North West Medical Solutions Ltd

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
• Planning for the future

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

The service made usually 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 patient’s needs.

Staff gathered detailed information at booking, including mobility, communication, safety risks, medical needs and any wider social factors, so journeys could be planned safely. They shared this information with crews in advance and reviewed again when meeting people to ensure it was still accurate.

Patient transport service (PTS) activity was subject to ongoing governance oversight. This included routine review of documentation, patient records and handover information to ensure accuracy and continuity of care. The service monitored incidents, near misses and complaints, and used themes from this information to identify learning and reduce risks. Staff also gathered feedback from patients and families, which complemented other governance processes already in place, such as incident reviews, patient feedback systems and clinical audit.

Staff knew how to ensure patients had equal access to their service. When office staff received booking information for patient transfers, they asked about any reasonable adjustments such as disability or sensory loss as part of their additional needs. The service had a reasonable adjustments policy to which staff adhered.

The service accepted private bookings and worked in partnership with people and their families. For these bookings, staff carried out safeguarding checks. This included contacting care homes or hospitals to make sure people were safe and did not come to harm because of the transport.

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.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service understood the diverse needs of those they supported and worked flexibly with other organisations to ensure continuity of care. Staff coordinated effectively with hospitals, care homes and local authorities, and planned for discharges from hospital, end‑of‑life transfers and children’s moves, adapting capacity, staffing and equipment to meet the needs of each scenario.

The service had systems to help support patients in need of additional needs or specialist intervention.

Managers ensured people who did not respond to planned collection times were contacted to make alternative arrangements and check on their wellbeing.

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People usually received information that was clear, accessible and tailored to their needs. The service complied with NHS England’s accessible information standard.

Staff used plain language when explaining care and transport steps and supplemented this with pictorial communication aids for people with limited speech, sensory needs or communication difficulties. QR‑code feedback cards and online information were available on vehicles. Staff kept people informed about timings, changes and delays using telephone updates or face‑to‑face discussions

Information was available on the services website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

The service generally made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were involved in decisions about their needs related to ambulance service provision. The service generally made it easy for people to give feedback or raise concerns. People could comment through QR codes, email, phone calls and social media. Most feedback received was positive and included compliments shared directly with staff.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. No complaints had been made regarding the patient transport service during the last 12 months.

The service usually made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

NWMS accepted referrals where the journey was planned and non‑emergency, and where the person’s condition was suitable for transport within the scope of their standard operating procedure.

Staff knew how to ensure people had equal access to their service. When staff received booking information for transfers, they asked about any reasonable adjustments such as disability or sensory loss as part of their additional needs.

Booking processes required sufficient information to enable safe planning for each person’s needs. Transport was only undertaken when appropriate staff, vehicles and equipment was available to meet the person’s needs. This included for children, wheelchair users or people with complex needs and those receiving palliative or end‑of‑life care, where it was assessed to be safe and appropriate to do so.

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.

Staff followed the service’s equality policy, which outlined a commitment to employment practices that help every individual reach their full potential by developing their talents while recognising and valuing their differences.

Staff and leaders monitored people contact and outcome data, however this data was not broken down by different protected characteristics. Data identified trends and we saw evidence where additional equipment or training was provided where needed.

Staff used interpretation tools, pictorial aids and flexible communication approaches to ensure people understood what was happening and could express their needs.

Leaders addressed discriminatory behaviour when reported and took formal action to maintain a respectful culture, with learning shared through governance meetings.

There were systems and processes for gathering feedback, which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes. Evidence showed people with different backgrounds and needs had equitable access to compassionate, safe care.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.