Helimed house

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. Leaders had systems for identifying and responding to safety risks. The service had safety processes for the preparation of vehicles, equipment and for the patient journey between locations. Medicines were managed safely. Patients were safe from neglect, abuse and discrimination. Patient’s gave informed consent where possible prior to any physical support required of staff. Where they were unable to consent due to the nature of the event, those close to them were involved in decisions which were made in their best interests.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. Patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

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

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff and leaders actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Learning was shared widely across the service and more widely with the other provider locations, where appropriate.

Staff knew how to access an incident reporting policy, which outlined incident reporting procedures, levels and timescales of investigation. There was a risk assessment matrix applied to each incident, according to severity. Staff told us how they were encouraged to raised concerns and report incidents and near misses, which was in line with this policy.

Staff recognised and reported incidents using the internal incident reporting system, using handheld and office based electronic devices. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and understood the value in sharing these with external and contracted partner organisations to prevent avoidable harm. We saw evidence of such wider learning shared with the service’s contracted NHS ambulance services and acute trust. The service medical director ensured staff’s welfare, offered them downtime and psychological support.

The service managed patient safety incidents comprehensively. The service had approached incidents through a no blame culture, with a strong focus on improvement and innovation through lessons learnt. Staff were openly encouraged by leaders and each other to discuss safety and any learning. They proactively identified missions they had attended that offered rich opportunities for collective reflection, learning, and improvement, each one chosen for its potential to drive safer practice and reduce patient harm.

The service completed complex case reviews (CCR) for care episodes to offer clinicians time to reflect and review care given with the emphasis on learning. This process highlighted any areas of excellence, learning or improvement. The service had carried out 45 CCR between January 2026 to March 2026. The service commissioned After Action Reviews (AAR) from an independent consultant not involved in the care episode to allow for a ‘deep dive’ into cases. All AAR were completed with the ambulance crew, NHS ambulance and external stakeholders such as the police. This showed an exceptional practice as external stakeholders were involved to ensure the accuracy of review and timely shared learning with external partners. We reviewed 3 AAR during our onsite visit, they had a set structure including review of decision making, concerns identified and recommendations. For example, simulation training scenarios to be run joint with Helimed House and the NHS ambulance trust for split site stabbing/major incident to ensure processes and systems supported the most effective operational approach. This ensured that all services were improving safety not limited to Helimed House staff.

When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support. Ambulance crew had used a heat mat to warm a patient, which resulted in a burn on their abdomen. The service informed the family of this and an investigation into the use of the product was conducted to prevent future occurrence. Immediate action was taken by the service to remove the product until an investigation was conducted with the local NHS hospital to prevent future harm. Staff we spoke with were aware of the incident and the action taken by senior leaders to reduce the risk of any future patient harm.

There is a genuinely open culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff and people who use service was highly valued as being integral to learning and improvement. Data we reviewed showed incidents were comprehensively investigated, and timely, effective action taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. We looked at the service electronic system for managing incidents were rated according to risk and leaders proactively reviewed these in line with policy recording action taken. Recent examples of incidents included staff reporting a needle stick injury, thermal burn and equipment failure.

Incidents were analysed by senior leaders to identify trends or themes and potential links to individual practitioners. Where additional staff training or support was required to ensure competence, this was provided.

Staff understood duty of candour. They were open and transparent and gave patients and families a full explanation when things went wrong. Staff received feedback from internal and external incident investigations, for example following a thermal burn to a patient there was a team read sent out to all clinical staff regarding the incident and change in procedure to prevent future occurrences. A team read is a structured communication document to aid communication with staff used within the service.

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff. Managers monitored mandatory training and alerted staff when they needed to complete updates. The data showed all staff were compliant with their mandatory training. Non-compliance was only seen in those staff currently on long term sick, maternity or recently joined the service and were onboarding.

Clinical staff completed training on recognising and responding to patients for example, with learning disabilities and/or living with dementia. Staff also completed and refreshed all their care certificate training (CCT) standards every 3 years and were reminded before any expired.

The service had a systemic and embedded approach to its culture of learning. For example, at the end of each shift, the ambulance crew and pilots completed a standardised post mission debrief to discuss the overall quality and effectiveness of each mission. This enabled ambulance crew to identify immediate learning and improvement. External stakeholders told us that this process was effective in identifying learning at the earliest opportunity in a safe environment to prioritise safety and learning. An example was given where clinical resource management refresher training was introduced across all air ambulance services due to a recognition that ambulance crew did not follow safety protocol and released their seatbelts prior to secure landing. Helimed House ambulance crew acknowledged their actions and welcomed the new refresher training. This demonstrated the commitment to wider learning across the network to drive improvement and safety.

We spoke with both clinical and non-clinical staff that told us they were supported and encouraged to their allocated training budget on continuing professional development courses to support their role. The continuing development of the staff’s skills, competence and knowledge was recognised by leaders as being integral to ensuring high-quality care. For example, a non-clinical staff member told us that they received training to manage bereavement calls to ensure that they were effective in providing compassionate, patient, and practical support to individuals who have recently lost a loved one. They felt the training supported them in key aspects such as active listening, clear communication regarding next steps, and signposting to further support services.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service worked with patients and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, where safety was well managed and monitored. Staff made sure there was always continuity of care, including when responsibility for patient care moved between different areas of a service and between providers. Staff were committed to working collaboratively and found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services.

Ambulance crew would risk assess the most suitable mode of transport for each mission based on factors such as accessibility and weather conditions. These decisions were made as a team in conjunction with the air ambulance pilots. Where weather conditions made flying unsafe this was communicated with the crew as well as the local NHS critical care control desk.

Ambulance crew had oversight of a digital dashboard with real time travel distance by air and road to aid rapid decision making and access to the closest major trauma centres and specialist units to transfer patients who needed critical care.

Safety and continuity of care was a priority throughout people’s care pathway. Patients had continuous monitoring by ambulance crew. The on-call duty consultant supported the ambulance crew with rapid decision making in time critical situations and non-clinical tasks such as pre-alerting patient receiving hospitals to ensure seamless continuity of care for patients. This was described by seniors as a ‘phone a friend’ service. This collaborative approach meant that they were working as efficiently as possible to deliver timely care.

The management of safe systems and care was a priority for the service. The service had policies and standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure that patient safety was maintained at the scene and beyond. These included night operations, rare procedures and analgesia and sedation SOP. There was a strong focus on all aspects of using various tools and audits to look for themes and trends for further investigation, change or improvement if needed. Oversight was managed through monthly clinical governance days were held with senior managers to consider risk and performance and health and safety committee meetings were held to consider all aspects of safety across the service.

Daily medical team safety briefing checklist was completed at the beginning of each shift. This included, but was not limited to, welfare checks and, review of all mandatory training for each ambulance crew member as well as tasks to complete during the shift.

Ambulance crew recorded pre-shift checks digitally, and staff were reminded of weekly and monthly checks such as equipment, vehicles and infection, prevention control and hygiene through the services digital management system. Ambulance crew were required to read the latest team reads (a structured communication record used to convey timely information and updates in practice). Crew were required to review their compliance against mandatory training at the beginning of every shift. This ensured that the ambulance crew had the skills, knowledge and competence to perform safely and effectively on every shift.

When overall responsibility for the care and treatment of a patient moved to a different service provider, such as transfer to the NHS, there was effective communication, which allowed for seamless transfer. Key performance indicators were continuously reviewed to ensure that the service was effective in its delivery of pre-hospital emergency care. For example, first time to arrival on scene, arrival to emergency anaesthesia and successfully placing a breathing tube on the first attempt. The continuous monitoring against set indicators as well as previous quarters allowed for senior leaders to address changes in compliance and review potential causes or learning without delay.

Staff planned and organised care with people, together with partners and communities in ways which ensured continuity after transfer to the destination. Ambulance crew would leave contact details for the Aftercare team with the patient or family upon transfer to allow for ongoing support.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard and framework embedded to identify themes and trends. The service worked with patients and healthcare partners where required, to understand how best to keep people safe, what it meant for individuals and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. They understood their responsibilities for raising and sharing safeguarding concerns through the relevant safeguarding routes, including the NHS ambulance trust process and EAAA safeguarding leads. The service had well established partner working and contacts around safeguarding with their contractors and local authorities. Referrals made by staff were automatically sent to the 3 level 4 trained safeguarding leads within the service for follow up and establish outcome of the referral and share any learning with the staff teams.

The service had started receiving feedback from the NHS ambulance trust for safeguarding concerns they had raised. The safeguarding team also cross-referenced monthly safeguarding referrals against the provider database to ensure that records were accurate and that staff were referring in line with policy. This process had helped identify a few referrals that were assigned to another air ambulance provider and not Helimed House.

Staff received adult and children's safeguarding training. Data showed 95-100% compliance for frontline and ground staff. The service had an up to date safeguarding policy which reflected the national guidance for adults and children. Staff were trained in line with the national intercollegiate guidance ensuring all staff were trained appropriately to their role.

Staff knew how to make a safeguarding referral and who to inform if they had concerns. We saw evidence of 3 safeguarding referrals made by ambulance crew in accordance with policy. Expert safeguarding advice was available to support staff from Monday to Friday, by the safeguarding team, who were trained to level 4 and 5. Out of hours the ambulance crew were able to discuss concerns with the on-call duty consultant.

Safeguarding concerns were considered at point of care for all missions. Senior leaders reported that they had seen a change in clinical staff documenting safeguarding considerations as a core intervention. Patient records had dedicated areas for staff to record safeguarding details and numbers. Ambulance crew would also document clear decisions when a referral had not been made but was considered.

The service did not complete any formal annual audits to ensure correct processes were followed and actions completed. However, there was robust oversight of clinical care within 24 hours of each mission where any potential missed safeguarding referrals would be captured. Further to this the service met with the NHS ambulance service monthly and feedback was received on the standard of referrals made by the service’s ambulance crew. A total of 96 safeguarding referrals were made in the last 12 months. The NHS ambulance service we spoke with told us that referrals made were appropriate and had no concerns with how they were handled. This demonstrated active case review, external partner feedback, referral reconciliation and continuous oversight.

Staff knew how to identify adults and children at risk of, or suffering, significant harm and worked with other agencies to protect them. Staff we spoke to during our onsite visit could give examples of how to protect patients from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010).
The service was considering ways to make safeguarding for non-clinical staff more relevant by introducing bitesize monthly safeguarding updates such as those from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC).

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The service used patient record forms (PRFs) which were initially completed with the information received by the NHS ambulance trust control desk. Upon arrival ambulance crew gained as much information as possible to understand the requirements of the patient. This was supported with the use of innovative equipment and patient monitoring devices.

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks. Patients' needs were met in ways which were safe and supportive and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them. This included for example, transferring a child to a major trauma centre to keep them with their family following a road traffic collision, placing the patient at the centre of their plan of care.

Due to the nature of some of the missions, patients were not always involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff were encouraged to listen to patients and family to ensure they were given the best advice to manage risks they were facing. We saw evidence of staff carrying out holistic assessments to ensure that conveying patients to hospital was in their best interest and supported comfort, privacy and dignity.

We spoke with 2 patients and a family member during our assessment who told us they were given the opportunity to meet with the Aftercare team where they spoke about the care and treatment they had received. They reported that this was important to them and a source of comfort to help understand the life changing medical emergency they had experienced.

Staff told us that they used trauma teddies when treating children to assist with identifying areas of pain and the teddies were made by volunteers within the service.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them comprehensively. Leaders collaborated with staff and external stakeholders to make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe high-quality care.

The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. The service used surveillance cameras on entrances and swipe card access to areas such as medicine storage and medical equipment. During normal office hours volunteers and office teams manged reception to sign all guests or external contractors, trainers were signed into the service and given a health and safety briefing before entering the internal premises.

The service had 2 dedicated sleeping facilities for staff to rest following their shift if they were not able to travel home. These were secure, safe environments specially built to offer staff the ability to rest and recover following missions. Senior leaders actively encouraged the use of these facilities in recognition of the nature of the role of their ambulance crew.

Helimed House had a multi-function facility for ground staff to operate a 24-hour,7 day a week service as well as innovative training facilities, rest areas, gym and welfare facilities for patients and family members for follow up care.

The service had a dedicated immersive simulation training suite that could replicate environments and challenges that clinicians had experienced when attending patients. This included recreating weather conditions such as wind, cold and heat. With images and videos of people, interiors and landscapes projected onto the walls, the simulation suite could recreate a scenario to assist with learning to support clinicians’ training to remain focused in what could be chaotic environments. These facilities were accessible to external stakeholders to share best practice and deliver the best possible care to patients.

The service had policies and procedures in place to maintain a safe environment and staff conducted regular planned safety checks and audits for safety. The service’s estates team ensured that servicing and fire risk assessments were in line with policy and aviation standards. All staff were aware of their responsibilities for ensuring the environment was safe for patients and staff.

The design of the environment was wheelchair accessible throughout. The Helimed House Hangar provided protection for the aircraft, rapid response vehicles, medical gases and equipment and an area for essential on-site maintenance. Building temperature levels were centrally controlled to ensure they remained within specified levels to ensure engineers and ambulance crew could safely equip or work on the air ambulance and vehicles. Staff stored vehicles in a safe area that was inaccessible to unauthorised persons. The critical care car area had charging facilities for the hybrid car and the medical equipment contained within the vehicle. An automatic eject feature disconnected the vehicle from its charging point when staff started it. This ensured a fast and safe exit for the ambulance crew when they were tasked by road to a medical emergency, making it a more effective way to launch the critical car and get to patients more quickly.

The air ambulance and 2 critical care cars were all fit for purpose to meet the needs of the service and equipped to deliver rapid, critical care at the scene of serious incidents or medical emergencies. Ambulance crew would check the site for waste and products prior to leaving the scene. Leaders ensured staff were trained to use equipment and to manage diverse types of waste safely.

The ambulance crew on shift conducted daily safety checks on specialist equipment and recorded this digitally. We reviewed the vehicle check audits carried out by staff over a 2-week period and we found that staff completed these fully. The service had a system for staff to report faulty equipment and vehicles to the estates team who maintained a comprehensive record of action taken to address any faults.

Leaders maintained oversight of equipment to ensure it was safe and ready to use through the operational management digital system. Staff told us they had enough equipment to conduct their work safely and to support the treatment and care needs of patients. We saw evidence of action taken by senior leaders to prevent expensive equipment being damaged and ensure costly medical equipment was fit for purpose and ready to use during an emergency.

The service ensured up to date and serviced fire safety equipment was available on all vehicles and in the premises. Fire exits were clear and free from obstruction in office areas. The service stored Oxygen cylinders correctly, upright and in cages with no flammable or electrical equipment nearby.

Staff disposed of clinical waste safely, both inside vehicles and outside the storage areas. Staff segregated and labelled waste in accordance with the local policy.

Staff stored hazardous substances safely and information about the safe handling of products was available to staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service employed its own clinical staff with critical care paramedics contracted through the local NHS ambulance trust. The deanery placed some pre-hospital emergency medicine (PHEM) doctors with the service as part of their PHEM training. All staff received a comprehensive service induction essential for their role. At the time of assessment, the service had 14 consultant doctors, 4 clinical fellows, 3 PHEM trainees and 3 critical care paramedics. They had a pool of 10 emeritus doctors contracted at NHS hospitals and worked as bank for Helimed House.

Core ambulance staffing consisted of a medical doctor and a critical care paramedic, day, and night. However, senior leaders told us that 40% of shifts had an additional staff member under supervision as part of their training. The service ensured ambulance crew took a rest break of 11 hours between shifts to ensure adequate rest.

The ambulance staffing rota for February 2026 showed all shifts were filled, with 3 occasions where a member of staff dropped a shift due to sickness at night. On these occasions the Cambridge base location covered the Norwich region.

Managers supported staff to develop through constructive, recorded, annual appraisals and constructive clinical supervision of their work. The service achieved 100% compliance with appraisal rates in 2025.

In August 2025, the clinical senior leaders implemented formal supervision monitoring of their senior clinical fellows and PHEM trainee doctors. Formal monitoring of supervision for all clinical staff commenced in January 2026. This was achieved through the new paramedic-led supervision model for seconded paramedic from the NHS ambulance trust. The development aimed to create a consistent, supervision model that supported a mixed‑skill workforce and strengthened parity and capability across professional groups. Due to this being a new initiative the impact of this model was yet to be measured by the service.

Senior leaders were in the process of updating their current supervision policy to reflect the level of supervision needed for paramedics against a target so that they could measure compliance. This was yet to be formalised. Therefore, there was insufficient data to assess whether the service was supervising staff in line with their policy, but data suggested that supervision rates would be in line with target within the next 12 months.

The service had an overall vacancy rate of 3.1% for both clinical and non-clinical staff and low turnover rates. In the last 12 months 2 members of non-clinical staff had left the service to pursue other development roles. The service had low sickness rates of 1.4% in the last 12 months. Staffing records we reviewed showed a robust system in place for ensuring staff had the training, skills, and competencies needed for their role. New staff completed a corporate induction and essential mandatory training. An induction checklist outlined tasks and times for completion. 100% of staff that the service recruited within the last 12 months had completed an induction.

Staff we spoke with said they felt the service was safe. Ambulance crew had access to rest pods for shift crews at night and sleeping facilities if they felt fatigued following a shift and needed to rest. Staff were able to book a room in advance or at the end of their shift if required.

The service supported the learning and development needs of staff and made sure staff received any specialist training for their role. Managers identified any training needs their staff had and gave them the time and opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff told us they could practice skills in the training suite whilst on shift to consolidate or refresh skills.

Managers made sure all staff attended team meetings or had access to the information shared when they could not attend. We saw notes from team meetings and other general information such as team reads.

The service had 2 air ambulance pilots per shift who were under a subcontract with a specialist aviation service. The CRM process carried out by both the pilots and Helimed House ambulance crew ensured that everyone was empowered to raise any concerns to ensure safety whilst on a mission.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff detected and controlled the risk of infection spreading by following policies. Infection prevention and control data was collected and reviewed. Where required, actions were taken to improve shortcomings.

The service managed infection risks well. Staff used equipment and controlled measures to protect patients, themselves, and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean.

There was access to a local infection, prevention and control (IPC) policy and supporting guidance was accessible to staff. Staff received training on IPC.

Monthly audits were undertaken to ensure IPC compliance across operational bases, aircraft and RRVs. The service performed well in local IPC audits that we reviewed. In the most recent audits, the scores showed compliance with infection prevention and control measures in all clinical areas. We saw evidence of environmental IPC checks such as legionella and air quality testing.

There was guidance to support staff to respond to infection prevention and control risks such as transmittable infections. We saw clinical staff were following infection control principles such as no jewellery and nail varnish. We saw an IPC notice board with signage prompting all staff to remain compliant with handwashing and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) as outlined in the services PPE standard operating procedure. Staff had access to handwashing facilities, PPE, sanitisers and antibacterial wipes.

During our onsite visit all areas were visibly clean and had suitable furnishings which were clean and well-maintained. We checked 2 critical care cars and the air ambulance whilst onsite, all of which were visibly clean. Records showed that they had been cleaned in line with the service’s IPC policy. Cleaning logs were centralised, and reports were reviewed by managers and the clinical governance committee to ensure compliance with the required standards.

The service followed the NHS Colour coding system to prevent cross-contamination and infection by designating specific cleaning materials (mops, cloths, buckets) to areas, ensuring high hygiene standards. This standardised approach reduced healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) by separating equipment used in high-risk areas (like toilets) from lower-risk areas (like offices).

Assurance of environmental cleanliness was achieved through a comprehensive control and audit framework consisting of local deep clean processes, audit, training and oversight from governance meetings. There was a weekly deep clean programme for the critical care cars and air ambulance which was logged digitally and reviewed by managers to ensure compliance with local policy. Routine microbial swabbing was not part of the local assurance process. However, leaders confirmed that surface sampling was undertaken where clinically indicated, such as during outbreak or incident investigation, in line with UKHSA guidance.

Staff understood the process for managing spillage of body fluids.

Staff supported infection prevention and control measures by following the uniform policy. The service had a dedicated sluice area with a decontamination shower and washing machine to remove contaminated uniform.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service used robust systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. The service took a proactive approach to improving the safe and effective use of medicines. The service drove improvements in practice locally and nationally in pre-hospital care. It conducted research in critical care treatments and their outcomes to drive innovation and improvement in patient care.

Staff followed systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer and record medicines use.

Staff stored medicines securely in controlled areas with restricted access. There were clear audit trails and robust oversight of controlled drugs (CDs - medicines legally subject to stronger regulation because of their potential for harm). Medicines were kept in sealed and traceable bags which were routinely checked, restocked and version controlled so ambulance crews always left base with complete, ready to use equipment. Staff used temperature monitoring systems in the stores to ensure medicines were kept within safe ranges, and they acted on any issues promptly. Staff also took steps to manage the extra risks of storing medicines on aircraft, including moving bags indoors during hotter periods and using validated insulated containers for blood products transported on missions.

Staff documented medicines administration on their electronic patient record system, which included details such as the dose, time and patient response. This supported accurate handover to other ambulance service and hospital teams. A paper handover form was also used during missions to ensure essential medicines information was shared immediately. All mission records were reviewed by a consultant within 24 hours, which helped ensure accuracy, identify learning and strengthen safe practice in relation to the use of medicines.

The service embraced human factors design principles, meaning equipment was organised in ways that made it easier for staff to work safely in challenging environments. Medicines bags were laid out consistently and only single strengths of certain medicines were carried to reduce the risk of error. High risk medicines such as ketamine (a sedative) and rocuronium (a short-term muscle relaxant) were stored in clearly distinguishable packaging to prevent errors, and staff acted quickly when they identified a near miss relating to antibiotics that may look similar. This meant staff could easily identify and administer the correct medicines in low light or high pressure situations improving outcomes for patients.

There was a strong culture of reporting and learning from medicine incidents. Staff used digital systems to log near misses, equipment concerns and safety issues, with clear evidence that these were investigated, shared and acted upon. Monthly governance days, operational briefings and consultant reviews helped staff discuss complex cases, reflect on practice and make improvements. The organisation also demonstrated an active commitment to research and innovation, contributing to clinical studies and using data to improve patient care, including work on traumatic brain injury and alternative pain relief options.

Training and clinical support were embedded throughout the service. Staff had access to structured induction, simulation-based learning, on shift supervision and 24-hour consultant advice.

Overall, the service showed a proactive, forward-thinking approach to medicines safety. Systems were reliable, learning was embedded and the team demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering high quality critical care. This contributed to care that consistently aligned with best practice.