Skip to content
recurance

Overly rigid right care right person policy leading to deployment delays

Closely relatedConfidence 0.85 · high3 reports · 2022–2026 One-page brief (print or PDF)

College of Policing received 3 coroners' reports about this hazard between 21 Jul 2022 and 19 May 2026.

They came from 3 different coroners in 3 coroner areas. A similar concern was raised again 2 times after the first warning.

A published response was found for 2 of the 2 earlier reports, stating 3 specific actions.

3
reports
3
different coroners
2022–2026
years
0.85
lowest link confidence

The story, report by report

Spacing grows with the time between reports.

  1. First warning

    Gaia Pope-Sutherland↗

    21 Jul 2022 · Rachael Griffin · Dorset

    “some parts of these policies remain ambiguous or confusing. For example, in the Call Handling, Grading and Deployment Policy, there is no specific paragraph that explains that the Force Incident Manager should be notified of a high risk missing person”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    College of Policing responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗

    “We recognise that policing must have some medical knowledge and this is provided through our first aid programme. This programme and medical knowledge makes explicit links to our vulnerability training. To ensure police responders are equipped to effectively respond to missing persons, our training focuses on managing the full spectrum of vulnerabilities through effective and proportionate risk management. In reality, this means that College standards require front line responders to ask good”

    Stated timescale: 15 September 2022

  2. 3 years later

    Raised again · 1st time

    Elaine Tarbuck↗

    7 Jul 2025 · Timothy Brennand · Manchester West

    “The emergency response had come about because of a new 'Right Care, Right Person' policy applied by emergency services that, in fact, delivered as a first responder, the wrong person delivering the wrong care to the deceased's residence.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    College of Policing responded, stating 2 specific actions.Response (PDF) ↗Response (PDF) ↗

    “NWAS, in partnership with Greater Manchester Police (GMP), has identified a recurring thematic issue involving calls being passed from GMP to NWAS that do not meet the agreed threshold for Concern for Welfare as outlined in the Right Care, Right Person stakeholder meetings. These concerns have been formally escalated to Senior Leaders within GMP and to the Deputy Mayor for further consideration and action.”
    “The College is reviewing the RCRP toolkit to ensure it provides clearer guidance on the assessment of risk in control rooms, including how to handle ambiguous or borderline cases where the threshold for police attendance may not be immediately clear.”

    Web search (Tavily): Evidence found that the action was carried out

    Right Care Right Person (RCRP) national guidance ... ↗
  3. 10 months later

    Raised again · 2nd time

    Catherine Morgan↗

    19 May 2026 · Patricia Harding · Kent and Medway

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.85 · higha different coroner
    “An overly rigid approach to the Right Care Right Person policy and affinity protocol resulted in a delayed deployment.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Repeated from the earlier report:RightCarePersonpolicy

  4. All reports to College of Policing

Next

This shows that a similar concern was raised again after an earlier report. It does not say why, and it is not a finding about any organisation or person. To report an error, see the corrections route.

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error