospina. The Home Office has already strengthened the vulnerability identification and reporting mechanism (IS91 RA) through communications, training and the development of guidance, enabling material changes in health, risk and vulnerability to be consistently communicated to Home Office teams responsible for making decisions on ongoing detention. Work is also underway to review the documentation used for the risk assessment process, (IS91 RA Forms A – C) with the intention to develop guidance on the process and use of the forms in the published Detention General Instructions.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 and publish accommodation standards guidance to reflect learning from the assurance review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that during the process of the inquest, a potential issue was raised with the functionality of call bells in the care suite at Colnbrook IRC. Immediate action was taken to implement an additional, alternative means of communication between a detained individual and officers, in the form of wearable wrist call bells and these were in place from 7 October 2024 and will remain in place until repairs are completed on the call bells in the care suite. We have confirmed with the contracted service providers the timeframe for the repairs would be approximately two days, though as yet, we do not have a confirmed date on when the work will begin. In November 2024, officials undertook an assurance review into the accommodation certification process and record keeping across the detention estate and further learning has been identified.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Revise and publish ACDT guidance embedding thematic-review and inquest learning on observations and personal items for people at risk of self-harm or suicide.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An internal thematic review into the operation of ACDT was completed in April 2024 and progress against recommendations was reviewed in November 2024. The published ACDT guidance, which is currently under review, will be revised to embed learning from the thematic assurance review and the inquest. The revised DSO will include guidance on the responsibilities, quality, and recording of observations, as well as further clarification on the management of personal items for those who are at risk of self-harm or suicide. Guidance on both issues has already been shared with staff by way of safeguarding bulletin. The revised ACDT guidance is expected to be published in late Spring 2025 after internal and external review.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Strengthen the IS91 RA vulnerability identification and reporting mechanism through communications, training and guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is wider improvement work, both complete and ongoing, to ensure we continue to learn from the death of Mr Ospina. The Home Office has already strengthened the vulnerability identification and reporting mechanism (IS91 RA) through communications, training and the development of guidance, enabling material changes in health, risk and vulnerability to be consistently communicated to Home Office teams responsible for making decisions on ongoing detention. Work is also underway to review the documentation used for the risk assessment process, (IS91 RA Forms A – C) with the intention to develop guidance on the process and use of the forms in the published Detention General Instructions.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 implement a strategy to prevent future deaths in immigration detention, including suicide-prevention research, near-miss learning and work with the Samaritans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Preventing Deaths in Custody (2008). Following a Home Office commissioned review into immigration detention by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (IAPDC), a ‘Prevention of future deaths in immigration detention strategy’ is underway. This work includes research into the impact of cultural differences and trauma on suicide prevention strategies, learning from near miss incidents in detention and work with the Samaritans. Progress against recommendations made by the IAPDC are reported through the governance structures of the MBDC.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 4 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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

Undertake an assurance review of accommodation certification and record keeping across the detention estate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that during the process of the inquest, a potential issue was raised with the functionality of call bells in the care suite at Colnbrook IRC. Immediate action was taken to implement an additional, alternative means of communication between a detained individual and officers, in the form of wearable wrist call bells and these were in place from 7 October 2024 and will remain in place until repairs are completed on the call bells in the care suite. We have confirmed with the contracted service providers the timeframe for the repairs would be approximately two days, though as yet, we do not have a confirmed date on when the work will begin. In November 2024, officials undertook an assurance review into the accommodation certification process and record keeping across the detention estate and further learning has been identified.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 guidance on observation responsibilities and personal-item management with staff through safeguarding bulletins.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An internal thematic review into the operation of ACDT was completed in April 2024 and progress against recommendations was reviewed in November 2024. The published ACDT guidance, which is currently under review, will be revised to embed learning from the thematic assurance review and the inquest. The revised DSO will include guidance on the responsibilities, quality, and recording of observations, as well as further clarification on the management of personal items for those who are at risk of self-harm or suicide. Guidance on both issues has already been shared with staff by way of safeguarding bulletin. The revised ACDT guidance is expected to be published in late Spring 2025 after internal and external review.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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 wearable wrist call bells as an alternative communication method in the Colnbrook care suite until call-bell repairs are completed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am aware that during the process of the inquest, a potential issue was raised with the functionality of call bells in the care suite at Colnbrook IRC. Immediate action was taken to implement an additional, alternative means of communication between a detained individual and officers, in the form of wearable wrist call bells and these were in place from 7 October 2024 and will remain in place until repairs are completed on the call bells in the care suite. We have confirmed with the contracted service providers the timeframe for the repairs would be approximately two days, though as yet, we do not have a confirmed date on when the work will begin. In November 2024, officials undertook an assurance review into the accommodation certification process and record keeping across the detention estate and further learning has been identified.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2025

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