Skip to content
recurance

Delayed ACCT case review and documentation failure

Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderate2 reports · 2013–2021 One-page brief (print or PDF)

HMP Hewell received 2 coroners' reports about this hazard between 16 Sept 2013 and 17 Sept 2021.

They came from 2 different coroners. A similar concern was raised again 1 time after the first warning.

A published response was found for 1 of the 1 earlier reports, stating 1 specific action.

2
reports
2
different coroners
2013–2021
years
0.80
lowest link confidence

The story, report by report

Spacing grows with the time between reports.

  1. First warning

    Reggie Johns↗

    16 Sept 2013 · G U Williams · Worcestershire

    “(3) Further concerns involved the failure of the nurse to be provided with the ACCT document when Mr [name redacted] was interviewed by her and her further failure to make any entry within that document detailing her professional view.”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    HMP Hewell responded, stating 1 specific action.Response (PDF) ↗

    “Since Mr [name redacted]' death, HMP Bristol has introduced a system whereby their safer custody team contacts the receiving establishment via email and telephone whenever a prisoner on an open ACCT transfers out of the prison to make the receiving establishment aware of the prisoner's perceived risk of harm. In addition, the escort contractors are also now informed of those prisoners on open ACCTs prior to being transferred out to court or other establishments. These conversations are recorded on Prison-NOMIS”
  2. 8 years later

    Raised again · 1st time

    Colin Blackburn↗

    17 Sept 2021 · David Reid · Worcestershire

    Closely relatedConfidence 0.80 · moderatea different coroner
    “that no Initial ACCT Case Review was held within 24 hours of the Concern & Keep Safe form being completed on 21.6.19;”
    Original on judiciary.uk ↗

    Repeated from the earlier report:ACCTwithin

    HMP Hewell responded.Response (PDF) ↗

  3. All reports to HMP Hewell

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