Met Medical

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
This is the first assessment of this service at this location.
This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 were unable to observe staff interacting with people on any patient transport journeys during our assessment. However, we did speak to staff, who told us of the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect. They were able to explain how communication may need to be adapted to overcome any additional needs a patient may have. Feedback from patients and their families indicates that staff are kind and compassionate when caring for people.

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.
All staff had completed Equality and Diversity training. The service had an Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights Policy. Staff were able to explain that they treated everybody as individuals, staff considered both physical and mental strengths, unique lifestyles and life choices. This was reflected in the care, treatment and support that they gave.

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.
Patient transport referrals came into the service on ad-hoc basis from the Integrated Care Board (I.C.B) and NHS ambulance trust, and from ad-hoc private hospital contract. These are usually received via email containing details of the patient and the journey requirements. Direct referrals from the public would usually come in over the telephone with patient needs and requirements discussed. All information received and conversations were used to aid with transport requirements and promote care choices and plans.

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.
Staff explained that communication was key when treating and supporting people. This enabled staff to understand fully the needs of the person and for the person to fully understand what they were consenting to and any care they were receiving. Staff reported that they actively involved family members and any carers in the care process to ensure all needs and preferences were considered, particularly where communication difficulties or concerns about mental capacity were present.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
The staff we spoke with were unhappy working at the service and were considering leaving. They told us that things had changed in recent times, and they no longer felt supported or valued in their roles. They said that their shift patterns had changed, and they felt there was minimal discussion around these changes. They told us that they did not have any welfare check-ins throughout their shift, and nobody checked to see if staff had their breaks. They did not feel there was any staff progression for PTS staff.
Staff told us that they felt confident raising concerns and issues but only with one manager. If that person was not available, they would wait for them to return.
Staff had access to a well-being policy, an employee assistance policy and occupational health via an external provider. Staff felt trained to complete their role and were aware of their own clinical competencies and all mandatory training was completed at 100%. Staff felt that the service had an inclusive culture, and they felt safe coming to work. There were no concerns around sexual safety or inappropriate behaviours.