PFD report

Kirk William Williams · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Nov 2014•Teesside

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
5

Named on the report

Responses found
6

Of 5 recipients

Stated actions
12

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. Lack of dialogue between police and local A&E departments about treatment misunderstandings
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Lack of memorandum of understanding or guideline for taking aggressive detainees to A&E departments
    Part of recurring concern: Unclear healthcare and police responsibilities for safety-critical actionPart of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring treatment
  3. Insufficient A&E consultant understanding of which detainees will be accepted for treatment
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring treatment
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.7

  1. Action

    Keep the Durham emergency-department process under review and discuss arising concerns monthly in relevant meetings.

    Stated by NHS Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield CCG and NHS Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees CCG and NHS North Durham CCG and NHS South Tees Clinical Commissioning GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  2. Action

    Inform relevant NHS and police staff about the agreed detainee-management guidance.

    Stated by NHS Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield CCG and NHS Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees CCG and NHS North Durham CCG and NHS South Tees Clinical Commissioning GroupStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  3. Action

    Establish joint guidance for assessing, treating, discharging and communicating information about aggressive or medically unwell detainees attending emergency departments.

    Stated by NHS Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield CCG and NHS Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees CCG and NHS North Durham CCG and NHS South Tees Clinical Commissioning GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

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 dialogue between police and local A&E departments about treatment misunderstandings

Wider context from the report

“(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 memorandum of understanding or guideline for taking aggressive detainees to A&E departments

Wider context from the report

“(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear healthcare and police responsibilities for safety-critical action; Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring treatment.

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

Insufficient A&E consultant understanding of which detainees will be accepted for treatment

Wider context from the report

“(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring treatment.

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

Insufficient police understanding of A&E treatment for detainees

Wider context from the report

“(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unclear healthcare and police responsibilities for safety-critical action; Unreliable hospital acceptance arrangements for patients requiring treatment.

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

Keep the Durham emergency-department process under review and discuss arising concerns monthly in relevant meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The process is kept under review by the Trust and any arising issues are discussed on a monthly basis in relevant meetings depending on the nature of the concerns raised, i.e. frequent attenders; mental health, drugs or alcohol related issues or violence and aggression incidents. The Trust has confirmed that some of those meetings do include representatives from Durham Constabulary.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Inform relevant NHS and police staff about the agreed detainee-management guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All relevant staff, both NHS and Police, to be informed of the guidelines agreed for future reference.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish joint guidance for assessing, treating, discharging and communicating information about aggressive or medically unwell detainees attending emergency departments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A meeting was held between the Medical Directors and senior A&E medical staff of both Foundation Trusts and Detective Chief Superintendent ████████ from Cleveland Police.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 1 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Hold discussions with Durham Constabulary to ensure officers know that patients should be taken to the emergency department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust have confirmed that the lead Security Officer for the Trust has held discussions with Durham Constabulary lead officers to ensure that all police officers know that patients should be taken to the Emergency Department.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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 effectiveness of the guidance after six months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is my intention to review the effectiveness of the guidance in six months’ time and to take any appropriate action where necessary, whether that is amendments to the guidance in conjunction with the two Trusts, or further training to ensure staff are aware of and are implementing the guidance.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-Cleveland-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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 Cleveland Police guidance for managing aggressive detainees transferred to emergency or mental-health services, incorporating agreed police and NHS arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At point 8 in your report you identified that there did not appear to be a Memorandum of Understanding or guidance to cover aggressive detainees in Custody being taken to A&E Departments.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-Cleveland-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Brief custody staff, medical staff and frontline officers on the new detainee-transfer guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• All staff both NHS and Police to be informed of the guidelines agreed for future reference.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-Cleveland-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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.5

  1. 1

    Meet monthly with partner organisations to share learning, discuss difficult cases, and monitor patients detained under section 136 in the emergency department.

    Stated by NHS Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield CCG and NHS Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees CCG and NHS North Durham CCG and NHS South Tees Clinical Commissioning GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  2. 2

    Participate in the Crisis Care Concordat with partner agencies involved in caring for patients in crisis.

    Stated by NHS Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield CCG and NHS Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees CCG and NHS North Durham CCG and NHS South Tees Clinical Commissioning GroupStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  3. 3

    Work with other agencies to improve crisis care, identify causes of crises, and develop prevention and early-intervention plans where possible.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  4. 4

    Consider whether relevant policies and guidance need changes, liaising with Public Health England on commissioning and provision of substance misuse services.

    Stated by NHS EnglandStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  5. 5

    Provide annual personal safety training to frontline officers, including instruction on excited delirium.

    Stated by Cleveland PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

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

Meet monthly with partner organisations to share learning, discuss difficult cases, and monitor patients detained under section 136 in the emergency department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition the Trust has confirmed that they have signed up to the Crisis Care Concordat with all agencies involved in treating or looking after patients in crises, this includes Durham Constabulary. As part of the work to progress the Concordat the Foundation Trust and all partner organisations meet on a monthly basis to share learning; discuss difficult cases and also discuss and monitor any patients who have been detained under a section 136 in the emergency department”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Participate in the Crisis Care Concordat with partner agencies involved in caring for patients in crisis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a final point, the Trusts, CCGs, North East Ambulance Service and Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust have signed up to the Crisis Care Concordat to work towards continuing to improve the care of patients in crisis.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-South-Tees-Clinical-Commissioning-Group
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Work with other agencies to improve crisis care, identify causes of crises, and develop prevention and early-intervention plans where possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As one of the signatories to the Crisis Care Concordat, NHS England is committed to working alongside other agencies to improve the system of care and support for people in crisis, to work together to identify the causes of crises, and put in place prevention and early intervention plans whenever possible.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-NHS-England
Page 2 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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

Consider whether relevant policies and guidance need changes, liaising with Public Health England on commissioning and provision of substance misuse services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From our review and consideration, we note that the issues concerning substance misuse and possible mental health issues have been addressed in the responses from the local health care Commissioners and Trusts. However, in view of the serious nature of this case, I will be considering it further with NHS England's Northern Regional Medical Director ████████ with a view to determining whether changes need to be made to relevant current policies and guidance. This will also include liaison with colleagues in Public Health England, with regard to commissioning and provision of substance misuse services.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-NHS-England
Page 1 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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 annual personal safety training to frontline officers, including instruction on excited delirium.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At point 1 in your report you note that “Police Officers in Cleveland doubtless receive training in excited delirium” that is correct, all front line officers are required to undertake Personal Safety Training on an annual basis, during that training they receive an input on “excited delirium”.”

Source location

2014-0499-Response-by-Cleveland-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 14 November 2014

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
6/5

Data last updated 7 September 2026