Agenda item

To consider the impacts of the Right Care, Right Person approach on responses to mental health crisis events.

Superintendent Helen Kenny (Thames Valley Police)  gave a presentation on Right Care, Right Person (Agenda Item 9).

Members asked what would happen if a resident requested a welfare check. A recent example was given of a camper van parked in the middle of a pub car park. The curtains were drawn and it was not clear if anyone was inside. In this case, the Police had refused to do a welfare check.

It was explained that the Police would attend if there had been an accident and there was concern about the occupants, but if the vehicle was parked and there was no sign of distress, then there was no fear for any person’s welfare. It would be up to the landowner to have the vehicle removed. If the public called the Police, then they may be referred to a more suitable agency.

There was a question about what would happen if ambulances were busy, resulting in a long delay before they could get to a reported individual in distress.

It was confirmed that if there was a need for an immediate response and an ambulance was unable to attend, then the Police would attend. This had happened with a recent incident involving someone in mental health crisis who was self-harming.

Members asked what percentage of incidents resulted in harm to the individual following a welfare check and whether this would be monitored to track the impacts of the change in approach.

Action: Supt Helen Kenny to confirm if data was available on the percentage of incidents where there was harm to the individual after a welfare check had been carried out.

Governance for the change included an implementation group co-chaired by the Police and the NHS, which would undertake regular reviews of incidents and outcomes, including any cases where neither the Police nor the ambulance service had attended.

The importance of soft intelligence being fed back quickly was highlighted.

A question was asked about potential time delays as a result of the change in approach. and the potential impacts on whoever calls in to report a person in distress.

It was confirmed that if there was an immediate need for a response, then the Police would still attend. However, if there was not an immediate need to attend, then the case may be referred to the ambulance service or a mental health specialist, and there may be a delay in the response.

It was noted that the degree of panic / urgency to attend was difficult to measure. Call handlers would be issued with a toolkit to enable them to make an informed assessment. In the long-term, there would be an assessment of the impact of the change on partner agencies.

The Board acknowledged that the Police were concerned about being used as a de facto ambulance service. However, concerns were expressed about approaching a complex problem with a relatively simple solution. It was noted that there was considerable overlap between the Police and other agencies, and it was suggested that clients may fall between stools. It was suggested that there was a need for officers and call handlers to have robust health literacy training. Concerns were also expressed about the lack of information on how the impacts of the new approach would be measured.

It was explained that the reason for introducing the change was to get the right care to the patient at the right time. The Police was not the best agency to deal with someone who was mentally unwell. It was confirmed that Police officers did receive mental health training so they could exercise powers under the Mental Health Act, but often a Police officer in uniform would not be the best person to support a person in mental health distress. While reducing demand on the Police was not a reason for introducing the change, one of the benefits would be to free up the Police to deal with crime.  Superintendent Helen Kenny had not been briefed on measurement, but she offered to provide an update in three months.

Action: Supt Helen Kenny to provide and update on implementation of the Right Care, Right Person model in three months.

It was highlighted that South Central Ambulance Service was under extreme pressure and the Board expressed concern about people falling through the gaps between services.

Members asked if mental health responders would attend calls like they do in other parts of the UK. It was confirmed that Thames Valley Police did not have such arrangements in place currently, but it would be considered in future.

A question was asked about the involvement of the voluntary sector. It was confirmed that they had been consulted on the change.

Members asked if care alarm providers had been briefed. It was confirmed that they had.

Members asked about Police attendance where there were concerns about a resident’s welfare that was not related to mental health (i.e., patient slumped in a chair at home and not responsive). It was confirmed that either the Police or fire service could attend such incidents and force entry to the property.

Members also asked about a scenario involving a dementia patient missing from a care home. It was confirmed that they would be classed as a high risk missing person and the Police would attend, but this was not related to the Right Care, Right Person initiative.

It was noted that the Berkshire West Mental Health Programme Board was being stood back up. Thames Valley Police would be represented and feedback on Right Care, Right Person would be sought through that meeting.

RESOLVED to note the report and for the Board to receive an update in three months.