Implementation of SIM/HIN coercion protocols on vulnerable persons in mental health distress

The request was refused by London Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

Dear London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,

Written with Support

By necessity there is a preamble to the questions so that London Ambulance Service (LAS) is clear what is being asked and to avoid any confusion and unnecessary delays.

All information provided is referenced and documented via the site below.

LAS are listed as active/ key partners by all London Mental Health (MH) Trusts in imposing the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) and the High Intensity Network (HIN) schemes on vulnerable persons in mental health crisis. As well as other schemes of the same type operating in the same way.

Please note that this FOI is not addressing those cases barred from LAS access because they pose a threat to attending staff or call LAS vexatiously.

Neither is it relevant to any MH team LAS may use in control rooms as SIM/HIN /similar protocols are a pre decided intervention.

The vulnerable persons referred to in this FOI are those following NHS' own advice and doing so is in line with all safe clinical practice and statutory guidance issued to all NHS and first responder authorities.

This is a coercive non NHS approved scheme where the admitted stated main goal is cost cutting.

This is done through imposed protocols whereby essential and emergency health care is withheld .

This is despite the fact that NHS England , NHS 111, Met Police, CCGs, MH Trusts all state on their websites and in all policy and agreed statutory guidance that those in life threatening crisis ring 999. All GPs receive the same guidance . All NHS apps state same..

This scheme ( as do others) also includes threatening both civil legal action and criminal prosecution of those suicidal asking for help and/ or if a person's mental health deteriorates because they have not been able to access support needed in the community..

This protocol can be , and anecdotally frequently is, covert and imposed on vulnerable persons in MH distress without them or their family or their carers knowing such a protocol exists.

It focuses on punitive measures to prevent suicidal persons and/or those at risk of accidental death through psychosis or their families from seeking access to safety pathways.
All details are referenced below.

Notably in all supporting scheme guidance to participating authorities it is stated that if death is the outcome of denying services then this is acceptable (again referenced below) .

LAS, as a NHS Trust, are fully aware NHS England has instructed ALL NHS Trusts to stop implementing said schemes , and to stop instructing partner agencies to use as they are not authorised and as such considered unsafe.

Citing use of such protocols as in all likelihood being unlawful, against all policy and safe practice and a serious safeguarding risk associated with suicide or accidental death of the vulnerable person denied support.

NHS England has issued public statements and every single professional body and national charity has also issued public statements condemning.

All documentation, cited references, details of the schemes https://stopsim.co.uk/.

Please provide in electronic format any and all information (including related documentation or other supporting data that is eligible for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act) held relating to the following:

1. All correspondence (Including letters, emails etc) received from and sent to members of the High Intensity Network across Camden and Islington boroughs including all attachments, regarding Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) and the High Intensity Network (HIN).

2. All internal correspondence (including letters, emails, meeting minutes ,reports to the Board etc) regarding Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) and the High Intensity Network (HIN) as operated throughout London.

3. How many said protocols are currently recorded on LAS records and how is this flagged, if or when paramedics are asked to attend that vulnerable person?

4. What % of those are women?
What % of those are BAME background?

5. Please provide the Equality Impact assessment for this scheme.

6. Which LAS staff have designated responsibility for implementation of said schemes and how many have this role?

7. Please provide full details on how much money LAS estimates the Trust has saved through use of said protocols between the periods Jan 2015 and Sept 30th 2021.

Yours faithfully,

Alea ( all ID documents already with LAS IG team)

FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Thank you for your request for information placed under the Freedom of
Information Act (2000).

We will aim to provide you with a response within 20 working days. 

 

Many thanks. 

 

Freedom of Information Office 

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust  

show quoted sections

FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Dear Requestor

Section 8(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires that a request for information must include the real name of the requestor.
In order to meet the requirements of a valid FOI request, we require a full name from you.

This can be given in any of the formats given below;
· Joe Bloggs
· J Bloggs
· Mr J Bloggs
· Mr Bloggs

Please resubmit any FOI requests with the above information and will proceed as appropriate

Yours sincerely

Ashleen
FOI Team

show quoted sections

Dear FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Written with Support

LAS IG team are fully aware that my name changed by deed poll is Alea Alea.

LAS already have all the id sent in relation to a current SAR .

This is thetefore considered deliberately obstructive to avoid having to respond to this FOI.

If you would like me to expand in a public forum on how and why LAS know this am happy to.

I am not required to resubmit the request and it really doesnt help LAS reputation when you do this as a deliberate tactic to try obfuscate when the information requested is very clearly in the public interest .

The FOI is already lawfully submitted so please just process given I have clarified for you ( albeit LAS already knew this).
I refer you to the ICO statutory guidance on this specific matter.

Yours sincerely,

Alea Alea

FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Dear Alea

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. We aim to provide you with a response within 20 working days.

If you need to contact us about your request, please have the reference number 4819 to hand.

Many thanks

FOI Admin Team
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

show quoted sections

FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Dear Alea

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request below.

 

In your request you have asked for:

 

Please provide in electronic format any and all information (including
related documentation or other supporting data that is eligible for
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act) held relating to the
following:

 

 1. All correspondence (Including letters, emails etc) received from and
sent to members of the High Intensity Network  across Camden and
Islington boroughs including all attachments, regarding Serenity
Integrated Mentoring (SIM) and the High Intensity Network (HIN).

The Trust has reviewed this request and consider that it is not possible
to share this information due to the inclusion of identifiable data and
therefore the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust reserve the right to
apply exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information act 2000

 

Section 40(2) for the purposes of section 40(3) (a) (i) provides an
exemption for information which is the personal data of any third party,
where disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles
contained in the DPA.

 

 2. All internal correspondence  (including letters, emails, meeting
minutes ,reports to the Board etc) regarding Serenity Integrated
Mentoring (SIM) and the High Intensity Network (HIN) as operated
throughout London.

The Trust has reviewed this request and consider that it is not possible
to share this information as it includes free and frank exchanges of views
for the purposed of deliberation and whose sharing would be prejudicial to
the effective conduct of public affairs. Therefore the London Ambulance
Service NHs Trust reserve the right to apply exemption under section 36(2)
of the Freedom of information act 2000.

 

Section 36  of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows  exemption to be
applied if a response engages the prejudice to effective conduct of public
affairs.  Section 36 (2) exemption applies to any disclosure which would
or would be likely to (a) prejudice collective responsibility or the
equivalent in Wales and Northern Ireland; (b) (i) inhibit the free and
frank provision of advice or exchange of views, (b) (ii) inhibit the free
and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; or (c)
otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

 

Having considered this request the Trust has concluded that it is
appropriate to apply Section 36 (2) (b) (ii) inhibit the free and frank
exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and (c) otherwise
prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

 

 3. How many said protocols are currently recorded on LAS records and how
is this flagged, if or when paramedics are asked to attend  that
vulnerable person?

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust does not hold this information.
This information is not recorded on Trust records, none are flagged in any
circumstances.

 

 4. What % of those are women?

What % of those are BAME background?

Please see response to question 3

 

 5. Please provide the Equality Impact assessment for this scheme.

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust has not undertaken an equality
impact assessment in relation to these schemes, high Intensity Network
(HIN) or Serenity Integrated Monitoring (SIM)

 

 6. Which LAS staff have designated responsibility for implementation of
said schemes  and how many have this role?

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust does not have any staff with
designated responsibility for implementation of high Intensity Network
(HIN) or Serenity Integrated Monitoring (SIM) schemes. The Trust does not
have any relationship with either scheme.

 

 7. Please provide full details  on how much money LAS estimates the Trust
has saved through use of said  protocols  between the periods Jan 2015
and Sept 30th 2021.

The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust does not hold information in
respect of this question. By way of advice and assistance it is not
possible to identify individual patients and individual costs or to
quantify what savings may or may not have resulted from them. Further to
this due to the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams across the NHS
system it is not possible to identify who could be responsible for any
perceived reduction in costs.

 

By way of advice and assistance please note that the London Ambulance
Service NHS Trust formally withdrew from any engagement with the high
Intensity Network (HIN) and Serenity Integrated Monitoring (SIM) project
in April 2021 and there are no current plans to re-engage.

 

If you are dissatisfied with our response you may request an internal
review by writing to:

 

Corporate Governance
London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

220 Waterloo Road

London

SE1 8SD

 

Or alternatively, you can email: [1][email address]
Any internal review requests will be dealt with through our Internal
Review procedure.

If you are dissatisfied following the Internal Review, you have a right to
appeal to the Information Commissioner using the following contact
details:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

 

Yours sincerely

Victoria

 

FOI Team

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

What a surprise......LAS who DO operate the SIM/HIN scheme and are a key player, consults with Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust and the Met police and decide to block a response on the widely predicted spurious grounds listed.

The predictability of such a level of obstruction would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that vulnerable persons have been, and continue to be, severely harmed and die as a result of this scheme being operated.

Or maybe LAS thinks that serious harm and death is not of public interest?

And from your response you seem to be stating that you cannot perform your public duty if you are required to be transparent.
As the law requires.

If I have misunderstood we are all sure you can clear that up once a formal internal review request is made.

To state that this data would be identifiable data given how many have been impacted obviously doesn't hold water.

Allegedly, LAS imposes this scheme literally thousands of times a year if anecdotal reports are reliable.

How that would identify anyone is somewhat beyond understanding but we all presume that is because you are still counting up how many times you impose these restrictions on those whose mental health is so vulnerable that they require emergency services.

And anecdotal reports - including from senior NHS MH Trust professionals - have been enough for NHS England to instruct ALL NHS Trusts to halt this scheme.
As you know.

Of course the fact that most victims of this scheme are female, and by your own admission on this site 75% of your staff are male, is also of significant note.

You will receive full details of the request for internal review at a later date.
Consideration will be given to any relevant information that may inform LAS.
Including where you have already been informed of very serious harm caused in individual cases where LAS has been involved.

Presumably LAS are aware of reference to these schemes in coroner's inquests given the clear links with death .
Coroner's inquests are open access , open reporting and so are the Preventable Death reports.

Please note that any vexatious action in response to this FOI by ANY of the parties involved in this request will be acted upon.

It is of concern that vulnerable persons at risk of suicide who have raised formal concerns about SIM/HIN have had their safety put at direct risk and experienced threat to their wellbeing.

We presume that LAS as a NHS Trust would condemn such actions .

You will be contacted in due course,

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,

Written with Advocacy Support

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Implementation of SIM/HIN coercion protocols on vulnerable persons in mental health distress'.

We are all fully aware that given the 'co-ordination' of release of information with other agencies , whereby a decision has been taken to obstruct release of information re SIM or other coercive protocols, LAS will no doubt deny this request on some spurious grounds. Pre agreed with the partners who deny they are involved.

You are reminded yet again that responses are required to be lawful and as such are admissible in to a court of law.
Including coroner's court where surely LAS are aware that there are now dozens of cases where causal to death has been SIM or similar protocols and where the coroner has issued preventable death notices.

LAS admit you uses SIM despite NHS England writing to ALL Trusts directly informing them months ago that these are unsafe protocols that go against ALL policy and are considered unlawful and potentially abusive.
And dangerous because vulnerable people die as a result.

Tim Kendall , Director of MH NHS England & Improvement recently sent out this tweet:

JANUARY 2022

NHS ENGLAND TWITTER RESPONSE TO USE OF SIM/COERCIVE PROTOCOLS IN MH

Tim Kendall
@timkendall1
Jan 21
We’ll be working with
@StopSIMMH
& other patients and professionals to seek consensus on principles of care for people who present to services frequently. NHSE/I will issue further guidance this Spring following this engagement (2/4)

Tim Kendall
@timkendall1
Jan 21
However, I'd like to be unequivocal now in my view that punitive approaches to people who self-harm, such as withholding care or threatening criminal sanctions, are entirely unacceptable and likely to be harmful. (3/4)

Tim Kendall @timkendall1

We do not know how commonplace these practices are, but we have seen patient and professional feedback that shows it occurs in some places. I was very pleased to see @NICE take this stance in its updated draft self harm guidance this week https://nice.org.uk/guidance/GID-NG10148... (4/4)

4:01 PM · Jan 21, 2022·Twitter Web App

LAS have the memos and reports and directions from NHS England and yet you continue to impose dangerous protocols which are mostly targeted at women.

By your own admission on this site LAS frontline paramedics are 75% male.

By your own admission on this site LAS frontline paramedics have NO training at all in sexual assault or rape.

And yet you impose this scheme on literally hundreds of extremely vulnerable women who are being targeted because the MH trust in their area uses SIM NOT because these persons 'over use' NHS services ( ie call when suicidal as all NHS sites and agencies direct them to) BUT because the MH Trust uses SIM to manage and control and intimidate in ALL complaints cases.

Re Camden & Islington you have been provided the link confirming this.

So, SIM is used where vulnerable persons have reported very serious safeguarding concerns ( including sexual abuse and rape ), where Ombudsman or legal action is being taken or anticipated, where serious safety incidents as defined by NHS England which require statutory reporting have occurred, where criminal investigation of a MH trust is underway.

SIM and all similar coercive protocols are used to intimidate vulnerable persons where a MH trust has decided to use these to intimidate victims. See ALL links where it is admitted that ALL serious complaints should be subject to SIM.

To refuse to disclose the numbers involved implying that these are few is obstructive and deliberately misleading.

LAS use these coercive , unsafe and abusive protocols hundreds of times a year on hundreds of vulnerable persons who have NEVER met the criteria for SIM- ie they do NOT call emergency services or present at A&E when suicidal or psychotic.
So, to claim that to disclose information requested would breach confidentiality when LAS uses SIM on so many individuals is simply untrue.

At present vulnerable women with a history of severe MH conditions and sexual abuse ( because LAS know the rate of abuse is estimated as 40% by NHS England) are attended to to against their will hundreds of times a year by all male paramedics.
LAS have been informed of this and know the harm being caused.
Your Chief Executive is fully aware that this is putting people's lives at risk.

It is noted just how many have made complaints and the Patient experience Dept that handles complaints has ignored or even blocked emails because this has been flagged and presumably LAS know that SIM AND ALL ASSOCIATED COERCIVE PROTOCOLS OF ANY KIND are unlawful, against ALL NHS policy and clinically dangerous.

And yet you admit to continue to use them.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Dear FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

To assist you here is the latest editorial from the RcPsych Journal condemning the SIM scheme LAS STILL operate.
Note how it is used to try and silence legitimate complaints and abuse reports.

And yet LAS continue to impose.

So, if NHS England instruct SIM/HIN and allied protocols are clinically unsafe and unethical AND RcPsych AND all allied professional bodies then why do LAS - a mostly male organisation - continue to impose on the mostly female cohort used against?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/....

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

An internal review was requested 22 days ago.

You have failed to acknowledge as legally required to.

You are again referred to the ICO statutory guidance.

You are again reminded that any targeted actions in response to this FoI will be noted.
You presumably understand that use of SIM and threat protocols are clinically unsafe albeit you admit to still using them..
You are yet again referred to Tim Kendall's memo's to ALL NHS Trusts re use of SIM and coercive protocols stating the same.

You are also reminded that your responses or failure to respond can be admitted in to courts of law .
Including Coroner's Court.
You are reminded that said protocols have been cited in numerous Coroner inquests as being contributory or causal to deaths of vulnerable persons including by suicide.

This is a significant Public Interest case and yet you delay responses whilst continuing to use SIM and other coercive protocols by your own admission.

It would be helpful to the safety of the public if you would abide by the law and respond.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

Dear FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Written with Advocacy Support

An internal review was requested on 4th March 2022.
You have failed to respond.

Your record in failing to disclose and failing to respond to lawful requests around LAS conduct and legality of actions when it comes to vulnerable persons is noted.
There is a clear pattern of failure to be transparent.

in particular you continue to operate not only the SIM/High Intensity network scheme but also other coercive protocols NHS England has informed you are unsafe .

To state that you don't in the original reply is mendacious. You are yet again reminded that all FoI responses are required to be legally accurate and are admissible in a court of law.

LAS have been present at multiple inter-agency meetings of vulnerable persons where coercive 'management' protocols are agreed.

Where pre-emptive 'care' plans are drawn up some of which have been issued to vulnerable persons with severe mental health conditions and where it states that the person is NOT to call LAS on 999 when suicidal,
LAS have agreed to this refusal of emergency clinical care.
It is stated on multiple documents mental health Trusts across London then issue to their patients.

It is very widely reported that LAS has monitored how many times a vulnerable person has called you when at severe risk.
You report these numbers at said meetings.
This information has been relayed to the individuals concerned.

Use of such protocols - imposed almost exclusively on women by your almost all male staff ( see yr previous FoI disclosure) is of significant public interest because they are withdrawal of NHS emergency care .
In complete opposition to what ALL public advice information states and what NHS England state is the standard expected to be met.

Because it involves both LAS threatening to prosecute vulnerable persons when they call for help when suicidal - just as NHS website tells them do AND refusing to attend.

In addition the use of LAS crews to attend to vulnerable person who haven't requested you and do not want you present ( and where you have absolutely no legal authority to enter premises) is another example of protocols used covertly and without the consent of the person involved.

These protocols are also part of the SIM/High Intensity Network scheme whereby Mental Health Trusts use them to try and ' manage' vulnerable persons who have raised very serious concerns, including reports of sexual violence, and the NHS Trust is concerned about legal action and the reputation of the organisation.
This is the second key strand of the scheme and all others by whatever name.

LAS are party to these protocols and a key active participant therefore these numbers are required to be disclosed within the figures requested re Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust.

Your contention that the numbers are very low and would therefore disclose identifiable data is without foundation and deliberately misleading.
And it is somewhat contradictory to apply section 40 exemption when at the same time claiming you have no involvement with such protocols.

LAS involvement is also of public interest because using resources in this manner is:
(1) Discriminatory where you refuse to attend to someone in life threatening emergency on the grounds they have the protected characteristic of mental health disability and

(2) Conversely using LAS crews as some sort of threat tool to try and silence complainants or abuse victims of a Mental Health Trust is not the function of the ambulance service. Anecdotal reports are that LAS have attended hundreds of times to those who ask you not to after attending inter-agency meetings to agree this role.
At a time when the wait times for LAS to respond to serious accidents and emergencies is unacceptably high and where the service claims to be under huge pressures and unable to meet targets.

So how you allocate resources and protocols used to determine this are of public interest.

You have 3 working days to respond in full and then the case will referred to the ICO and your previous failure to respond will be flagged as there is a pattern to this.

Yours sincerely,

Alea

FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Thank you for your request for information placed under the Freedom of
Information Act (2000).

We will aim to provide you with a response within 20 working days. 

 

Many thanks. 

 

Freedom of Information Office 

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust  

show quoted sections

Dear London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,

You have now ( again) been referred to the ICO for failing to respond within legal timeframes or at all.

This is a mater of significant public interest .
Your Chief Executive is fully aware of the situation and there is clear evidence that he has failed to address when approached by individuals.
This can be produced.

These are protocols that impact negatively on the ability to receive safe NHS emergency care.
This is a scheme you continue to apply despite NHS England instructing you to halt it.

The reason NHS England instructed last year that it be urgently halted is because the clear evidence of significant harm , escalation of risk to vulnerable persons and recorded deaths where across the country coroners have issued Preventable Death notices.
Where such protocols have been found to be causal.

Your response is considered to be deliberately and calculatingly misleading in that the implication is that there are so few persons affected to respond would risk identification.

Except anecdotally - and in empirical evidence that partly drove NHS England's decision - there are believed to be hundreds of vulnerable persons affected across London alone , each of them being subject to implementation multiple times they have needed safe access to care.

Which means that London Ambulance Service are implementing one type of protocol or another ( and the request applies to SIM and all similar) thousands of times a year.

THAT is of significant public interest.
As is the fact that you seem to want to hide this.

Furthermore- and as assistance to the ICO -ALL your mental health NHS Trust partners admitted to using this not just for threatening prosecution of those who actively seek help when suicidal - as NHS website and ALL mental health Trusts state to do on websites-.

But also as a management scheme for trying to divert serious complaints, legal action and safeguarding concerns away from pathways usually used as a way of protecting the reputation of the organisation concerned.

This includes very serious safeguarding concerns that are then diverted away from investigation pathways.

LAS are therefore part of interagency schemes drawn up often covertly or without consent of the individual that not only denies emergency care but also help cover up very serious concerns including abuse concerns.

When responding to FoIs there is a legal duty to provide accurate data in a timely manner.
You haven't.

Because this is such a serious ongoing situation this is now referred to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Dear London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,

As you are fully aware the ICO have now instructed you to respond to my request within 10 days.

This is because LAS is in breach of Data Protection law.

Failure to comply will result in my requesting ICO to take further action against you.

Yours faithfully,

Alea

Dear London Ambulance Service NHS Trust,

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...

So a frontline London consultant Liaison Psychiatrist publishes in well respected medical journal ( and the 2nd to do so).

And still you going to deny the extent of LAS involvement?

Yours faithfully,

Alea

POLICIES (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST),

Dear Alea Alea

 

Please accept our sincere apologies that you do not appear to have
received the Trusts response to your internal review request.

 

I can confirm that the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust responded to
your original internal review request on 15 March 2022 and a the copy of
the response has been provided below.

 

The internal review request relates to our reference FOI 4819, for which
the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust provided a response on 1 November
2021.

 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that internal review requests
should be made within 40 days of the initial response and that an
organisation is not obliged to provide a review if it is requested after
more than 40 working days.

 

This internal review request was received on 4 March 2022 and has exceeded
the 40 day time limit and as such your internal review request has been
declined.

If you are dissatisfied following the Internal Review response, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner using the following
contact details:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

 

 

Yours sincerely

Victoria

 

 

FOI Team

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

 

From: FOIADMIN (LONDON AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST) <[email address]>
Sent: 15 March 2022 11:26
To: Alea <[1][FOI #797657 email]>
Subject: FOI 4819: Internal review request

 

Dear Alea Alea

 

Thank you for your Internal Review Request under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) request below.

 

I am writing to request an internal review of London Ambulance Service NHS
Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Implementation of SIM/HIN coercion
protocols on vulnerable persons in mental health distress'.

 

We note that this relates to FOI request 4819, for which the London
Ambulance Service NHS Trust provided a response on 1 November 2021.

 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that internal review requests
should be made within 40 days of the initial response and an organisation
is not obliged to provide a review if it is requested after more than 40
working days.

 

This internal review request was received on 4 March 2022 and has exceeded
the 40 day time limit and as such your internal review request has been
declined.

If you are dissatisfied following the Internal Review response, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner using the following
contact details:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 700

 

 

Yours sincerely

Victoria

 

 

FOI Team

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Alea left an annotation ()

This request is relevant to hundreds of patients with severe mental health conditions denied access to emergency care because of such coercive protocols. Particularly women and girls who are disproportionately affected as statistics in FoIs plus NHS England & Improvement own investigations show.

Additionally this protocol is used to lever pressure on vulnerable pts where an NHS Mental Health Trust wants to protect its reputation, ' divert' serious complaints and suppress serious concerns including very serious safeguarding reports. This information is in the public domain. It is in the links provided where the SIM/ HIN scheme guidance and training records state categorically that all complaints against a mental health Trust that may fall in to above categories should be diverted to these schemes. That LAS are part of.

LAS would do well to consider the legal position given that certain safeguarding incidents may be, or have been, recorded as serious criminal offences and as such applying coercion through such schemes to a victim could be considered victim intimidation. As would active participation including all pre emotive care plans.

However, the true extent of LAS involvement will only come to light as or when further coroner inquests, legal cases and prosecutions plus any public inquiries happen, whereby operating such protocols were causal to death and serious harm. If that becomes apparent then this FoI can be referred to.