Related Downloads
The aim of this inspection, undertaken jointly by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) and Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), was to assess the treatment of, and conditions for, individuals detained in the police custody centres at London Road, Govan and Cathcart in Greater Glasgow. The report provides an analysis of the quality of custody centre operations and the provision of healthcare services. It also outlines key findings identified during our inspection and makes six recommendations for Police Scotland and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. While the recommendations in this report have specific relevance for Greater Glasgow custody centres, we recognise that some of these will be equally applicable to other custody centres across Scotland.
Additional
Key findings
- Glasgow has two primary custody centres at Govan and London Road. The additional facility based at Cathcart provides a fallback option for custody services, and although normally closed, was opened during our inspection to allow for remedial work at Govan.
- The facilities at Govan and London Road were considered to be good. However, Cathcart required more urgent and broader maintenance, particularly should it be used more frequently.
- The rear access points at London Road and Govan custody centres comprised of caged vehicle docks with Cathcart being an enclosed vehicle dock. All were secured by fully operational electronic gates, controlled and monitored remotely from the custody office and were located in ‘access restricted’ rear station yards.
- Govan contained a spacious accessible wet room located off the main custody access corridor, however, it was closed due to blocked drainage. Custody staff highlighted that poor drainage also led to frequent flooding of the shower areas, which could make them problematic to use and a potential hazard.
- At Govan, the ‘drink driving’ intoximeter testing equipment was located in a very small room close to the route to and from the charge bar. This could be problematic when the facility has a high throughput of detainees who have consumed alcohol.
- London Road featured a short corridor of cells that had been modified and decorated with the intention of improving the environment for children and young people when they are detained. We were informed that this was no longer used as the default location for children and young people. However, we found no rationale to explain why this facility was not being used as initially intended.
- London Road contained a separate ‘discrete charge bar’, which was reserved for processing ‘sensitive’ arrests, children or other vulnerable detainees. This spacious and well-appointed room also incorporated a video information screen where an informative and age-appropriate, ten minute video can be presented to vulnerable or young detainees describing the custody facility and clarifying detainee rights and expectations.
- In Govan and Cathcart, inspectors found that some internal doors were not properly secured, which could allow unauthorised egress from the custody areas to the wider station footprints and exits. This was highlighted to custody staff at the time of our visit.
- While each centre had ligature cutters, custody staff at Govan were unable to immediately locate them when requested. These were subsequently located at the charge bar in an unmarked miscellaneous storage box, but only after a few minutes of searching. Cutters were not routinely carried by staff.
- At Govan, we saw four used unsecured and unlabelled sharps boxes lying on the floor of the charge bar, which presented a potential risk to staff.
- In each centre, the separated corridors enabled gender or age-based segregation, and these were routinely utilised for detainees.
- No recent physical evacuation fire drills had taken place in either centre.
- Detainees were offered a referral to a third sector agency for support in several instances, however, this could have been used more consistently as it was not offered to some detainees where it appeared appropriate.
- Interviews with custody staff across the centres suggested that use of Cathcart should be prioritised over London Road on the basis that it would provide increased capacity and would reduce the number of detainees transferred for capacity reasons.
- Visibility of custody managers was described as ‘mixed’ by custody staff, with several senior officers working from home, some on compressed hours. This can impact on effective management oversight of operational processes, staff supervision, and compliance checking.
- Staff at all three custody centres universally cited staff shortages as their primary concern. They advised that they regularly operated under the operational base levels (OBL) for custody centres and described the situation as very challenging.
- We found detainee property arrangements to be well managed and in good order.
- We observed nine detainees being booked into custody across all three custody centres. At Govan, we saw two charge bars operating simultaneously, though staff suggested that frequent delays were the result of routinely operating only one charge bar at any given time.
- All the detainees we saw were subject to a standard search, which were conducted by CJPCSO’s in a safe, methodical, and respectful manner. We noted that the CJPCSOs at Cathcart and London Road wore personal protective vests to conduct searches.
- Of the 90 records we examined during our review of the NCS, 32 detainees were strip searched, the majority of which were undertaken appropriately. At times, a strip search can be authorised on the basis of a historical drug possession record. We consider that a clear rationale should be recorded in such circumstances to ensure proportionality.
- All detainees were provided with information on their right to a solicitor and reasonably named person, and staff ensured that these were fully explained.
- Within our broader sample, we examined four records relating to children aged between 13 and 15 years. None were held for court but remained in police custody for between six and twelve hours. Each were charged with minor offences. The NCS had no information indicating that an inspector was aware of, nor had sanctioned, these detentions. We consider holding children in a cell for this length of time to be disproportionate with the alleged offence, inconsistent with existing policy, and potentially detrimental to the child.
- We noted in six cases, that there was a delay in the detainee being released following a disposal decision being made. In one instance, this was for an additional nine hours, and in another, for fifteen hours. Neither case featured an appropriate rationale recorded on NCS to explain these delays.
- We found that a record of a formal handover between custody teams appeared in the majority of records reviewed on the NCS. There were 12 records which we considered should have featured a formal handover but did not.
- There was a disparity between some risk assessments and the corresponding care plan and observation level put in place. While risk was mitigated by the use of enhanced CCTV observations, the recording of risk and care plans was inconsistent.
- We noted significant delays between the recorded time of a cell visit taking place and the time that it was entered onto the NCS. While some of these were recorded in good time, in some cases, the delay was lengthy with the longest of these being 86 minutes. This type of delay can result in important information not being available to all staff when required.
- There was limited quality assurance and audit of key processes taking place at the custody centres. While Cluster Inspectors sampled cases for audit, these were often in very small numbers and therefore not reflective of overall practice at the centres. The criminal justice services division are in the process of introducing a new approach to address this concern.
- We interviewed eight detainees across the centres during our inspection. All provided complimentary feedback about their treatment by custody staff and the arresting officers.
- Medication was required in 24 of the records we inspected. For the most part, the NCS was updated appropriately in this respect.
- The Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership (HSCP) hosts police custody healthcare on behalf of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The HSCP is responsible for the delivery of healthcare in this area, which includes London Road, Govan, and Cathcart. The service is nurse led with support from forensic medical examiners (FMEs).
- The police custody healthcare team consists of a peripatetic nursing and medical service. Custody nursing staff were available 24/7, and are on duty over a 24 hour period. The nursing team had a combination of Adult Health Nurses and Registered Mental Health Nurses.
- Overall, healthcare was well managed. The HSCP provided a clear management structure, with monitoring and oversight undertaken through its clinical and care governance processes. Healthcare staff we spoke with described the management team as visible and supportive.
- There was information displayed in all custody centres about how detainees could make a complaint or give feedback. Treatment rooms in all centres were visibly clean and in a good state of repair, with hand wash basins and personal protective equipment available for use.
- Custody staff reported that there was a lack of clarity on whether or not nursing staff would routinely attend for a detainee arrested with a ‘not officially accused’ status, within the first six hours of their detention. They highlighted that there could, at times, be gaps in these detainees being seen.
- There was an identified infection prevention and control (IPC) lead for all the custody centres and a programme was in place to complete monthly IPC audits.
- At the time of the inspection, it was noted at London Road that the dates on the oxygen mask within the emergency bag and the defibrillator pads had expired.
- There was evidence of a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) pathway in place for referring children to specialist services if required.
- All medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored securely in locked cabinets and a locked medicine fridge in the treatment rooms. The keys for the medicine cabinets and fridge were kept in a key safe that only healthcare staff could access.
- Processes were in place for medications to be administered by custody staff from compliance aids, apart from Opiate Substitution Therapy (OST), which was administered by healthcare staff. The compliance aids in all custody centres were held securely by custody staff in a locked safe until they were required.
- Processes were in place for confirming, collecting and administering community prescriptions for patients within custody who were prescribed OST. For patients appearing in court, OST was not routinely given prior to attending.
- Data recorded showed a range of harm reduction information and interventions were available to detainees at the custody centres with good uptake. BBV testing was available to detainees accessing healthcare in custody. All healthcare professionals had access to Naloxone and were trained to administer it.
- Training opportunities were available to ensure health staff competencies including access to mental health first aid, skills training in self-harm, suicide prevention and intervention.
- All custody centres had access to a community support service – Positive Outcomes Project (POP), which was viewed very positively by custody and healthcare staff. Peer support workers visited the centres to promote detainee engagement with community support services.