PFD report

Natalie Louise AINSWORTH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Mar 2026•County Durham and Darlington

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to conduct an accurate and robust missing-person risk assessment
  2. Failure to communicate critical missing-person welfare information to relevant officers
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
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.3

  1. Action

    Implement a process for directly recording and sharing new or updated missing-person information with investigating officers and reviewing supervisors.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2026.
  2. Action

    Review the Missing From Home Policy and Guidance to address recognition of vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2026.
  3. Action

    Provide updated training for staff conducting missing-person risk assessments on vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 March 2026.

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 conduct an accurate and robust missing-person risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“Natalie was a vulnerable missing person considered to be at medium risk. A call was made to Police on the 13th February 2025 at 15:01 hours expressing concern for Natalie's welfare and informing Police of a new address where she may be and informing Police that she had earlier threatened to take her own life. Although the control room recorded that information was passed on to the relevant officer, neither the Inspector who undertook an updated a risk assessment some two hours later, nor the Officer making enquiries, was aware that Natalie had threatened to take her own life. This important information was therefore not part of the risk assessment and not factored into subsequent Police actions, including in terms of whether to force entry to the property which was visited by the Police. Further the risk assessment carried out at 1704 hours was not a robust assessment of the risks which were known, or ought to have been known, by Police at that time. In particular the risk assessment fails to consider Natalie's vulnerability as a person with a history of mental health issues, self harm and substance abuse, records incorrectly that there is no indication that the person is likely to take their own life, records incorrectly that the person has no mental health issues, and records incorrectly that the person has not been involved in a violent incident prior to them disappearing. An accurate and robust assessment of risk is essential to ensure that the nature and extent of any Police response is proportionate, and resources deployed appropriately, particularly when welfare/safety concerns are raised, as they were in Natalie's case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to communicate critical missing-person welfare information to relevant officers

Wider context from the report

“Natalie was a vulnerable missing person considered to be at medium risk. A call was made to Police on the 13th February 2025 at 15:01 hours expressing concern for Natalie's welfare and informing Police of a new address where she may be and informing Police that she had earlier threatened to take her own life. Although the control room recorded that information was passed on to the relevant officer, neither the Inspector who undertook an updated a risk assessment some two hours later, nor the Officer making enquiries, was aware that Natalie had threatened to take her own life. This important information was therefore not part of the risk assessment and not factored into subsequent Police actions, including in terms of whether to force entry to the property which was visited by the Police. Further the risk assessment carried out at 1704 hours was not a robust assessment of the risks which were known, or ought to have been known, by Police at that time. In particular the risk assessment fails to consider Natalie's vulnerability as a person with a history of mental health issues, self harm and substance abuse, records incorrectly that there is no indication that the person is likely to take their own life, records incorrectly that the person has no mental health issues, and records incorrectly that the person has not been involved in a violent incident prior to them disappearing. An accurate and robust assessment of risk is essential to ensure that the nature and extent of any Police response is proportionate, and resources deployed appropriately, particularly when welfare/safety concerns are raised, as they were in Natalie's case. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Unreliable missing-person response.

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

Implement a process for directly recording and sharing new or updated missing-person information with investigating officers and reviewing supervisors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the issuing of the notice the Force have reviewed processes around the recording of additional information received into the Force Control Room as part of a missing person investigation.”

Source location

Response from Durham Constabulary
Page 1 · response
Published 26 March 2026

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 Missing From Home Policy and Guidance to address recognition of vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the period between the death of Natalie AINSWORTH and the inquest conclusion the Constabulary had already reviewed it’s Missing From Home Policy and Guidance and provided updated training to those conducting risk assessments. This focused around the recognition vulnerability and other risk factors and determining the appropriate response as a result.”

Source location

Response from Durham Constabulary
Page 1 · response
Published 26 March 2026

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 updated training for staff conducting missing-person risk assessments on vulnerability, risk factors and appropriate responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the period between the death of Natalie AINSWORTH and the inquest conclusion the Constabulary had already reviewed it’s Missing From Home Policy and Guidance and provided updated training to those conducting risk assessments. This focused around the recognition vulnerability and other risk factors and determining the appropriate response as a result.”

Source location

Response from Durham Constabulary
Page 1 · response
Published 26 March 2026

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026