Helimed house

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Ambulance crews had limited information on arrival to a patient but worked in partnership with the NHS critical care desk and other paramedic colleagues on scene to assess, respond and treat patients. Due to the nature of the missions and patient conditions patient choices regarding their care and treatment were not always possible. However, review of patient records showed that ambulance crew always opted for the least restrictive practice in the interest of the patient. For example, we saw that ambulance crew decided not to fully sedate a patient whilst transferring them as the patient was more coherent and not in the patient’s best interest.

The service had policies and procedures to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff completed mandatory training to support patients whilst providing care and treatment.

Staff were aware that some patients aged between 16 and 18 years of age were children and adapted the service to take account of this. For example, they used trauma teddies to support assessment, and we saw policies referencing guidance specific to children.

Feedback received by the service showed that those close to the wherever possible the patient or their family were kept involved in the care and treatment. The Aftercare team were pivotal in coordinating the support after the initial incident and offered ongoing communication and support.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service met the care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Helimed House aimed to operate a 24-hour, 7 day a week service to efficiently cover the Norwich area by either car or air ambulance. Where this was not possible due to staffing or adverse weather it was covered by the East Anglian Air Ambulance (EAAA) Cambridge airbase. The service conducted mission reviews and analysed data to ensure that operations were as responsive as possible. The service had strong links with other emergency services to ensure the strong integration and continuity of care.

The service demonstrated an exceptional understanding of the needs of local people and the communities it served. Care was thoughtfully planned and delivered in ways that were shaped by local priorities, ensuring support was both relevant and genuinely responsive.

Leaders worked proactively with a wide range of system partners and community organisations, meeting regularly with charities, local police liaison officers, and other stakeholders to understand emerging needs and tailor care accordingly. This collaborative approach strengthened relationships across the system and ensured that care pathways were aligned, coordinated, and accessible.

The Aftercare team played a pivotal role in this integrated model. They engaged with multiple charities to enhance and refine signposting options for patients and their families, ensuring people received timely, personalised support beyond the immediate episode of care. This commitment to partnership working meant individuals were connected with the right help at the right time, reinforcing a culture of compassionate, community‑centred care.

The service had systems to help support patients in need of additional needs or specialist intervention. The service ran quarterly patient forum groups to gain feedback about the service they provided. Feedback showed that people were impressed at how the teams had looked after their family members, particularly children, at the time of the accident.

Helimed House welcomed any visitors to their Norwich base and had a dedicated room for patients and their families within the entrance of the building in acknowledgment that there may be a huge emotional and psychological impact when visiting for the first time following their care.

Deployment of Helimed House ambulance crew was made by the NHS ambulance critical care desk. This meant that at times ambulance crew may be stood down or redirected if there was a greater need. The service reviewed data related to shifts which over ran to ensure that this was prevented to protect the service and it’s staff. In the 6 months prior to our assessment there were a total of 6 occasions where an ambulance crew member could not work their planned shift due to an overrun. This totalled 470 minutes (0.18% of total shift time over 6 months).

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available on the services website, it hosted a wide range of information such as patient support, clinical research and details of the charity. The service displayed its mission figures on their public website to demonstrate how it was serving its community and the type of incident they were called to, such as medical emergency, cardiac arrest or road traffic collision.

Patients and families reported that staff were clear when explaining next steps during their care and during the follow up meetings after the incident. They felt well informed and had opportunity to meet to seek clarification or ask questions regarding their care or seek further support regarding what they had been through.

Aftercare care card or bereavement cards were left by Helimed House ambulance crew to enable patients and their families to contact the Aftercare team for further advice and support should they wish to. During the time of our assessment, managers told us that they did not have information available in other languages but acknowledge there was a need to have more accessible resources available. Information could be provided in other languages if required for individuals. The service had access to interpreters through language line to support translation where English was not a first language.

Staff told us that where possible they included patients and their families when explaining treatment and care they would be providing before they carried this out. If there was a language barrier staff knew how to access support on their devices or asked other adults on the scene to help them communicate most effectively.

Patient feedback we reviewed demonstrated that the service encouraged patients and their families to ask questions and these were responded to openly and honestly. Where care fell short of the expected standard, the service ensured that this was communicated at the most appropriate and opportune moment.

The service did not implement the accessible information standard (AIS) to their service. This meant that they were not always identifying, recording, flagging, sharing, and meeting the communication needs of patients with disabilities or sensory loss. Senior leaders acknowledge that there was work to be done to address this.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service enabled patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment or support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care where able and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had received a total of 45 complaints in the last 12 months. The majority related to fundraising. We saw evidence of an apology and action taken to address complaints relating to any clinical staff. The service understood the importance in maintaining good relationships with local hospitals to provide a high level of care to the patients of the counties they served.

The service placed a strong emphasis on listening to patients and families, using their feedback to drive continuous improvement. Feedback was gathered through quarterly patient forums, direct contact with the Aftercare team, and patient surveys—ensuring people had multiple, accessible ways to share their experiences. Where English was not the first language spoken they used language line to ensure that feedback was captured accurately.

Patients and families were actively encouraged to contribute ideas, and the open‑ended nature of Aftercare support meant individuals could reflect and provide feedback months or even years after their care. This created a rich, ongoing source of insight that shaped service development and strengthened patient‑centred practice.

We saw evidence of feedback given to patients on action taken in response to their experience or care. For example, a patient had sustained a thermal burn following the use of a heated blanket. The service took immediate action by removing the product from use, had used their channels to update other services in the region who use the same device and informed the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (via a system called “Yellow Card”) which collects data on all UK healthcare products and issues alerts nationally. This was all communicated to the patient to demonstrate that action had been taken.

The service had a complaints policy which covered all types of complaints such as patient care, fundraising or aviation. The policy outlined how complaints would be dealt with and by whom and aimed to respond to all complaints within 5 to 10 working days of receipt depending on the complexity. There were clear escalation processes if the complainant was not satisfied with the initial response.

Senior leaders told us that complaints regarding clinical care were very rare but took those as an opportunity to listen and improve. Staff were informed of feedback at team meetings and monthly clinical governance group meetings. The service had received 1 complaint regarding clinical care in the last 12 months and therefore had not made any changes in response to patient feedback.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service ensured patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were no barriers to patients accessing the service. It was tasked by the local NHS ambulance critical care desk and there was no discrimination as to who received the service, ensuring equity in access for everyone.

The 2025 data we reviewed showed an exceptional standard of service for patients. Helimed House had completed 750 helicopter taskings and 601 RRV taskings attending to trauma and medical patients both paediatric and adult. The responsiveness of the service and ability to deliver enhanced care such as blood transfusions to 71 patients in 2025 gave every patient the best possible chance of surviving.

Staff completed equality, diversity and inclusion training as well as training such as autism, dementia and learning difficulties. Staff we spoke to understood what reasonable adjustments may need to be made when treating patients with protected characteristics. Policies and procedures were in place to ensure that people had equal access to care, treatment and support. At the time of the assessment, we were told the service did not have a specific equality, diversity and inclusion policy but this had been discussed at the people committee meeting in February 2026 prior to our onsite visit. Action had been taken to develop a policy. The service was also aware that they had not applied a risk matrix to ensure they identified potential discrimination.

Managers and staff worked closely with system partners to make sure patients were transferred to receiving hospitals in a timely manner and handed over to the receiving consultant at the hospital. The time to handover data was monitored by leaders to ensure that ambulance crew were not unnecessarily held up and were ready for redeployment if required.

The Aftercare team contacted all patients and families by telephone to offer support and advice to ensure equal access for as long as they wished.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service had systems to monitor outcomes. In 2025, the service had an agreement with the local major trauma centre to ensure routine sharing of patient outcomes. This meant that the service had more data to inform their practice and drive improvement for outcomes. Senior leaders told us that they would use this data going forward to identify potential health inequalities within the population they served.

The training suite had a variety of mannequins designed to reflect differing ethnicity and congenital conditions to simulate real life situations in training environments for staff to improve experience and outcomes.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation services by telephone. There was a range of pictorial information to assist staff in engaging with people who had additional needs.

The service worked with a local school in Norwich to educate and improve outcomes in cardiac arrest. Helimed House staff taught CPR training to sixth form students who would in turn teach younger students at the school.
Senior leaders acknowledged that they did not collect data to understand the breadth of diversity of the population it served to adapt care to meet the diverse health and care needs for all patients. The collection of such data would allow the service to highlight potential gaps in case and tackle any unconscious bias.