PFD report

Robert Thomas GINN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Oct 2019•Inner North 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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

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

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Failure to coach non-clinical staff to improve chest compressions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
  2. Failure to check breathing during resuscitation
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable airway management during emergency care
  3. Failure of a nurse to administer chest compressions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
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

    Require annual Immediate Life Support training for employed resuscitation staff and monitor compliance through monthly dashboards and the Resuscitation Committee.

    Stated by Care UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 December 2019.
  2. Action

    Film selected scenario-based resuscitation exercises for use in in-house training and induction.

    Stated by Care UKStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 December 2019.
  3. Action

    Contract for additional prison-scenario Immediate Life Support training sessions beyond annual recertification across Care UK sites.

    Stated by Care UKStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 December 2019.

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 coach non-clinical staff to improve chest compressions

Wider context from the report

“7. No attempt was made by either of the nurses to coach the prison officer to improve the quality of chest compressions. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 check breathing during resuscitation

Wider context from the report

“2. Throughout the resuscitation attempt captured on BWC, no staff member checked Mr Ginn’s breathing. It is possible that the breathing was checked before the commencement of the bodycam footage, and indeed one of the prison officers said he checked it at the outset, but the footage ran for nearly eleven minutes before the London Ambulance Service arrived and took over, and it was not checked in that time. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable airway management during emergency care.

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 of a nurse to administer chest compressions

Wider context from the report

“8. One of the nurses (Hotel 7) did not administer chest compressions at all. She did not give evidence at inquest and so the reason for this is unclear. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 maintain oxygenation throughout nurse-led resuscitation

Wider context from the report

“4. After the first two minutes of footage, the oxygen mask that had been in place was taken off and no further efforts were made to oxygenate Mr Ginn. 5. Given that Mr Ginn’s heart had stopped beating, he must have stopped breathing as well. A full, effective, nurse led resuscitation attempt should have included an attempt to oxygenate throughout. Hotel 12 said that she did not do this because Mr Ginn’s jaw was too stiff to insert an airway, but the LAS did so without any difficulty. And if he had been cold and stiff when they arrived, the LAS paramedics would not have commenced resuscitation. In any event, an oxygen mask can be applied even if there is stiffness (as it was here, but then it was removed two minutes into the resuscitation and nearly nine minutes before LAS took over). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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 confirm absent breathing using an adequate assessment

Wider context from the report

“3. At inquest, one of the nurses said that she looked at Mr Ginn’s chest at the outset, but she did not put her cheek to his mouth to listen and feel for breath in order to confirm he was not breathing. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable assessment of whether a person is breathing.

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 provide consistently effective chest compressions

Wider context from the report

“6. Chest compressions given by different members of staff were variable and some, including those of one of the nurses, were sub optimal. At one point, chest compressions were given by a staff member sandwiched between Mr Ginn and the wall, where there was not enough space to be effective. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest.

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

Incorrect application of defibrillator pads

Wider context from the report

“9. The defibrillator pads were incorrectly applied by the nursing team, rendering the defibrillator reading unreliable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable defibrillator operation during resuscitation.

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

Require annual Immediate Life Support training for employed resuscitation staff and monitor compliance through monthly dashboards and the Resuscitation Committee.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our policy for the standards of training for employed staff within our Health in Justice service who respond to resuscitation is Immediate Life Support (ILS) training, provided by Resuscitation Council accredited trainers. Although the requirement from the Resuscitation Council is that attendee’s repeat this on a 3 yearly cycle, we mandate that all Care UK employed staff complete this annually. Assurance around the compliance of this training is monitored via monthly performance dashboards and reported to Care UK’s Resuscitation Committee.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Film selected scenario-based resuscitation exercises for use in in-house training and induction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Going forwards, we will contract with our ILS training provider to deliver additional training sessions, including some prison scenario based training. These will be in addition to the annual re-certification sessions. We anticipate that this will be rolled out across our sites nationally over 2020. In addition our intention is to film some of these scenario-based training exercises for use at in-house training events and induction.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Contract for additional prison-scenario Immediate Life Support training sessions beyond annual recertification across Care UK sites.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Going forwards, we will contract with our ILS training provider to deliver additional training sessions, including some prison scenario based training. These will be in addition to the annual re-certification sessions. We anticipate that this will be rolled out across our sites nationally over 2020. In addition our intention is to film some of these scenario-based training exercises for use at in-house training events and induction.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Request CCTV or body-worn-camera footage after on-site custody deaths involving resuscitation and review it through immediate and internal learning reviews.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following a death in custody where resuscitation has taken place on site, a request is made to the prison for the opportunity to view or receive a copy of any CCTV or body worn camera footage so that this can be reviewed as part of Care UK’s 72hr immediate review process and Internal Learning Review. This is to enable us to identify issues or concerns and to assist in improving clinical care and identifying training needs.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

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.2

  1. 1

    Issue an emergency-radio staff fitness and leadership assurance alert and follow up compliance through governance managers.

    Stated by Care UKStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 13 December 2019.
  2. 2

    Communicate opposition to officer-filmed resuscitations and nursing staff body-worn cameras to NHS England and HMPPS.

    Stated by Care UKStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 December 2019.

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

  1. 1

    Care UK does not support nurses wearing body-worn cameras because they may undermine patient trust, confidentiality and engagement with healthcare.

    Stated by Care UKNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    Care UK does not support officers filming resuscitations because footage may lead to unreliable clinical judgments and governance concerns.

    Stated by Care UKNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 an emergency-radio staff fitness and leadership assurance alert and follow up compliance through governance managers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An alert has been issued to all Care UK Heads of Healthcare advising them to seek and provide assurance that all staff holding the emergency radio have the physical fitness to undertake full resuscitation and that those responsible for carrying the emergency radio are, and feel, confident to, lead a resuscitation. This will be followed up by our governance managers to ensure compliance.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Communicate opposition to officer-filmed resuscitations and nursing staff body-worn cameras to NHS England and HMPPS.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thus, following due consideration and debate, Care UK’s position remains that we neither support the filming of resuscitations by officers nor the wearing of body worn cameras by nursing staff. We have communicated this to NHSE and HMPPS”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

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

Care UK does not support nurses wearing body-worn cameras because they may undermine patient trust, confidentiality and engagement with healthcare.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the conclusion of Mr Ginn’s inquest Care UK had already considered the impact of the use of body worn cameras on healthcare teams working in prisons. In several prisons where Care UK operate, our healthcare staff have been offered body worn cameras as a measure to increase their personal safety. However, this is obviously very concerning as body worn cameras cannot replace officers or provide the same level of order, discipline and protection that physical officer presence does - particularly in predictably ill-disciplined situations such as medication queues”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

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

Care UK does not support officers filming resuscitations because footage may lead to unreliable clinical judgments and governance concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is our understanding that body worn cameras were introduced to improve safety for staff working within the prisons. We have been keen to explore what governance has been put in place around the use of body worn cameras in clinical situations and have had conversations previously with both NHSE and NOMs. We are concerned that there is a risk of judgements being made regarding clinical quality from a tool not designed for use in the situation, and by people unused to either resuscitation scenarios or prison environments and from what may be poor quality footage.”

Source location

Response from Care UK
Page 2 · response
Published 13 December 2019

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026