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 Oban and Clydebank, in Argyll and West Dunbartonshire.
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 18 recommendations for Police Scotland and for both NHS Highland and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
While the recommendations in this report have specific relevance for Oban and Clydebank custody centres, we recognise that some of these will be equally applicable to other custody centres across Scotland.
Additional
Key findings
- The Argyll and West Dunbartonshire police division has two primary custody centres. The principal centre is in Clydebank, the second is in Oban. There are other custody centres in the region that have custody staff working daytime hours only and some that are unstaffed, which are opened when required by police officers.
- The rear yards at both custody centres double as parking for operational police vehicles and, in the case of Oban custody centre, Sheriff Court vehicles. Both yards were accessed directly from the public road and there were no notices or signs restricting unauthorised entry although both were well covered by CCTV viewable from the custody office.
- Both yards were bounded by walls and steel gates which were either of insufficient height, or in the case of Oban, in such a state of disrepair as to render them ineffective to prevent unwanted pedestrian access.
- Inspectors noted some longstanding maintenance and repair issues at the centres that had not been addressed effectively. A defect in the roof of a relatively new modular cell extension at Clydebank has resulted in recurrent leaking and frequent closure of up to four cells.
- The staffing structure across the division appears unusual compared to other divisions, and presents challenges for the consistent supervision of staff. This may, in part, be due to the spread of centres across a wide geographical area, however, is also as a result of gaps in supervision arrangements for custody staff in the lesser used centres.
- Inspectors observed booking-in processes at the custody centres. Standard processes were followed well and detainees were dealt with in a professional manner.
- The custody coordinator role, operating daily in the greater Glasgow area to direct police officers to the most appropriate custody centre, was popular with officers and custody staff, and can reduce delays.
- Our review of records on NCS, found that a letter of rights was offered in all cases. Similarly, the offer of access to a solicitor, and to have a reasonably named person informed of detention, were recorded consistently. The completion and recording of Police Interview – Rights of Suspects (PIRoS) was also consistent.
- Of the records examined on NCS, 14 detainees were strip searched. In several of these, there was a lack of consistent and effective recording to outline decision making processes and authorisation to ensure they were necessary and appropriate in all cases.
- We found a disparity between some risk assessments and the corresponding care plan/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 found that 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 throughput at the centres.
- Handovers were carried out consistently between staff teams at both centres, and were recorded accurately on NCS.
- There were adequate custody staffing levels at the time of our inspection, and we observed a good balance of male and female custody staff at both centres.
- We found detainee property management arrangements at the centres to be in good order.
- The electronic tablets provided to Clydebank and Oban to record cells checks were not being used, with complications relating to technology cited as the cause.
- Detainees we spoke with at Clydebank and Oban, stated that they had been treated very well by officers and custody staff. They said that custody staff had been respectful and made regular enquiries about their wellbeing.
- 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.
- The healthcare service at Clydebank custody centre is nurse-led with support from forensic medical examiners. This is delivered from a central hub at Govan Police Station, where the healthcare team is based. Healthcare at Oban custody centre is provided (in hours) by the local GP practice through a contract with the HSCP. Outwith this, healthcare is provided by the NHS Highland out-of hours GP service.
- In both custody centres, clinical examinations and assessments were generally carried out in the healthcare room with the door closed unless the custody staff had highlighted this as a safety risk.
- There was a lack of governance and oversight of the provision of healthcare services to the Oban custody centre. While the HSCP had established structures and processes that provided assurance regarding clinical and care governance; these did not include oversight of healthcare within the Oban custody centre. HIS inspectors raised this issue with the HSCP during our inspection and have requested an improvement plan outlining how this issue will be addressed.
- We were told that the healthcare practitioners at Oban faced challenges with the use of Adastra due to IT issues and some staff not being able to access the system. This resulted in most consultations being recorded on paper.
- We found patient records from 2022 to the date of our inspection, stored in a locked cupboard in the Oban custody centre consultation room. We were concerned that these patient records were not stored securely as non healthcare staff had access to the consultation room and keys for the storage cupboard.
- The healthcare room at the Oban centre required some upgrading, with staining around the skylight area and some damage to the walls, which would limit effective cleaning.
- At Oban, the cleaning products used to clean the healthcare room, cells, and custody area did not comply with guidance in the National Infection Prevention Control Manual (NIPCM) guidance. Although personal protective equipment (PPE) was available, it was not stored appropriately. Sharps bins used to dispose of used needles or sharp medical items, were not correctly labelled. Although a clinical bin was available, this was overfilled.
- An automated external defibrillator was available in the staff office at the Oban centre. We were told that other emergency equipment, such as oxygen and emergency medication were transported by the on-call GP. There was no standard operating procedure or policy in place to ensure responsive management of medical emergencies for GPs and custody staff.
- At both Clydebank and Oban custody centres, there was evidence of signposting detainees to community support services and custody staff were knowledgeable about the support available in the community. Referrals could be made by custody staff, healthcare staff and GPs.
- A range of leaflets and posters were displayed in both centres relating to mental health, substance use, health & wellbeing, harm reduction, peer support and family support services available in the community.
- There were clear processes in place at both custody centres to support healthcare staff to communicate with community pharmacies, community mental health teams, and substance use services where required for continuity of care.