PFD report

NICHOLAS OLIVER JAMES GEDGE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Mar 2025•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

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 raised5

  1. Failure to coordinate detention and medical staff roles during a medical emergency
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of emergency response leadership and coordinationPart of recurring concern: Ineffective communication during medical emergenciesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse
  2. Failure to appreciate the importance of early CPR
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response to patient collapsePart of recurring concern: Unreliable resuscitation preparedness and response during cardiac arrest
  3. Delays in commencing CPR during a medical emergency in a cell
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response to patient collapsePart 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.6

  1. Action

    Review custody contracts, policies and procedures with Leeds Community Healthcare to clarify emergency roles for Detention Officers and Healthcare Professionals.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  2. Action

    Review the Death in Custody procedure through a clinical working group and strengthen joint reflection with colleagues involved in incidents.

    Stated by Leeds Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 March 2025.
  3. Action

    Expand life-support training with custody-suite simulations and joint scenarios to improve coordination between healthcare professionals and detention officers.

    Stated by Leeds Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 March 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Existing training and emergency procedures appropriately require Detention Officers to provide Basic Life Support and follow Healthcare Professional direction.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to coordinate detention and medical staff roles during a medical emergency

Wider context from the report

“(1) From the point when the Detention Officer first entered Nicholas' cell to when CPR was commenced, 8 minutes and 12 seconds elapsed without CPR being given. Within that timeframe, two Detention Officers and a nurse were present in the cell after 75 seconds had passed. (2) On the evidence, there did not appear to be any shared understanding between the three people in the cell with Nicholas of the urgency of starting CPR on an unresponsive person. There did not appear to be a co-ordinated approach to assisting Nicholas, with the Detention Officers and the nurse not appearing to have defined roles which they understood and undertook. (3) It was not clear whether there were any protocols in place to define the respective roles of detention staff and medical staff attending a medical emergency in a cell. The passage of time before CPR was commenced gives rise to a concern either that the importance of early CPR was not appreciated, or that the communication between detention and medical staff did not facilitate its prompt commencement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of emergency response leadership and coordination; Ineffective communication during medical emergencies; Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse.

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 the importance of early CPR

Wider context from the report

“(1) From the point when the Detention Officer first entered Nicholas' cell to when CPR was commenced, 8 minutes and 12 seconds elapsed without CPR being given. Within that timeframe, two Detention Officers and a nurse were present in the cell after 75 seconds had passed. (2) On the evidence, there did not appear to be any shared understanding between the three people in the cell with Nicholas of the urgency of starting CPR on an unresponsive person. There did not appear to be a co-ordinated approach to assisting Nicholas, with the Detention Officers and the nurse not appearing to have defined roles which they understood and undertook. (3) It was not clear whether there were any protocols in place to define the respective roles of detention staff and medical staff attending a medical emergency in a cell. The passage of time before CPR was commenced gives rise to a concern either that the importance of early CPR was not appreciated, or that the communication between detention and medical staff did not facilitate its prompt commencement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse; 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

Delays in commencing CPR during a medical emergency in a cell

Wider context from the report

“(1) From the point when the Detention Officer first entered Nicholas' cell to when CPR was commenced, 8 minutes and 12 seconds elapsed without CPR being given. Within that timeframe, two Detention Officers and a nurse were present in the cell after 75 seconds had passed. (2) On the evidence, there did not appear to be any shared understanding between the three people in the cell with Nicholas of the urgency of starting CPR on an unresponsive person. There did not appear to be a co-ordinated approach to assisting Nicholas, with the Detention Officers and the nurse not appearing to have defined roles which they understood and undertook. (3) It was not clear whether there were any protocols in place to define the respective roles of detention staff and medical staff attending a medical emergency in a cell. The passage of time before CPR was commenced gives rise to a concern either that the importance of early CPR was not appreciated, or that the communication between detention and medical staff did not facilitate its prompt commencement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse; 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 of communication between detention and medical staff to facilitate prompt CPR commencement

Wider context from the report

“(1) From the point when the Detention Officer first entered Nicholas' cell to when CPR was commenced, 8 minutes and 12 seconds elapsed without CPR being given. Within that timeframe, two Detention Officers and a nurse were present in the cell after 75 seconds had passed. (2) On the evidence, there did not appear to be any shared understanding between the three people in the cell with Nicholas of the urgency of starting CPR on an unresponsive person. There did not appear to be a co-ordinated approach to assisting Nicholas, with the Detention Officers and the nurse not appearing to have defined roles which they understood and undertook. (3) It was not clear whether there were any protocols in place to define the respective roles of detention staff and medical staff attending a medical emergency in a cell. The passage of time before CPR was commenced gives rise to a concern either that the importance of early CPR was not appreciated, or that the communication between detention and medical staff did not facilitate its prompt commencement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Ineffective communication during medical emergencies; Unreliable emergency response to patient collapse.

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 protocols defining detention and medical staff roles during a medical emergency in a cell

Wider context from the report

“(1) From the point when the Detention Officer first entered Nicholas' cell to when CPR was commenced, 8 minutes and 12 seconds elapsed without CPR being given. Within that timeframe, two Detention Officers and a nurse were present in the cell after 75 seconds had passed. (2) On the evidence, there did not appear to be any shared understanding between the three people in the cell with Nicholas of the urgency of starting CPR on an unresponsive person. There did not appear to be a co-ordinated approach to assisting Nicholas, with the Detention Officers and the nurse not appearing to have defined roles which they understood and undertook. (3) It was not clear whether there were any protocols in place to define the respective roles of detention staff and medical staff attending a medical emergency in a cell. The passage of time before CPR was commenced gives rise to a concern either that the importance of early CPR was not appreciated, or that the communication between detention and medical staff did not facilitate its prompt commencement. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of emergency response leadership and coordination; Ineffective communication during medical emergencies.

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

Review custody contracts, policies and procedures with Leeds Community Healthcare to clarify emergency roles for Detention Officers and Healthcare Professionals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Nevertheless, the Chief Constable intends to review the contracts, policies and procedures that are in place between Leeds Community Healthcare and the Force, in partnership with Leeds Community Healthcare, to ensure that the respective roles of the Detention Officers and Healthcare Professionals in custody in an emergency situation are sufficiently clear.”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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 Death in Custody procedure through a clinical working group and strengthen joint reflection with colleagues involved in incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A working group consisting of LCH HCP’s, led by a clinical team manager, has commenced to review the Death in Custody (DIC) procedure.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Expand life-support training with custody-suite simulations and joint scenarios to improve coordination between healthcare professionals and detention officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• In addition to the organisational mandatory bespoke life support training, LCH will expand the scenario aspect of training to include simulation exercises in the custody suite environment with the aim of improving the co-ordination between LCH staff and detention officers in the event of emergency scenarios.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Include coordination of response in investigations of life-threatening incidents and deaths in custody.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The service will ensure that they include ‘coordination of response’ in the investigation process of incidents where there has been a life-threatening response or a DIC.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Incorporate recommendations from reflective discussions with incident staff into CPR training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• LCH has conducted a reflective conversation with the staff involved in the incident and has incorporated their recommendations and suggestions for improvements into the CPR training.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Agree the reviewed procedure with police to define robust coordination of responses in life-threatening situations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The procedure will be agreed with the police to ensure the coordination of response in life threatening situations is robust.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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

Existing training and emergency procedures appropriately require Detention Officers to provide Basic Life Support and follow Healthcare Professional direction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(i) Until the custody Healthcare Professional attends, they are to follow their training and provide Basic Life Support, including giving CPR to people who are not breathing.”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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.1

  1. 1

    Add a photographic description of emergency-bag contents to support rapid identification of items during emergencies.

    Stated by Leeds Community Healthcare NHS TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2025.

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

  1. 1

    Actions of the custody Healthcare Professional are a matter for the healthcare Trust, not the Chief Constable.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The account that an intraosseous needle was inserted is incorrect; naloxone was administered by intramuscular injection.

    Stated by Leeds Community Healthcare NHS TrustDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Add a photographic description of emergency-bag contents to support rapid identification of items during emergencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The service has added a photographic description of the contents of the emergency bag to aid the quick identification of items in an emergency.”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

Actions of the custody Healthcare Professional are a matter for the healthcare Trust, not the Chief Constable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(d) The Chief Constable makes no comment on the actions of the Healthcare Professional, which is a matter for the Trust.”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 26 March 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

The account that an intraosseous needle was inserted is incorrect; naloxone was administered by intramuscular injection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a matter of clarification, Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust would also like to note that within the Regulation 28 report (page 1, section 4) it states:”

Source location

Response from Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
Page 3 · response
Published 26 March 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026