Report on HMP Addiewell 6-17 August 2018

This report is part of the programme of inspections of prisons carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS). These inspections contribute to the UK’s response to its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies, known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), which monitor the treatment of, and conditions for, detention. HMIPS is one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS) assess the treatment and care of prisoners across the Scottish Prison Service estate against a pre‑defined set of standards. These Standards are set out in the document ‘Standards for Inspecting and Monitoring Prisons in Scotland’, published in May 2018 which can be found at https://www.prisonsinspectoratescotland.gov.uk/standards

The Standards reflect the independence of the inspection of prisons in Scotland and are designed to provide information to prisoners, prison staff and the wider community on the main areas that are examined during the course of an inspection. They also provide assurance to Ministers and the public that inspections are conducted in line with a framework that is consistent and that assessments are made against appropriate criteria. While the basis for these Standards is rooted in International Human Rights treaties, conventions and in Prison Rules, they are the Standards of HMIPS. This report and the separate ‘Evidence Report’ are set out to reflect the performance against these standards and quality indicators.

HMIPS assimilates information resulting in evidence‑based findings utilising a number of different techniques. These include:

obtaining information and documents from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and the prison inspected;
shadowing and observing SPS and other specialist staff as they perform their duties within the prison;
interviewing prisoners and staff on a one‑to‑one basis;
conducting focus groups with prisoners and staff;
observing the range of services delivered within the prison at the point of delivery;
inspecting a wide range of facilities impacting on both prisoners and staff;
attending and observing relevant meetings impacting on both the management of the prison and the future of the prisoners such as Case Conferences; and
reviewing policies, procedures and performance reports produced both locally and by SPS headquarters specialists.

HMIPS is supported in our work by inspectors from Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), Education Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Care Inspectorate, and guest inspectors from the SPS.

The information gathered facilitates the compilation of a complete analysis of the prison against the standards used. This ensures that assessments are fair, balanced and accurate. In relation to each standard and quality indicator, inspectors record their evaluation in two forms:

1. A colour‑coded assessment marker.

Rating	Definition
Good performance	Indicates good performance which may constitute good practice.
Satisfactory performance	Indicates overall satisfactory performance.
Generally acceptable performance	Indicates generally acceptable performance though some improvements are required.
Poor performance	Indicates poor performance and will be accompanied by a statement of what requires to be addressed.
Unacceptable performance	Indicates unacceptable performance that requires immediate attention.
Not applicable	Quality indicator is not applicable.

2. A written record of the evidence gathered is produced by the inspector allocated each individual standard. It is important to recognise that although standards are assigned to inspectors within the team, all inspectors have the opportunity to comment on findings at a deliberation session prior to final assessments being reached. This emphasises the fairness aspect of the process ensuring an unbiased decision is reached prior to completion of the final report.

This report provides a summary of the inspection findings and an overall rating against each of the nine standards. The full inspection findings and overall rating for each of the quality indicators can be found in the attached ‘Evidence Report’.

Key Facts

Location

HMP Addiewell is situated in the village of Addiewell, near West Calder in West Lothian.

Role

HMP Addiewell is operated by a private company, Sodexo Justice Services and contracted to the Scottish Prison Service. It serves the courts in Lanarkshire and West Lothian, holding prisoners remanded in custody as well as convicted adult male prisoners.

HMP Addiewell was designed as a ‘learning’ prison, where offenders are able to improve their employability prospects, address their offending behaviour and the circumstances which led to their imprisonment.

Brief history

The prison opened in 2008.

Accommodation

HMP Addiewell has two large purpose-built house blocks, within which there are 12 separate wings containing single and double cells, as well as accessible cells for prisoners with mobility issues. The wings are utilised to separate remand, convicted, new admission, long‑term and protection prisoners. The prison also has a separation and reintegration unit.

Design capacity

The establishment can, if required, hold up to 796 prisoners. However, the current contracted operational capacity is 700.

Date of last inspection

29 June – 10 July 2015

Healthcare provider

Royal Edinburgh Associated Services

Learning provider

Sodexo Justice Services

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS)

Wendy Sinclair‑Gieben, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

This was my first inspection following my appointment as HMCIPS in July 2018.

HMP Addiewell is a privately-operated prison, situated in West Lothian, which holds 700 adult men. It opened in December 2008, and is run by Sodexo Justice Services on a 25-year contract with the SPS. The prison houses both convicted and untried adult males.

The legislation governing the private operation of prisons embeds a three-way accountability and public assurance framework. The Scottish Government’s role, through the SPS, is to purchase services to manage the contract and to monitor the contractor’s performance. The contractor’s role is to provide the contracted services and to meet contracted Key Performance Indicators. My role is to provide independent oversight and report to the Scottish Ministers. The public should also draw confidence from HMIPS scrutiny.

As a relatively new prison, HMP Addiewell is well designed and built, and allows for plenty of natural light throughout the establishment. The living accommodation was maintained to a high standard, with integral toilets and showers in each cell.

Leadership

The role of senior managers within the establishment is to set the direction and provide leadership. Staff openly acknowledged that communications from, and their relationship with, management had improved since the arrival of the current Director. There was a clear strategy in place for the prison’s future, with a clear communication plan for all staff. It was evident that the Director and his team had endeavoured to ensure that staff were kept informed and engaged.

The quality of staff and prisoner relationships is one of the contributory factors in determining a whole system approach to prisons. Not only for control and security but also to assist prisoners to turn their lives around. It was pleasing to note that overall, prisoners and staff reported that they felt safe, and inspectors saw evidence of positive and respectful relationships between staff and prisoners.

However, staffing levels and experience have been identified throughout this report as a concern. This issue was brought to inspectors notice by the Director, who shared his concerns about his ability to recruit to the levels of staffing required within the prison. Inspectors noted the pressure this brought to staff deployment arrangements and the impact on the regime, particularly in relation to escorting prisoners to appointments.

Inspectors welcomed a number of very positive initiatives including the impressive partnerships with Police Scotland in tackling the impact of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS), and working with local authority partners in funding a full-time housing officer post.

Inspectors also appreciated the number of observed good practices. Many of which had already been identified by Independent Prison Monitors, and were subsequently confirmed by inspectors observations during the inspection. These included:

giving prisoners a voice by involving them in the development and process of prisoner induction, chaplaincy, education and the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy;
the focus on the family; through liberations taking place in the welcoming environment of the visits area where families could wait in comfort, to the introduction of a movie night and family programme, the Barista cafe in the family visits areas and family involvement in case management;
a comprehensive and interactive prisoner induction process;
innovative practices in healthcare; in particular the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) initiative;
an engaging business course focused on self-employment; and
strategies to reduce self-harm.

Disappointingly, some prisoners were excluded from accessing these good initiatives, and either had not received the excellent induction or were given the information much later in their stay. In addition, access to the regime was so restricted for a cohort of protection prisoners on one hall that it was immediately escalated to the Director, and a return visit was arranged to check and confirm improvement and progress against this finding. This will also be routinely monitored by the Independent Prison Monitors.

Healthcare

The provision of healthcare was of a satisfactory standard, with a well-motivated and caring workforce who demonstrated a clear knowledge and understanding of treatment options. Prisoners spoke positively about the healthcare they received. There were good examples of innovative practice and inspectors welcomed the emphasis on ensuring prisoners were directly involved in their own healthcare.

The partnerships with Public Health and the Ambulance Services on the management of patients who had used NPS was impressive. Inspectors welcomed the ADHD clinic, health promotion and education, and were pleased to note the satisfactory health screening for all prisoners on admission.

However, there were areas identified for improvement. Some patients with complex healthcare needs were not appropriately assessed and supported to meet their daily living activities. It was also disappointing to note the number of missed appointments, lengthy delays in bringing prisoners to healthcare appointments and the perception by healthcare staff that Sodexo staff do not intervene when healthcare staff are being subjected to verbally aggressive behaviour.

Technology

HMP Addiewell operated an electronic kiosk system that prisoners accessed to order their meals, book activities and keep track of their finances, without the need to refer to prison staff. It was an effective way of keeping prisoners up to date with events that were happening in the prison, and inspectors applauded the publication of news of prisoners gaining employment on release. However, the kiosk system usage was limited for prisoners with little to no English or learning difficulties.

Learning and skills

Prisoners’ experience of the education opportunities on offer was positive, and the prison offered an engaging business course focussed primarily on developing prisoners for self‑employment as an option on liberation.

Despite the modern design of the prison, the range of employment and training opportunities available, particularly for long‑term prisoners, was too narrow. Attendance was observed as below 50% capacity. It was particularly disappointing to discover that two workshops had been closed for some time and no alternative use of the space had been developed, reducing the access to useful vocational training and accreditation opportunities.

However, HMP Addiewell was commissioned and therefore built to be a “learning prison” with an emphasis on educational facility. Beyond the usual prison utility employment opportunities, such as passmen, cleaners, kitchens, stores, etc., there was no allocated space for “workshops”. Vocational learning was classroom‑based with the exception of qualifications associated with the employment opportunities mentioned above. As a result, it was not possible for prisoners, particularly those serving long‑term sentences to become meaningfully employed in a challenging employment environment that has an associated range of vocational training opportunities. The establishment noted this to be a significant missed opportunity and long‑term challenge. Inspectors were informed that HMP Addiewell had spent a considerable amount of time trying to recruit staff to fulfil the original purpose of the workshops.

Case management

The case management of long‑term prisoners’ sentences was effective, but this was not the case for short‑term prisoners. Additionally, there were delays in accessing offender related programmes and the production of post programme reports was tardy.

The visiting arrangements were well organised and prisoners were encouraged and supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. There was a dedicated in‑house visitor centre run by the Cyrenians. Families visiting the prison appreciated the support they received from this service, and spoke well of the prison staff who dealt with them during their visits. Highly popular family fun days and other events were organised on a regular basis.

The spiritual and pastoral needs of prisoners were well catered for, with an active and supportive faith team. The chaplains had built up trust and good relationships with prisoners and staff and had developed strong links with the mental health team.

The prison’s engagement with a range of partners in the community was noted and appreciated. In preparation for release, all prisoners were interviewed to identify any help they required. The Librite process supported the preparation of prisoners for their liberation. There were good links with third sector organisations and local authorities, particularly in West Lothian and Lanarkshire. Less support was available for prisoners returning to other areas of Scotland.

In conclusion

HMP Addiewell is well poised for its next era. Sodexo and the SPS have worked well to lay solid foundations for a positive future, foundations that must now be built on. Inspectors did identify areas requiring improvement or development and found that the Director and his team were responsive. Overall, the prison is on the cusp of a positive future if the momentum is maintained and the matters identified in this report are addressed.

Next steps

This report identifies a number of areas of good practice at HMP Addiewell, which I hope will be taken up by other prisons in Scotland. I look forward to seeing the action plan produced by HMP Addiewell in response to the findings in this report, and we will continue to monitor the implementation of the action plan in HMP Addiewell through Independent Prison Monitoring.

Wendy Sinclair‑Gieben
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

A Human Rights Based Approach Overview of HMP Addiewell

The application and delivery of the Standards is crucial for ensuring that both the human dignity of the prisoner is upheld and that prisons are places of productive, positive and useful education, work and interaction, leading to better outcomes in reducing re‑offending and keeping our communities safer.

Inspectors found mixed evidence of systematic participation within the prison. Whilst a number of appropriate structures were in place, e.g. Prisoner Information and Activity Committee (PIACS), a Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) forum and the introduction of a new framework that focused on mainstreaming protected characteristics. It was evident that there was a lack of awareness among prisoners of the available processes to influence decision‑making.

Active participation was also an issue raised by staff. Many of those interviewed expressed low levels of support and felt they were ‘not heard’ by prison management. This issue is relevant from a human rights perspective, as frontline staff play an important role in enabling prisoners to exercise their fundamental rights. Again, some of the structures in place, such as the ‘bright ideas’ option for staff, were commendable. However, it appeared that a low proportion of staff knew about it.

Inspectors also encountered examples of good practice in this area, particularly in relation to the new D&I strategy (mainstreaming the protected characteristics with Sodexo’s six quality of life dimensions); the involvement of D&I prisoner reps; the variety of D&I activities; the work of the chaplaincy and the content of educational programmes where standards, procedures and staff practices allowed prisoners to be meaningfully involved.

The family visits, and the movie night and family programme that runs alongside it, were also a positive development in relation to participation and human rights. It is also important that foreign nationals equally enjoy this right. Special measures should be taken to encourage and enable foreign prisoners to maintain regular and meaningful contact with their children. Family visits are a right and not a privilege, and upholding the right to family life is more than just allowing the act of visits to occur. The prison could take a greater active role to facilitate communication of foreign nationals with their families abroad, for example via video conference. HMP Addiewell had this facility, but it was not used to facilitate visits.

Disappointingly, induction of prisoners with little to no English and those being cared for in accordance with the protection regime was inconsistent in practice, with some prisoners receiving no information or receiving it late after a few weeks in the prison.

Translation services were used. However, staff did not feel empowered to access it, resulting in under use. Induction information and a leaflet for foreign nationals were available in a range of common languages. However, a focus group with foreign nationals confirmed that some had not in fact received such information or the possibility of contacting their embassies. Many were asked to provide translation for other prisoners, which raised issues of risk and privacy. There was also little participation by this type of prisoner in cultural activities and religious celebrations. Consequently, they felt isolated. The right to information must be especially guaranteed for certain categories of detainees who, for reasons of language, age, illness or intellectual disabilities do not have equal access to information. The prison could introduce a number of mechanisms to enable participation and provide information to prisoners. Meaningful participation must be active, free and meaningful and directly address issues of accessibility, including access to information in a form and a language that can be understood.

An important component to enable participation is the accessibility of the information. The reality is that some prisoners will require extra support to enable them to fully and meaningfully participate. Any barriers to participation should be identified and those prisoners should be assisted to overcome them in order to participate.

There appeared to be a framework of accountability in the prison. However, effective monitoring of human rights standards was not consistent at the time of the inspection. Accountability focuses on the state as duty bearer and its responsibility to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of prisoners. Inspectors were very concerned about the number of hours that prisoners in Douglas B hall were locked in their cells; up to 22 hours a day.

‘Recent international standards on conditions in prisons define solitary confinement as “the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact” and solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days as “prolonged solitary confinement”. Indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement should be prohibited, as should imposing solitary confinement on prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when their conditions would be exacerbated by such measures.’

Separation of vulnerable detainees should be clearly distinct from solitary confinement and should never lead to restrictions on access to services (vocational training, work, etc.). It is particularly important that prisoners with mental health needs are housed in accommodation that is not restrictive and receive appropriate treatment, rather than being placed in higher security level facilities isolated from the normal regime, as was the case during the inspection. Some of the prisoners interviewed expressed a high level of anxiety due to a feeling of being unsafe in this hall.

Inspectors welcomed the Bus to Bed Review that took place in December 2017. It was noted that some changes were made because of it. However, some of the findings and recommendations had not been implemented or were still persistent. For example, those related to the admission desk; noticeboards were misplaced or too small to read at the reception; the telephone in reception did not have a speaker so calls to language line for foreign nationals proved difficult. The new mainstreaming approach (protected characteristics with Sodexo’s six quality of life dimensions) will ensure greater accountability, however, implementation is crucial. The new process should include monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

A key aspect of accountability is addressing systematic concerns, in addition to individual ones. The D&I plan provided a good example of this in analysing data to identify repeated issues, such as those relating to race and sexuality, where forums were then arranged to identify if specific action was needed.

From information gathered from a range of focus groups in advance of the inspection and interviews during the inspection, there was a general awareness of complaints mechanisms in relation to the prison and the NHS, however, a low level of confidence in utilising them. During the inspection it was reported that complaints regarding the NHS remained unresolved and/or the content of the response was perfunctory. Some level of confidentiality is important in the complaint system. Some complaints boxes were not placed in discreet areas of the halls for example; they were placed next to the staff desk in the halls. The materials necessary to make a complaint (forms, pens, envelopes) should be freely available to all detainees without having to ask staff. Complaint forms such as the PCF1 were not available in some areas including the SRU. The written complaints examined were adequate, including information on the complainant’s identity, the content of the response, the action taken, and the outcome of the complaint. A number of complaints seemed to be resolved informally, through discussion with the prisoner. Whilst this is not to be discouraged, the outcome of the discussion and the prisoner’s views should be recorded, rather than simply noting that the matter had been resolved.

The prison should introduce a number of mechanisms to enhance accountability including a greater emphasis on monitoring of human rights standards on an individual basis, as well as greater clarity on mechanisms available to prisoners for challenging decisions made about their treatment and access to services.

The prison must ensure that reasonable adjustments are promptly provided for prisoners with disabilities. The ‘accessible cells’ used for this purpose were not adequately equipped with, for instance, accessible alarm points or able to accommodate access to both sides of the bed.

We recommend that steps are taken to improve the delivery of foreign national information leaflets during the reception process, and that staff are encouraged to make use of interpreting services at all points, including in the halls. A few prisoners expressed having difficulty understanding English and using the kiosks, which did not translate fully into foreign languages and therefore resulted in some prisoners receiving little information and potentially experiencing isolation. This was concerning as the establishment relied heavily on the kiosk for access to prison life.

Prisoners should understand their rights, and be fully supported so they are able to use their rights. Inspectors were concerned about the variability of information received by prisoners on the daily life of the prison, as explained above. Prisoners should be able to understand these processes and their entitlements, and the information should be available in a variety of formats to cater for those with different needs.

The information provided at national induction was comprehensive and largely accessible. Much crucial information necessary for prisoners to understand their rights and how to exercise them within the context of prison life was contained in the general folders. This information was crucial to empowering prisoners and achieving a shared understanding of the limits of their rights. However, not all prisoners interviewed had been offered this information. In practice, many prisoners learned about the regime from other prisoners, where they were able to do so. This particularly affected foreign nationals, who had fewer connections and were therefore more isolated. Information should always be communicated to prisoners in a manner that they understand.

It is equally important to empower staff in their duties. Awareness should be raised among staff of the mechanisms that are available to assist prisoners, and the role they play in facilitating these, so that they feel able to have ready access to them. For example, as the kiosk provides access to prison life, staff should ensure that prisoners with literacy, language or access needs are provided with assistance to make use of it, where needed. As noted above, staff expressed real issues of disempowerment in their decision‑making and investment in their wellbeing. This undermines their ability to deliver on all aspects of a human rights based approach.

A human rights based approach requires the recognition of rights as legally enforceable entitlements and is linked to national and international human rights law. It is important that all categories of prisoners enjoy the full range of human rights and that staff are adequately supported. Whilst the large majority of prisoners did so, this was not the case for a minority of prisoners as described in this report. Inspectors identified areas where they believe further action is required, in particular to ensure that more marginalised prisoners do not fall through the gap. The realisation of human rights is facilitated in practice by both the provision of information, and the need for proactive action to be taken to ensure prisoners are accessing their rights in practice.

Finally, we inspected a G4S prisoner transport van as a number of prisoners complained of the high temperatures and poor ventilation during their travel from court to the prison. The vans appeared to contain adequate safety measures and an air conditioning system, however, only when the engine was running. HMIPS recommend that G4S equip all prisoner transport vehicles with temperature control mechanisms adequate for the conditions under which the vehicles will be used in Scotland.

Summary of Inspection Findings

	Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody Generally acceptable
	Standard 2 Decency Satisfactory
	Standard 3 Personal safety Satisfactory
	Standard 4 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority Satisfactory
	Standard 5 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment Generally acceptable
	Standard 6 Purposeful activity Generally acceptable
	Standard 7 Transitions from custody to life in the community Generally acceptable
	Standard 8 Organisational effectiveness Satisfactory
	Standard 9 Health and wellbeing Satisfactory

Standards, Commentary and Quality Indicators

Standard 1 – Lawful and Transparent Custody

The prison complies with administrative and procedural requirements of the law, ensuring that all prisoners are legally detained and provides each prisoner with information required to adapt to prison life.

The prison ensures that all prisoners are lawfully detained. Each prisoner’s time in custody is accurately calculated; they are properly classified, allocated and accommodated appropriately. Information is provided to all prisoners regarding various aspects of the prison regime, their rights and their entitlements. The release process is carried out appropriately and positively to assist prisoners in their transition back into the community.

Generally acceptable performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The reception at HMP Addiewell was a well‑designed and laid out area that efficiently supported the admission and liberation process. In addition to a spacious main corridor; the holding rooms, interview rooms and searching area were well designed for purpose with no concerns for prisoners regarding their confidentiality or dignity being compromised.

Despite the reception team highlighting their inexperience, inspectors found staff to be professional, effective communicators, and most importantly very empathic to those coming through reception. The good relationship between staff and prisoners appeared natural and gave every indication that it was common practice. This was evident in all interactions observed with prisoners during the course of the inspection.

All transactional processes relating to the admission and release of prisoners were robust and met the required standards. Staff were observed to carry out processes that identified vulnerable groups, and Reception Risk Assessments (RRA) and Talk to Me (TTM) documentation was completed appropriately.

There was literature relating to aspects of the prison regime available in leaflet form and on noticeboards in holding areas. The leaflet was available in six of the most common languages of prisoners entering HMP Addiewell. In addition, there were sheets and posters to allow those with little to no English to highlight what their first language was and a telephone translation facility could be accessed where necessary.

The week‑long induction process was comprehensive and well attended, with commendable prisoner engagement in joint staff and peer‑led sessions. Further consideration of need was carried out through Core Screen and literacy and numeracy assessments. In addition, first links were established with the prison’s throughcare support, Librite. Bespoke induction information leaflets in English and six other languages were available in the induction area and provided a thorough overview of the prison regime, prisoners’ rights and entitlements and general information.

The liberation process positively facilitated the prisoner’s transition back into the community with decency and respect. The waiting area at the front of house was spacious and used well as a place for liberations to meet with family or support agencies.

For all of the good work that was evident, it was concerning that there were examples of poor practice which significantly undermined it. There was an over reliance on first night in custody leaflets to explain the prison regime, rights and entitlements and general information, rather than staff explaining them face to face. Few prisoners were observed receiving these leaflets and a few of those spoken to in the halls had not received it. This was of particular concern when considering that prisoners with little to no English were not routinely receiving this crucial information. Compounding this further was evidence that the translation line was used infrequently, and there was a practice of utilising prisoners to translate for other prisoners. There were examples where this approach had a direct impact on prisoners’ access to basic rights and entitlements within the regime. Finally, the Kiosk system (The Kiosk was in essence a touch‑screen computer that allowed a prisoner to undertake a number of activities and provided management with a means of sharing information quickly and widely with the prison population) had initial menu screens in a variety of languages, but when accessing links from the menu screens, English language pages opened.

HMP Addiewell operated a process for assessing the needs of prisoners during admission, particularly those most vulnerable. However, the establishment denied non‑English speakers and protection prisoner’s access to induction. A confusing aspect of this was that a comprehensive guide to the regime within the prison was available in a number of languages in the induction area, yet those prisoners who would benefit from this were not given the opportunity to attend.

Even more troubling was that protection prisoners were also denied a full regime within Douglas B hall, in order to accommodate a full regime for 10 ‘passmen’ and 12 mainstream prisoners whilst they were inducted into the prison.

The contrast of the experience of protection and mainstream prisoners was exemplified during an interview with two prisoners approaching liberation. A mainstream prisoner spoke about how he had been linked into the Librite process and other inputs at induction including allocation of a case manager, and had received support throughout his sentence, resulting in him having a business plan and support from community partners to assist him in opening his own business when liberated. He referred to his time in the prison, stating that the experience had changed his life. A protection prisoner reported not being offered the opportunity to attend induction, not being appointed a case manager and there was no support in place for release, despite requesting to speak to a case manager regarding this.

The overall assessment of this Standard was based on the fact that two of the most vulnerable and marginalised prisoner groups faced barriers to full participation in the admission and induction process. The systems and procedures that operated within HMP Addiewell created a regime whereby the basic rights and entitlements of these groups were significantly compromised. HMP Addiewell must take a proactive approach in engaging with and supporting prisoners who face barriers to full participation in the admission and induction process, in order to ensure that the individual needs and requirements of all prisoners are met.

Standard 2 – Decency

The prison supplies the basic requirements of decent life to the prisoners.

The prison provides to all prisoners the basic physical requirements for a decent life. All buildings, rooms, outdoor spaces and activity areas are of adequate size, well maintained, appropriately furnished, clean and hygienic. Each prisoner has a bed, bedding and suitable clothing, has good access to toilets and washing facilities, is provided with necessary toiletries and cleaning materials and is properly fed. These needs are met in ways that promote each prisoner’s sense of personal and cultural identity and self‑respect.

Satisfactory performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

Viewing the prison buildings, accommodation and facilities, it appeared that they were fit for purpose and maintained to an appropriate standard.

A number of cells were viewed during the inspection, and appeared to be of a standard design and were noted to be of good size with adequate ventilation and lighting. All cells viewed had an in‑cell shower, hand basin and toilet. The majority of cells were allocated as single cells, which was clearly popular with prisoners, and gave a sense of ‘belonging’ and something that the majority of prisoners took pride in maintaining to a good standard. There was a method of communication from every cell via a ‘call‑bell’ system and this was monitored both within the hall and the Hub, which sat immediately adjacent to the hall.

The areas outwith the halls appeared to be of a good quality and size and had appropriate furnishings for the activities taking place. There were occasions when it was noted that conversations that could be considered private took place in the open areas of the halls, which meant that it was possible that these conversations could be overheard.

A number of areas within the establishment were extremely clean including the areas outwith the halls. While it was noted that the majority of cellular accommodation appeared clean, it was also noted that other cells did not appear to be up to a similar level of cleanliness, but it was felt that this was more down to the individual prisoners within those cells. Staff should work with those prisoners to support and encourage them to take an interest in their personal cleanliness. Within each hall, there were designated store areas that contained an appropriate amount of materials for cleaning the halls and individual cells. Prisoners commented positively on the time that was afforded to them to both shower and maintain their cells appropriately.

The Infection Control Guidance was viewed and was considered appropriate in its content. It was also noted that there was current documentation relating to Biohazard Recognition of Achievement. Staff spoke confidently about their knowledge of how to get biohazard material cleaned from within the hall.

There were a number of mattresses that were ripped and damaged quite badly. It was further noted that one mattress in particular was seen to be covered in what appeared to be a significant amount of mould which was also seen on the bed frame. Inspectors welcomed the immediate response and replacement of these mattresses during the inspection, and the 100% check of all mattresses that was conducted following the inspection. The bedding was of reasonable quality, and prisoners spoke positively about being able to have their own bedding sent to the establishment.

There was an industrial washing machine available for use within each hall, and prisoners spoke positively about being able to use the washing machine during the evening. The majority of prisoners commented that they were aware of the process that could be followed in the case of damaged or lost laundry items. There was a process whereby prisoners had the opportunity to send clothing and bedding to an external laundry, and this process appeared to work well.

Within each hall, there is a ready supply of basic toiletries available to prisoners at no cost.

Prisoners were positive about being able to wear their own clothes within the halls as it gave them a sense of being an ‘individual’, thereby helping to increase self‑esteem. Outwith the hall, prisoners were required to wear prison issue clothing. There was appropriate clothing available for prisoners who were working outdoors, particularly during inclement weather.

The majority of prisoners spoke positively about the meals that were provided, though some would like more choice. Meals were ordered through the Kiosk facility within the halls and there were no significant issues highlighted in relation to this process. Menus were prepared on a four‑week cycle, and the menus viewed clearly made provision for a range of dietary needs including medical, cultural and vegetarian, etc. All food within the establishment was prepared in line with the Healthy Living Award 2017‑2019, and documentation was made available to support this. It was reported that food forum meetings involving prisoners were held twice per year, but other meetings could be arranged on an ad‑hoc basis if required.

Upon commencing working in the kitchen, prisoners undergo a comprehensive training programme. This was recorded in the Training Pack for Kitchen Workers. This pack was extremely comprehensive and covered a variety of job roles within the kitchen.

Standard 3 – Personal Safety

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of all prisoners.

All appropriate steps are taken to minimise the levels of harm to which prisoners are exposed. Appropriate steps are taken to protect prisoners from harm from others or themselves. Where violence or accidents do occur, the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and appropriate management action taken.

Satisfactory performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

The majority of staff, prisoners and those visiting HMP Addiewell stated that they felt safe. However, some prisoners and staff reported that they had felt less safe. The biggest concerns raised was where there were both offence and non‑offence prisoners in the same hall. Both groups acknowledged that protection prisoners generally chose not to part take in recreation or access time in the open air due to concerns about their safety.

Concerns were also raised about the safety of those working and living in HMP Addiewell because of the use of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS). This was due to the unpredictability of the reaction to taking these substances and the unknown longer‑term effects these substances might have on people. HMP Addiewell had worked extremely hard with Police Scotland and other external agencies to better understand the extent and impact of NPS upon the prison.

HMP Addiewell appeared to deal positively with those who presented as at risk. However, it was noted that on occasion prisoners were placed on TTM for support with self‑harming, which is not within the TTM guidelines and is something that the prison needs to address. There was a robust audit and control system in place for TTM, managed by the Harm to Self and Others Manager. Any issues were dealt with swiftly and reported to the senior management team through meetings and dashboards.

In cases where there were high levels of self‑harm, prisoners had an Insights Plan that monitored and supported the person in minimising the risk off hurting themselves. When investigating the three prisoners who were on TTM during the week of the inspection, staff were able to explain the management of these prisoners and how to get support through the translation phone line, the mental health team, or using the chaplaincy for extra assistance.

The establishment had a good anti‑violence strategy and met regularly to review all incidents and draw up action points, which also included anti‑bullying. There were comprehensive documents on both anti‑violence and bullying available to all staff along with training. These documents defined the subject matter and included clear guidelines on how to manage each topic. Staff had a good understanding of both strategies.

The frequent observation of staff being at their desk rather than being out and about in the hall did not lend itself to a consistent approach to building relationships with prisoners, and having a better understanding of the risk to those within the establishment. However, it was recognised that this was a result of staff shortages and a lack of experience, where 38% of staff had less than two years’ experience. A more stable and experience staff group should improve the management of risk within HMP Addiewell in the future.

Standard 4 – Effective, Courteous and Humane Exercise of Authority

The prison performs the duties both to protect the public by detaining prisoners in custody and to respect the individual circumstances of each prisoner by maintaining order effectively, with courtesy and humanity.

The prison ensures that the thorough implementation of security and supervisory duties is balanced by courteous and humane treatment of prisoners and visitors to the prison. Procedures relating to perimeter, entry and exit security, and the personal safety, searching, supervision and escorting of prisoners are implemented effectively. The level of security and supervision is not excessive.

Satisfactory performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

It was evident that robust systems and processes were in place to ensure the security of the establishment. The admission process for both staff, prisoners and visitors was robust and delivered with courtesy and humanity. With all those entering being screened by fingerprint, Walk Through Metal Detectors and rubdown search. All vehicles and mail were robustly searched, and due to contract requirements a concerted effort was made to ensure that all doors were secured. The establishment had excellent links to Police Scotland to ensure a joint approach to dealing with emerging issues such as NPS use.

Staff throughout the establishment were aware of security and, whilst there was a strong focus on it, all searching observed was conducted to ensure dignity was maintained throughout. All staff spoken to were aware of the appropriate use of force and it was encouraging to see the importance placed on this by the management team, with every use of force being reviewed including viewing available CCTV and camera coverage available. Use of force and violent incidents were reviewed at the weekly violence reduction meeting, and the prison had plans to implement body‑worn cameras as a step to help tackle incidents of violence.

Whilst the use of separation was generally proportionate and lawful there were occasions where both Rule 95 and Rule 41 were used back to back, extending the period a prisoner was removed from association to up to six days. HMP Addiewell and the SPS should review this approach to avoid using two separate rules consecutively when dealing with individuals with problematic and changeable behaviour. Case conferences focused on reintegration and prisoners were encouraged to give their input and to agree on reintegration. Where required, specialist support staff were invited to attend.

Standard 5 – Respect, Autonomy and Protection Against Mistreatment

A climate of mutual respect exists between staff and prisoners. Prisoners are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and their future. Their rights to statutory protections and complaints processes are respected.

Throughout the prison, staff and prisoners have a mutual understanding and respect for each other and their responsibilities. They engage with each other positively and constructively. Prisoners are kept well informed about matters that affect them and are treated humanely and with understanding. If they have problems or feel threatened, they are offered effective support. Prisoners are encouraged to participate in decision‑making about their own lives. The prison co‑operates positively with agencies that exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Generally acceptable performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Staff and prisoners within HMP Addiewell reported that, despite some significant staffing challenges, positive and respectful relationships existed. However, there was a significant barrier to those relationships having the best outcomes for prisoners. A large number of staff and prisoners spoken with commented on the issues that staff shortages and inconsistency of staff deployment had on fostering positive, productive and enduring relationships. Staff regularly commented on being cross‑deployed on an almost routine basis, which made getting to know those in their care much more difficult. When you consider this alongside the fact that over one‑third of the staff group had less than two years’ custodial experience, it was surprising and a credit to the staff that such positive relationships existed.

Whilst the establishment did not operate a personal officer scheme, it was clear that the staff working within the case management team made significant efforts to encourage prisoners, and their families, to engage in case conferences and other sentence‑related areas. This was significant as such engagement can only be a positive factor. However, the lack of a personal officer scheme meant that prisoner engagement with hall staff was more routine, and therefore hall staff were less likely to be seen as agents of change.

Despite HMP Addiewell being a modern prison, it was surprising how little private space was available within the halls for staff and prisoners to engage in confidential conversations. Whilst staff did what they could to facilitate these conversations, they were reluctant to utilise the spaces within the hub areas, as doing so would leave their colleague in the hall on their own.

One aspect that arose on a number of occasions, in a number of different areas of the inspection, was the impact that compliance with the contract had on the establishment. Staff and prisoners reported that the contractual requirement to provide 40 hours of purposeful activity every week for every prisoner impacted on the predictability of the regime. Staff were being pulled from other areas to ensure that purposeful activity was available, even when the available spaces were not filled. The result of this was that on Tuesday 7 August 2018, the requisite number of spaces were provided, yet there were approximately 400 prisoners located within the halls who were not engaged in any form of purposeful activity. When spoken to, prisoners were almost universal in their observation that time went slowly in HMP Addiewell because they were idle for large parts of the day. It appeared illogical that staff were under‑utilised within for example the gym, when prisoners were idle in the halls.

HMIPS were surprised to note that in an establishment of 700 prisoners, 144 were employed as hall passmen or hall ambassadors. Whilst it was noted that the establishment was clean, it should not be the case that each hall containing approximately 64 prisoners had nine passmen and three ambassadors.

It was of considerable concern that prisoners on protection within Douglas B hall did not have a regime, did not get access to induction and could be locked in their cells for 22 hours per day. This issue was escalated to the Director and assurances were received that this situation would be rectified as a matter of urgency. HMIPS will return to HMP Addiewell before the publication of this report to assess the regime available to all protection prisoners, especially those in Douglas B hall.

Standard 6 – Purposeful Activity

All prisoners are encouraged to use their time in prison constructively. Positive family and community relationships are maintained. Prisoners are consulted in planning the activities offered.

The prison assists prisoners to use their time purposefully and constructively and provides a broad range of activities, opportunities and services based on the profile of needs of the prisoner population. Prisoners are supported to maintain positive relationships with family and friends in the community. Prisoners have the opportunity to participate in recreational, sporting, religious and cultural activities. Prisoners’ sentences are managed appropriately to prepare them for returning to their community.

Generally acceptable performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison assisted prisoners to use their time purposefully and constructively by providing opportunities for a broad range of activities, based on the profile of needs of the prisoner population. Almost all prisoners had the opportunity to participate in work parties, educational, recreational, sporting, religious and cultural activities. However, the uptake of these opportunities by prisoners was relatively low. There was good quality educational, chaplaincy, and library services available to most prisoners. However, the opportunities for purposeful work and useful qualifications was limited. Disappointingly the uptake of all the opportunities offered to prisoners was low and declining, with typically only around a quarter of places available being taken up at any one time.

There was limited prisoner consultation in the planning and delivery of services, and no clear strategic review of the impact or uptake of employment and training provision to help enhance the quality of the offer to prisoners.

During the inspection, most prisoners were given the opportunity to gain access to one hour in the open air. Prisoner participation was low and this was reported as common place. Where prisoners did participate, the majority did not take the full one hour. Where there was non‑offence and offence protection prisoners in the same area, sex offenders reported they were reluctant to attend due to threats and abuse from non‑offence and mainstream prisoners. Management should review the process by which prisoners access the outside to ensure that all prisoner groups have equal access and feel able to take advantage of this important activity.

Although the Chaplaincy offered a good service, an example of this being the faith induction session, it was disappointing to learn that not all groups were treated equally. The prison offered Friday prayers for Muslim prisoners, and a Roman Catholic and Church of Scotland service over the weekend, but this was not available to protection prisoners. Those who wanted to see a member of the Chaplaincy Team could be seen relatively quickly, as it appeared there was a good relationship with all areas in the establishment, and they were often contacted by radio to attend to a prisoner’s need.

Whilst the Kiosk system was a good communications tool; it did not meet the needs of those with learning or language difficulties.

Prisoners had a number of opportunities over the course of the week to access visits with family and friends in a rolling format, designed to be flexible for the visitor, which lasted one hour. Whilst the visits booking system allowed convicted prisoners to book visits with friends and family, and the reverse for those on remand, it could cause confusion, particularly when a prisoner changed status from remand to convicted.

The visits area was large, bright and well laid out, and the play area for children was wellstocked with toys, etc. Children’s sessions were provided one day during the week and on a Saturday morning. Each session lasted for two‑and‑a‑half hours and were well received. HMP Addiewell also offered parenting classes that were generally attended by those on children’s visits. The family visits induction had recently involved prisoner ambassadors leading the presentation. This allowed visitors to get a perspective from serving prisoners and ask them questions on prison life. There was good evidence of family events such as a father’s day and family fun days.

Although HMP Addiewell does not have an external visitors’ centre, the Cyrenians welcomed those visiting the prison and offered a supportive environment within the establishment. Visitors spoken to were complimentary about the visits process, but had concerns about the lengthy waiting times for prisoners to arrive due to operational issues. Management should review the process by which prisoners are brought to visits as inspectors witnessed family members waiting for long periods prior to the visit commencing.

HMP Addiewell employed one Family Co‑ordination Officer (FCO) who was clearly enthusiastic, knowledgeable and highly motivated. They were supported by other experienced officers when required. The running of the tea bar was the responsibility of two prisoners, and included dealing with stock control and cash balances.

Communication between families and prisoners appeared adequate, although the Email a Prisoner system required the sender of the email to buy credit (20 pence) before a prisoner could reply. Video‑conferencing facilities were available but not widely used. Family visits induction had historically been poorly attended, but management hoped that utilising prisoner ambassadors may encourage more family engagement. A visitor’s forum met regularly and a visitor had shown interest in becoming a visitor peer supporter which it is hoped may also increase family engagement.

Prisoners who were placed on closed visit (CV) restrictions were done so in accordance with prison rules. A review board sat monthly, which meant those on temporary CV due to an alleged incident may be on CV for a period of 30 days awaiting review. This was a long period in closed conditions, especially if the outcome of the board’s review was in favour of the prisoner. Prisoners on CV are allowed to attend children’s visits unless intelligence advises differently.

Dedicated facilitators of therapeutic treatments provided a range of opportunities including Pathways, Discovery and Constructs. Local courses were also available including Alcohol Awareness, Stress Management, Assertiveness and Alternative to Violence Workshops and one‑to‑one work. Those requiring other national programmes such as Moving Forward: Making Changes and the Self Change Programme were placed on the national waiting list, based on their critical dates. Staff informed inspectors that on occasions they experienced issues transferring prisoners to the relevant establishment to complete programmes due to national population issues. The significance of this was that prisoners could miss out on the offer of parole or in the worse cases are liberated before they are able to address their offending behaviour.

There did not appear to be a traditional Personal Officer Scheme in place, other than those assigned to prisoners on Orders for Lifelong Restriction (OLRs). Case Managers (CMs) carried out the majority of what would be the personal officer role and appeared to have significant workloads. This was made worse by the team being two staff short. Despite this, the documentation was of a good quality but time was limited in dealing with each prisoner. A good example reported was a disabled prisoner who, due to his condition, could not progress. HMP Addiewell, with SPS support, developed a plan that was similar to what he would have received had he been transferred to the Open Estate, and managed his progression to liberation from closed conditions.

MAPPA and OLRs appeared to be managed well. There were strong relationships with external agencies and some good evidence of family attendance at ICMs.

Standard 7 – Transitions from custody to life in the community

Prisoners are prepared for their successful return to the community.

The prison is active in supporting prisoners for returning successfully to their community at the conclusion of their sentence. The prison works with agencies in the community to ensure that resettlement plans are prepared, including specific plans for employment, training, education, healthcare, housing and financial management.

Generally acceptable performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Both short and long‑term prisoners benefited from easy access to a range of supports which assisted them in planning for release. There was a strong commitment to partnership working with a range of national and local support agencies facilitated to make regular use of the Librite Centre. Regular partnership meetings and a weekly pre‑release clinic helped co‑ordinate services, to avoid duplication as well as offering opportunities for last‑minute support and advice to prisoners who had chosen not to engage with agencies during their sentence. The Kiosk system promoted autonomy and enabled prisoners to effectively communicate with support agencies.

Constructive relationships between case managers, Prison and Community-based Social Workers, MAPPA co‑ordinators and Police Scotland Offender Management Unit (OMU) officers supported collaborative working in assessing the risk and needs of long‑term prisoners, and those individuals subject to MAPPA upon release. Notably, prison staff were successfully supporting increasing numbers of family members to participate in the Individual Case Management (ICM) process. An experienced senior manager with overall responsibility for partnership working, sentence and risk management was viewed as visible, approachable and a key source of support by both prison staff and partners.

HMP Addiewell did not operate a universal personal officer system. Each prisoner was allocated a case manager. A team of eight case managers covered the whole prisoner population (with two members of the team also holding responsibility for remand prisoners). While senior managers viewed this process as enabling greater consistency of approach it was noted that case managers held responsibility for very large numbers of prisoners, many of whom had complex and challenging risks and needs. Staff turnover and delays in filling vacancies within the team further limited their ability to build and sustain meaningful relationships with prisoners. The quality of ICM chairing was variable and a need for further training had been recognised by senior managers. The Case Management Team were responsible for chairing their own ICMs, which limited opportunities for constructive challenge and objective scrutiny of statutory community integration plans. Management should review this arrangement and introduce a system where the ICM chair can provide an independent perspective on the case.

Release plans were appropriately informed by the learning outcomes from programmes undertaken by prisoners during their sentence. The prison operated the usual range of interventions aimed at exploring general offending, substance misuse and violent behaviour. Helpfully, the Prison-based Social Work and Psychology service also worked in partnership to deliver bespoke 2:1 programmes as required. Men convicted of sexual offences were on the national waiting list for the Moving Forward: Making Changes Programme. Unlike their SPS counterparts, the prison did not have access to the national waiting list for programmes such as Constructs. This had implications for prisoners approaching crucial dates who could not be accommodated in the existing timetable of prison activities.

Committed and highly‑motivated senior officers with responsibility for the Librite Centre and release planning for short and long‑term prisoners made every effort to ensure continuity of, and access to, post release support. A full‑time housing officer was working to SHORE standards and assisting prisoners to secure and sustain tenancies. The Education Team were promoting opportunities for work, training and constructive activities in the community, while DWP staff offered daily support to remove barriers to accessing universal credit upon release. A range of community partners offered support to prisoners with substance misuse issues, including gate pick up. There were no Throughcare Support Officers offering a service in HMP Addiewell. In theory, the prison was able to access support from other prisons, however, in reality, this does not happen. There was a clear gap in the prison’s ability to offer intensive post release support, particularly to men over the age of 26 serving short sentences who may have previously struggled with resettlement and reintegration.

Standard 8 – Organisational Effectiveness

The prison’s priorities are consistent with the achievement of these Standards and are clearly communicated to all staff. There is a shared commitment by all people working in the prison to co‑operate constructively to deliver these priorities.

Staff understand how their work contributes directly to the achievement of the prison’s priorities. The prison management team shows leadership in deploying its resources effectively to achieve improved performance. It ensures that staff have the skills necessary to perform their roles well. All staff work well with others in the prison and with agencies which provide services to prisoners. The prison works collaboratively and professionally with other prisons and other criminal justice organisations.

Satisfactory performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

It was clear that in the last two years the new management team had endeavoured to create a set of management information that allowed them to better understand their business. What was less evident was how this information was used to help support and inform the staff working directly with prisoners. There was some concern that the level of information being gathered was too much and information fatigue may set in for staff. Management must ensure that the information gathered is communicated and used in a manner that staff understand, so that they can readily see its relevance to the job they are being asked to do.

One clear area where management information had been configured to inform activities related to the approach taken to the challenging emergence of psychoactive substances. Local management undertook to analyse the issue in a systematic manner and developed, in partnership with Police Scotland, a range of activities to understand the nature, scope and scale of the challenge, and where possible to disrupt those involved in its introduction into the establishment. This activity produced some impressive results and continues to develop as their understanding of the issue increases. This is good practice and should be considered for wider use in the SPS estate.

Staff openly acknowledged that communications from, and their relationship with management had improved since the arrival of the current Director. It was clear that he and his team had endeavoured to ensure that staff were kept informed and engaged. However, it was also clear that much remains to be done as staff openly acknowledged that they felt under pressure, with many stating to inspectors that they feared for their jobs should they make a mistake. Whilst it is not for HMIPS to comment on specific cases, it is important for staff to feel they are working in an environment where personal development and learning is achieved in a supportive and understanding way.

It must be said that HMP Addiewell’s single most enduring challenge over the past few years has been retaining staff and maintaining the agreed staffing complement. This situation made it difficult for staff to have a clear understanding of the vision for the establishment and have clarity in relation to the part they play in delivering it. On a number of occasions inspectors found staff with only a few months’ experience being supported by staff with as little as 12 to 14 months’ experience. This is a far from ideal situation, especially when it is aggravated by staff being redeployed on a regular basis to cover roles that they have little or no experience in undertaking. This situation resulted in many staff focusing on the job in hand, and having little time or opportunity to understand the contribution of others or the support that they may provide to the prisoners in their care.

Whilst the management team had a clear vision for the establishment, this had not yet be been recognised or taken on board by many of the staff. Almost without exception staffs main concern related to staff shortages and the pressure they felt to work overtime to cover shifts. This was especially evident with staff working within the residential areas.

The lack of a universal and embedded system of personal officers was concerning, and had resulted in a situation where many staff were unsure of their roles and responsibilities in relation to supporting those in their care through their sentence. Sentence management and progression issues are uppermost in the minds of most prisoners, and when hall staff are unable to adequately respond to their queries there is the potential for tensions and anxieties to rise.

Finally, it is disappointing to note that significant medical resources were under‑utilised as a direct result of prisoners not attending appointments. On questioning healthcare staff, it was clear that in the majority of cases these failures to attend were as a result of prison staff not being available to escort prisoners to the health centre.

Standard 9 – Health and Wellbeing

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

All prisoners receive care and treatment which takes account of all relevant NHS standards, guidelines and evidence‑based treatments. Healthcare professionals play an effective role in preventing harm associated with prison life and in promoting the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

Satisfactory performance

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

The healthcare team at HMP Addiewell was a well‑motivated and caring workforce. Staff reported feeling generally safe. However, there were particular instances where they described being poorly supported by Sodexo staff to deliver healthcare in the prison. This included Sodexo staff not intervening when patients were being verbally aggressive to nursing staff during medication rounds. Inspectors observed that there were ongoing problems with bringing patients to appointments in the health centre or on the halls. These issues affected staff morale and the overall provision of healthcare to patients and waiting times for all services.

Inspectors saw a number of examples of innovative practice by the healthcare team. There was an emphasis on ensuring that prisoners were directly involved in their own healthcare, and that they understood the risks and benefits of proposed treatments. The prisoners spoken with were positive about the healthcare they received.

Leadership and management

Inspectors were concerned that Sodexo and NHS staff did not work together to solve problems which negatively impacted on the delivery of healthcare within the prison. Patients were not brought to appointments at the appropriate times resulting in some clinic start times being delayed by 1.5 hours, which had an effect on the ongoing waiting times for patients to be seen. Even though this was reported to Sodexo senior managers, inspectors did not see evidence of any change. In addition, there was no evidence to indicate that the health centre manager kept a record of the numbers of missed appointments from non‑attendance. Furthermore, although reports of verbal abuse were documented in the adverse event reporting system and reported to Sodexo senior managers, again there was no evidence of any change.

The senior charge nurse for primary care was unable to work to her banding due to the staff shortages in the primary care team.

Primary care

The primary care team provided a comprehensive range of clinics within the prison, including admission clinics and chronic disease management clinics. The primary care team was made up of GPs, advanced nurse practitioners and primary care nurses. There were significant delays in bringing patients to the health centre or triage clinics on the halls. This resulted in the waiting times for chronic disease management, dental, triage clinics and other services being extended and wasting the resources for these services. For example, dental waiting times were 14 weeks; which was over the Scottish Government guidelines of no more than 10‑week waits.

Systems and processes were in place from the reception assessments onward to identify patients with chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes. Patients with chronic conditions were seen by the trainee Advanced Nurse Practitioners where they were assessed, treated and encouraged to be actively involved in their own management. A sexual health clinic was not running at the time of the inspection.

There was a comprehensive pharmacy service within the prison which included a pharmacist from Lloyd’s pharmacy and one from NHS Lothian. The service would be enhanced if Lloyd’s pharmacist had access to the electronic patient records on Vision. In‑possession medication was not always safely stored by all prisoners because some privacy locks were broken, or the keys were not available for the prisoner to use.

Infection prevention and control was seen to be practised well. All equipment inspected was found to be clean and ready for use. The clinical environments were also clean.

Staff were aware of health inequalities and provided inequalities‑sensitive practice in order to reduce the barriers to accessing healthcare. Staff demonstrated an awareness of safety and their procedural responsibilities in the provision of healthcare, and had a good knowledge of how to raise any concerns to senior management and Sodexo.

Mental health

The Mental Health Team was made up of a wide range of professionals, including psychologists and mental health nurses. Systems and processes were in place to ensure that where necessary, patients needing urgent access to the Mental Health Team were being seen quickly. However, staff used the patient’s self‑referral form to assess whether there was an urgent need to see the patient. This was a risk as the patient may not be able to express the severity of their symptoms on the self‑referral form. As stated above, a number of appointment slots were regularly missed as patients were not brought to be seen. Waiting times for routine mental health appointments were four weeks.

Although patients were assessed using a standardised tool this was not supported by a recognised risk assessment tool. Patient care plans were personalised but review dates were not documented on all the plans inspectors looked at.

The TTM strategy is adhered to within the prison with the exception of assessing patients when they return to the prison from court with a change in circumstances.

Substance misuse

A comprehensive service was offered to those with substance misuse problems. This included having a personalised care plan being put in place. There were a variety of programmes available to prisoners, such as narcotics anonymous and SMART recovery, but there was limited input about NPS and their risks. Some patients reported that they wanted to be prescribed Buprenorphine rather than Methadone for opiate replacement; both are identified as suitable for this in the ‘Drug misuse and dependence UK guidelines on clinical management’.

Health improvement

An opt‑out blood‑borne virus screening service was in place. Hepatitis B vaccination was available to patients. However, no posters or information was displayed anywhere within the prison about how to obtain condoms.

As previously mentioned, the sexual health clinic was not running at the time of our inspection.

We saw that prisoners had access to smoking cessation services and information was displayed/available in the halls and health centre about the health benefits of stopping smoking and how to access services to help with this. Naloxone training took place before liberation and a good number of Naloxone kits were taken by prisoners as they were liberated.

Annex A

Summary of Recommendations

For the Director

Recommendation QI 1.2: HMP Addiewell should ensure that all prisoners are provided with information about the prison regime, routine, rules and entitlements in a form that they can understand. The translation line service should be offered to all prisoners where English is not their first language.

Recommendation QI 1.2: The Kiosk should be more accessible to prisoners with little to no English as it did not translate fully into foreign languages.

Recommendation QI 1.2 : HMP Addiewell must take a proactive approach in engaging with and supporting prisoners who face barriers to full participation in the admission and induction process, in order to ensure that the individual needs and requirements of all prisoners are met.

Recommendation QI 1.3: Only staff trained in warrant calculation should undertake warrant checks in the Reception.

Recommendation QI 1.5: HMP Addiewell should change the regime in Douglas B hall to allow for a full regime for protection prisoners.

Recommendation QI 1.8: HMP Addiewell should ensure that protection prisoners and those for whom English is not their first language attend induction, and have equity of access to the full range of opportunities, supports and interventions as mainstream prisoners, including family visits.

Recommendation QI 2.4: HMP Addiewell should consider advertising Canteen meetings more widely to give more prisoners an opportunity to attend.

Recommendation QI 3.6: HMP Addiewell Management must review their approach to identifying responders to ensure that the appropriate response is available at all times.

Recommendation QI 4.2: Management should review their processes to ensure that Rule 95 and Rule 41 are appropriately applied and not used consecutively as was found during the inspection.

Recommendation QI 5.3: HMP Addiewell should review prisoners not having a safe and secure place within their cells to secure private information or store medication, and consider the introduction of secure storage facilities within each cell.

Recommendation QI 5.4: The SPS’ contract monitoring team and HMP Addiewell management must engage to ensure that the focus of the contract is on engagement with the regime on offer, rather than merely the provision of spaces. The contract should be an enabler not an inhibitor (repeated below as also for the SPS).

Escalated Recommendation QI 5.5: Prisoners on protection in Douglas B hall should be given access to induction and a regime should be developed.

Recommendation QI 5.7: HMP Addiewell should consider including the complaints process in the Kiosk system.

Recommendation QI 6.1: The prison should review and extend the number and type of employment opportunities on offer to prisoners, and include relevant vocational qualifications where appropriate.

Escalated Recommendation QI 6.3: Around 10% of the prison population, located in Douglas B hall, were excluded from participating in educational activities within the academy. HMP Addiewell should address this urgently.

Recommendation QI 6.4: HMP Addiewell should consider making much more use of the physical activities areas and recreation.

Recommendation QI 6.6: The prison should consider proactive engagement with all prisoners to extend the variety of cultural and social activities, including raising the profile of equality and diversity, cultural differences and other social themes such as violence against women and mental health. Prisoners should be consulted on the range of activities and their participation in these activities encouraged.

Recommendation QI 6.7: Management should review the process by which prisoners access the outside to ensure that all prisoner groups have equal access and feel able to take advantage of this important activity.

Recommendation QI 6.8: The lack of sex offender inclusion, i.e. to attend a group service was disappointing and something which management should review and addressed.

Recommendation QI 6.10: Management should review the process by which prisoners are brought to visits as inspectors witnessed family members waiting for long periods prior to the visit commencing.

Recommendation QI 6.14: Due to the significant work load of CMs, vacancies should be addressed and/or consideration should be given to developing a Personal Officer Scheme.

Recommendation QI 7.2: HMP Addiewell should review the Case Management Team being responsible for chairing their own ICMs, and introduce a system where the ICM chair can provide an independent perspective on the case.

Recommendation QI 8.4: With such a young and relatively inexperienced staff group management should ensure that new recruits are supported by experienced staff as they join the operational complement.

Recommendation QI 8.4: Management need to develop a more robust approach to staff recruitment and retention quickly in order to address the issues that result from high staff turnover and inexperience.

Recommendation QI 8.5: HMP Addiewell management must work quickly towards finding a solution whereby all prisoners required to attend internal and external healthcare appointments are escorted timeously. Such failures to attend are a significant waste of valuable and expensive resources.

Recommendation QI 9.2: Sodexo must ensure that patients are escorted to the health centre at the appropriate time. On occasions where this was not possible, Sodexo staff must liaise with healthcare staff to reduce the time they spend waiting for patients to arrive.

Recommendation QI 9.12: Sodexo and Royal Edinburgh Associated Service must ensure that prisoners returning from court with a change in circumstance are assessed in line with the TTM strategy (repeated below as also for Royal Edinburgh Associated Service).

Recommendation QI 9.16: Sodexo and Royal Edinburgh Associated Services must work together to ensure healthcare staff have the time they need to provide care and/or document information in the patient record without pressuring them to leave the prison (repeated below as also for Royal Edinburgh Associated Service).

Recommendation QI 9.17: Sodexo and Royal Edinburgh Associated Services must work together to ensure that healthcare staff are supported during medication rounds and that Sodexo staff intervene when healthcare staff are being subjected to verbally aggressive behaviour by prisoners (repeated below as also for Royal Edinburgh Associated Service).

For the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)

Recommendation from SHRC Overview: The SPS should equip all prisoner transport vehicles with temperature control mechanisms, adequate for the conditions under which the vehicles will be used in Scotland.

Recommendation QI 3.1: The definition of a safer cell has still to be defined following the launch of TTM in December 2016, and we would urge the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to introduce a safer cell definition to assist establishments to provide the best care for those in crisis.

Recommendation QI 6.13: The SPS to review the accessibility of identified need for treatment programmes.

Recommendation QI 6.14: The SPS must review the provision of disabled facilities within the National Top Ends and the Open Estate to ensure that disabled prisoners are not being discriminated against.

Recommendation QI 7.5: The SPS should review the provision of TSOs within the two private prisons in Scotland.

For Royal Edinburgh Associated Services

Recommendation QI 9.2: Royal Edinburgh Associated Services must ensure that patients with complex physical healthcare needs are identified, assessed and supported in meeting their activities of daily living.

Recommendation QI 9.2: Sodexo must ensure that patients are escorted to the health centre at the appropriate time. On occasions where this is not possible, Sodexo staff must liaise with healthcare staff to reduce the time they spend waiting for patients to arrive.

Recommendation QI 9.2: Royal Edinburgh Associated Services and Sodexo must work together to ensure that Sodexo staff receive appropriate training to identify when an emergency response was required, and when a request for a nurse to attend ‘when available’ was the required response. This will ensure that those patients requiring urgent attention receive this without undue strain on the provision of healthcare services elsewhere.

Recommendation QI 9.6: Royal Edinburgh Associated Service must ensure that all patients with complex care needs have care plans in place which clearly describe the care required and have review dates in place.

Recommendation QI 9.16: Royal Edinburgh Associated Service must ensure that senior healthcare staff are given the time to undertake management and leadership duties. This will assist in the provision of support for more junior staff and promote stability in the nursing team.

Recommendation QI 9.16: Royal Edinburgh Associated Services must ensure that all senior staff are aware of who they line manage, and facilitate the provision of clinical supervision and line management supervision to all staff.

Recommendation QI 9.16: Royal Edinburgh Associated Services and Sodexo must work together to ensure that the following are directly discussed and addressed. All findings and solutions must be shared with healthcare staff:

Accurate data on the number of missed appointments and the impact of this on delivery of healthcare
Accurate data on the number of staff reporting verbal abuse, including whether there was an immediate challenge to this by Sodexo staff
All staff who report any type of abuse are supported and informed of any remedial actions being taken by Sodexo.

Annex B

Summary of Good Practice

Good practice QI 1.2: The good relationship between staff and prisoners appeared natural and gave every indication that it was common practice. This was evident in all interactions observed with prisoners during the course of the inspection.

Good Practice QI 1.8: Induction sessions observed were well attended and participation from the prisoner group was excellent. In particular, the co‑facilitation of peer mentors and staff provided a good model as prisoners were able to relate to the experience of their peers whilst the regime of the establishment was reinforced.

Good practice QI 1.9: All prisoners were provided with a small black rucksack in which to place returned property, in order to provide privacy and reduce any possible stigmatism upon release.

Good practice QI 1.9: Prisoners were liberated from the visits area. Any throughcare or support services coordinated by Librite to assist an individual were also welcomed into the waiting area, which provided a comfortable and friendly spacious area to meet.

Good practice QI 2.3: A number of prisoners spoke positively about being able to have their own bedding sent into the establishment.

Good practice QI 2.6: Upon commencing working in the kitchen, prisoners undergo a comprehensive training programme. This was recorded in the Training Pack for Kitchen Workers. It was noted that this pack was extremely comprehensive and covered a variety of job roles within the kitchen.

Good practice QI 3.2: HMP Addiewell utilised a strategy to reduce those that carried out self‑harm called an Insight plan. This was used to monitor and support those that were likely to self‑harm and wished support and it appeared to work well when prisoners participated in their plan. This was also supported by the mental health team, when deemed appropriate.

Good practice QI 6.3: The prison offered a very engaging business course, focused primarily on developing self‑employment for prisoners as an option on liberation. The prison had effective partnership arrangements in place with organisations, to provide long‑term support for prisoners after their release. Typically, one prisoner per month moved on to work with a business adviser with a view to starting up their own business. There were several examples of prisoners who had successfully started their own business and others who were prepared well to do so.

Good practice QI 6.3: We commend the establishment for publishing details on the kiosk of prisoners who were successful in achieving employment.

Good practice 6.10: The running of the tea bar was the responsibility of two prisoners including cashing up and dealing with stock control.

Good practice QI 6.11: The family visits induction recently involved prisoner ambassadors leading the presentation. This allowed visitors to get a perspective from serving prisoners and ask them questions on prison life.

Good practice 7.4: The prison was working towards achieving the expectations of the Sustainable Housing On Release for Everyone (SHORE) standards. Encouragingly, the prison and their local authority partners across North, South Lanarkshire and West Lothian had jointly funded a full‑time housing officer post. Although access to housing remained an issue in a number of areas, the housing officer was aiding communication, removing barriers and assisting prisoners secure and sustain tenancies.

Good practice QI 8.7: HMP Addiewell is to be particularly commended for their working relationship with Police Scotland on the NPS initiative.

Good practice QI 9.2: An SOP for the management of patients who had used novel psychoactive substances had been developed in partnership with public health, the Scottish Ambulance Service, and accident and emergency specialists. This collaboration included the development of a new national early warning score which was assessed from direct observations of the patient, including temperature, pulse, blood pressure and blood sugars.

Good practice QI 9.5: Within the prison, the consultant addictions psychiatrist ran an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) clinic. Inspectors found that patients who attended this clinic were actively involved in their care and treatment plans. The staff observed during these clinics had excellent knowledge of ADHD and worked collaboratively with their patients.

Good practice QI 9.7: Staff demonstrated a clear knowledge and understanding of treatment options, their benefits and risks to patients.

Good practice QI 9.8: Drug Kardex’s were regularly audited to ensure prescribing was compliant with the NHS board drug formulary. Queries noted with Kardex’s, for example medication changes or how the prescription had been written, were fed back to staff through the staff huddle. We saw evidence of these checks and found that in these instances the prescribing had been appropriate. This is an area of good practice and is evidence of a multi‑disciplinary approach to medicines and pharmacy services.

Annex C

Summary of Ratings

Standard/QI	Standard rating/QI rating
Standard 1	Generally acceptable
QI 1.1	Generally acceptable
QI 1.2	Poor
QI 1.3	Generally acceptable
QI 1.4	Satisfactory
QI 1.5	Poor
QI 1.6	Satisfactory
QI 1.7	Satisfactory
QI 1.8	Poor
QI 1.9	Good
Standard 2	Satisfactory
QI 2.1	Satisfactory
QI 2.2	Satisfactory
QI 2.3	Satisfactory
QI 2.4	Satisfactory
QI 2.5	Satisfactory
QI 2.6	Satisfactory
Standard 3	Satisfactory
QI 3.1	Satisfactory
QI 3.2	Generally acceptable
QI 3.3	Generally acceptable
QI 3.4	Satisfactory
QI 3.5	Generally acceptable
QI 3.6	Satisfactory
QI 3.7	Satisfactory
Standard 4	Satisfactory
QI 4.1	Satisfactory
QI 4.2	Generally acceptable
QI 4.3	Satisfactory
QI 4.4	Satisfactory
QI 4.5	Satisfactory
QI 4.6	Satisfactory
QI 4.7	Satisfactory
QI 4.8	Satisfactory
QI 4.9	Satisfactory
QI 4.10	Satisfactory
Standard 5	Generally acceptable
QI 5.1	Satisfactory
QI 5.2	Satisfactory
QI 5.3	Generally acceptable
QI 5.4	Generally acceptable
QI 5.5	Generally acceptable
QI 5.6	Generally acceptable
QI 5.7	Satisfactory
QI 5.8	Satisfactory
Standard 6	Generally acceptable
QI 6.1	Poor performance
QI 6.2	Generally acceptable
QI 6.3	Generally acceptable
QI 6.4	Generally acceptable
QI 6.5	Generally acceptable
QI 6.6	Poor performance
QI 6.7	Generally acceptable
QI 6.8	Satisfactory
QI 6.9	Satisfactory
QI 6.10	Generally acceptable
QI 6.11	Satisfactory
QI 6.12	Satisfactory
QI 6.13	Satisfactory
QI 6.14	Generally acceptable
QI 6.15	Satisfactory
Standard 7	Generally acceptable
QI 7.1	Satisfactory
QI 7.2	Generally acceptable
QI 7.3	Generally acceptable
QI 7.4	Satisfactory
QI 7.5	Poor
Standard 8	Satisfactory
QI 8.1	Generally acceptable
QI 8.2	Satisfactory
QI 8.3	Satisfactory
QI 8.4	Poor
QI 8.5	Generally acceptable
QI 8.6	Satisfactory
QI 8.7	Satisfactory
QI 8.8	Satisfactory
Standard 9	Satisfactory
QI 9.1	Good
QI 9.2	Generally acceptable
QI 9.3	Generally acceptable
QI 9.4	Good
QI 9.5	Generally acceptable
QI 9.6	Good
QI 9.7	Good
QI 9.8	Generally acceptable
QI 9.9	Generally acceptable
QI 9.10	Not applicable
QI 9.11	Satisfactory
QI 9.12	Poor
QI 9.13	Satisfactory
QI 9.14	Good
QI 9.15	Good
QI 9.16	Generally acceptable
QI 9.17	Poor

Annex D

HMP Addiewell

Prison population profile as at 6 August 2018

Status	Number of prisoners	%
Untried Male Adults	117
Untried Female Adults	0
Untried Male Young Offenders	0
Untried Female Young Offenders	0
Sentenced Male Adults	552
Sentenced Female Adults	0
Sentenced Male Young Offenders	0
Sentence Female Young Offenders	0
Recalled Life Prisoners	7
Convicted Prisoners Awaiting Sentencing	22
Prisoners Awaiting Deportation	1
Under 16s	0
Civil Prisoners	0
Home Detention Curfew (HDC)	0
Sentence
Untried/Remand	137
0 – 1 month	2
1 – 2 months	1
2 – 3 months	8
3 – 4 months	12
4 – 5 months	8
5 – 6 months	24
6 months to less than 12 months	62
12 months to less than 2 years	93
2 years to less than 4 years	126
4 years to less than 10 years	136
10 years and over (not life)	14
Life	73
Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR)	3
Age
Minimum age:	21
Under 21 years	0
21 years to 29 years	248
30 years to 39 years	256
40 years to 49 years	127
50 years to 59 years	49
60 years to 69 years	12
70 years plus	7
Maximum age:	74
Total number of prisoners	699

Annex E

Inspection Team

1. Wendy Sinclair‑Gieben, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

2. Jim Farish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons

3. Calum McCarthy, Inspector of Prisons

4. Kerry Love, Head of Prison Inspection and Monitoring Co‑ordination

5. Sean McFedries, Scottish Prison Service

6. Keith Waddell, Scottish Prison Service

7. Scott Watson, Scottish Prison Service

8. Ian Beach, Education Scotland

9. Dr John Laird, Education Scotland

10. Jane Kelly, Care Inspectorate

11. Neil Gentleman, Care Inspectorate

12. Jacqueline Jowett, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

13. Helen Samborek, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

14. Leona Gilhooley, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

15. Leon Wylie, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

16. Karen Melville, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

17. Lindsay MacPhee, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

18. Diego Quiroz, Scottish Human Rights Commission

19. Cathy Asante, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Annex F

Acronyms

BBV	Blood Bourne virus
BICSc	British Institute of Cleaning Science
C&R	Control and Restraint
CCTV	Closed Circuit Television
CM	Case Manager
CPSS	Cleaning Professional’s Skills Suite
CSRA	Cell Sharing Risk Assessment
CV	Closed Visits
D&I	Diversity and Inclusion
DWP	Department of Work and Pension
E&D	Equality and Diversity
ECR	Electronic Control Room
ESOL	English as a Second Language
FCO	Family Coordination Officer
GPA	Generic Programme Assessment
HDC	Home Detention Curfew
ICM	Integrated Case Management
ICT	Information and communications technology
IPM	Independent Prison Monitor
MAPPA	Multi‑Agency Public Protection Arrangements
MDT	Mandatory Drug Testing
NPS	Novel Psychoactive Substance
PBSW	Prison Based Social Worker
PCF	Prisoner Complaint Form
PR2	Prisoner Record System – version 2
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
SQA	Scottish Qualifications Authority
TKO	Training and Knowledge Opportunity
OLR	Order of Lifelong Restriction
OMU	Offender Management Unit
PAT	Portable Appliance Testing
PER	Personal Escort Report
PIAC	Prisoner Information and Activity Committee
PID	Perimeter Intruder Detection
QI	Quality Indicator
RRA	Reception Risk Assessment
SCQF	Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework
SHORE	Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone
SMT	Senior Management Team
SPS	Scottish Prison Service
SRU	Separation and Reintegration Unit
TSO	Throughcare Support Officer
TTM	Talk to Me
VISION	National Health Service electronic healthcare record system
WMD	Walk Through Metal Detector

HMP YOI Addiewell - Full Inspection - Summary Report.pdf

Report on HMP Addiewell Full Inspection - 6-17 August 2018 - Evidence Report.pdf

HMP Addiewell - News Release.pdf

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Report on HMP Addiewell 6-17 August 2018

Summary Report on HMP Addiewell: 6‑17 August 2018

Contents

Introduction and Background

Key Facts

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS)

A Human Rights Based Approach Overview of HMP Addiewell

Summary of Inspection Findings

Standards, Commentary and Quality Indicators

Standard 2 – Decency

Standard 3 – Personal Safety

Standard 4 – Effective, Courteous and Humane Exercise of Authority

Standard 5 – Respect, Autonomy and Protection Against Mistreatment

Standard 6 – Purposeful Activity

Standard 7 – Transitions from custody to life in the community

Standard 8 – Organisational Effectiveness

Standard 9 – Health and Wellbeing

Annex A

Annex B

Annex C

Annex D

Annex E

Annex F