QE Facilities Patient Transport

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This means that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw the service treated all patients with kindness, compassion and dignity. There were examples where crews took time to understand each patient as an individual through a variety of adaptations to make journeys safe, comfortable, and stress-free for patients with additional physical, cognitive, or behavioural needs.

Vehicle and equipment adaptations included ensuring vehicles were wheelchair accessible vehicles with ramps and hydraulic lifts, the availability of manual handling equipment, environment and communication adjustments modifications to vehicles (dimmed lighting, covered windows with dementia friendly images) and the use of communication aids for patients with cognitive, learning, or sensory impairments.

Carers and family members were encouraged to accompany patients when required for reassurance. Should the need arise, staff used de-escalation strategies and behavioural support for patients with mental health needs. We saw staff provided additional time and a calm approach for patients.

There were a number of ways for patients to give feedback on their journey and this showed staff understood and met individual needs, including personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Processes were in place to ensure staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. These had been reinforced through induction and ongoing training.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff identified individual patient needs through handover information from the discharge lounge and any further information from wards This was supported by active communication, and observation of individual patients through reviewing patient booking information which included mobility needs, behavioural risks or alerts, and escort needs.

Handover information was complemented by conversations with patients and their carers where applicable. Staff told us they engaged patients directly to identify their comfort and mobility needs.

These conversations were supported by consulting with carers and family members to understand preferred communication methods and also potential issues which may cause stress or anxiety. Staff observed patients before transport for signs of distress, confusion, breathing difficulty, agitation or sensory needs.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service made adjustments for individual patients identified during the handover process and through communication with the patient, their carer or relatives. Patients access to their home address, hospitals and other premises was made as easy as possible.

Staff gained and recorded consent from patients before their journey. Completed patient record forms documented how staff took an individual’s personal circumstances into account for transport, for example physical and mobility needs (adjusting seating and securing mobility aids), and the use of appropriate manual-handling equipment such as slide sheets. Staff provided additional support with standing, pivoting, or stepping and allowed extra time for safe and comfortable transfers. Oxygen cylinders were checked and secured at the beginning of each journey. Staff accommodated individual positioning of patients to maintain comfort and monitored wellbeing during transport including observing infection prevention and -control measures.

Cognitive, learning disability and autism related needs were identified and prioritised, through, for example, through the use of clear language, visual prompts, minimising noise and avoiding sudden movements. Carers, relatives and familiar individuals accompanied patients when needed.

Crews managed individual hearing impairment needs through facing patients when speaking, providing written notes or gestures when appropriate, gave clear verbal directions and offered physical guidance for patients with visual impairments. Potentially hazardous items were secured, out of reach of patients. All adjustments were recoded appropriately.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service followed the group ‘Privacy and Dignity Policy’ and had ‘customer care’ and ‘privacy and dignity’ standard operating procedures in place supported by team briefs. Staff had been trained in recognizsing risk issues.

Communication boards and sensory aids were available on vehicles. Each vehicle had blacked out windows to provide privacy, also allowing patients to watch their trip and converse about their location, promoting conversations for patients. It was also used as a distraction for anxious or distressed patients.

Dimmed ambient lighting on vehicles helped provide a calmer experience, aiding patients with sensitivity to light. Vehicles also carried imitation dogs with simulated breathing and synthetic fur to provide comfort and help calm a patient with a dementia or similar condition. Sensory mats and fidget pads helped stimulate patients’ senses, while and helped provide an activity to aid in calming patients. We saw there were communication boards on each ambulance to help patients express their wishes when speaking or hearing is difficult. They also helped support patients’ independence when travelling.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service followed the group ‘promoting and supporting attendance’ and, ‘occupational health’ policies and alsoas well as the ‘lone working’ policy which aimed to ‘…provide a framework for a safe working environment for all … staff who may be working in lone situations.’ The policy placed responsibilities on both managers of the service and staff. Managers had a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for staff working in lone situations and ensure that suitable and sufficient risk assessments for those situations were carried out. We saw staff were provided with training and information advising of the hazards of working alone and associated good practice. The policy also placed a responsibility on staff to seek further advice or assistance in a situation, with which they are not familiar or do not feel safe.

Regular one-to-one meetings were held with line managers where staff were able to raise concerns or ask for guidance, identify workplace adjustments, discuss wellbeing, and manage potential issues.

Occupational health services, and mental health and wellbeing services were in place. These gave access to wellbeing hubs and centres, psychological support teams and the health and wellbeing team of the host trust.

Peer support champions, wellbeing ambassadors and mentoring for new or struggling staff were available within the host trust. Also available were practical and workplace adjustments, supportive return to work plans and support for staff experiencing personal difficulties, such as bereavement.

Team briefs showed the service was committed to ‘…promoting positive health and wellbeing for all colleagues.’ To help achieve this the service had conducted a health needs assessment survey of staff in July 2025. This identified the demand for wellbeing support and focus the wellbeing strategy on prevention.