Secure Care UK Limited

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

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

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Control room staff communicated with transferring and receiving teams to understand and assess patient needs and risks. Every transport journey was tailored to individual patient needs. When transport staff interacted with patients, they used risk assessments and patient care plans to guide decision making and respond to changes. We observed 2 patient transfers where staff cared for patients respectfully and proactively sought individual preferences.

Leaders shared an example of a transport journey where staff undertook multiple pre-transfer visits to prepare anxious patients with complex needs. They discussed and simulated what the transport journey would look like and managed patient expectations. This meant the patient was calm and had a better experience when the actual transport journey occurred.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Senior leaders regularly engaged with key stakeholders to measure and assess the effectiveness of the service provided. Key stakeholders organised contracts with multiple transport services to cover specific transport service needs. Secure Care only provided transport services for patients detained under MHA section arrangements. Key stakeholders reported the service worked collaboratively with them to ensure patients needs were met. There were no clinical concerns and they felt the quality of care was good.

Key stakeholders shared feedback on when there had been challenges to flexible systems working to support fluctuating operational supply needs. This was managed well through regular contract meetings. When the service could not provide transport as agreed, there were alternative arrangements with local providers organised as a safety net. As service provision had improved by April 2025, key stakeholders agreed to decrease the frequency of operational review meetings.

Senior leaders provided additional data on restraint reduction and behaviours monitoring which enabled key stakeholders to have oversight of continuous patient monitoring as patients move through and across services. Although patients interacted with the service for a short period of time, patient care was effectively joined with the transferring and referring service.

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

The service provided information on how to make a complaint in multiple formats such as feedback forms, website access and QR codes. Booking forms identified whether patients had specific communication needs and control room staff organised translators if patients needed to communicate in a different language. Staff also had access to communication aids for every transport journey. However, there were limited resources available for patients with visual impairments. Despite this, there were no incidents or complaints related to poor communication or lack of information.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Leaders were aware of the low number of complaints compared to conventional patient transport services. This was due to the specialist type of patient transport the service provided. Leaders were assured the service received enough feedback to remain responsive to patient and stakeholder concerns as there were high levels of incident reporting to balance this.

Between April and June 2025, there were 5 patient complaints. These were resolved within 32 days, in line with the service’s own policy. Some of these were not submitted directly from the patient, but through external stakeholders. We reviewed 1 complaint where leaders had undertaken a review of care. The complaint investigation addressed each area of the patient’s concerns and whether staff had followed the service’s processes on restraint. Despite the complaint not being upheld, there were learning actions and outcomes identified to ensure earlier escalation of concerns.

Patient feedback received by the service between January and August 2025, showed most but not all patients knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern. This meant the service could miss opportunities to improve patient experience. However, surveyed patients who did not know how to raise a concern or complaint reported they were satisfied with their experience of care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service provided secure transport for people of all ages and needs. In rare circumstances, when patients had specialist needs and equipment, there was a longer than expected delay in service provision. Leaders recognised this challenge and communicated well with the patients’ transferring and receiving services to ensure this delay was minimal.

All patients with specialist needs, such as bariatric patients, were booked for planned transfers rather than urgent. This meant leaders could ensure shared care planning meetings took place with relevant stakeholders and enabled timely organisation of required equipment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about individual patient needs and preferences and were aware that some groups of patients were more likely to have poor experiences. However, the service did not proactively monitor experiences of patient inequality or discrimination.

Leaders recognised that some groups of patients were more likely to raise complaints about their experience of care. The service monitored patient outcomes based on the type of transport journey patients required. This occurred most frequently when patients were collected from their own homes and transported under section 135 of the Mental Health Act.

The service collected information about protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity during the booking process. This was used to inform individualised person-centred care. Staff and leaders ensured each patient was treated as an individual for their care and treatment. Although the service did not have a strategy to proactively monitor experiences of inequity or discrimination, there was no evidence this had a negative impact on patients.