Rapid Response Secure Care

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

Patients received care and support that met their individual needs. Staff were responsive to patients’ needs. Information was kept secure. The provider acted on feedback and made changes to improve service provision.

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.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff told us people they cared for were treated as individuals. Staff were knowledgeable about the service user group they provided care for and understood the need to build a good rapport with people. Staff felt processes enabled them to respond to changing patient’s needs.

We received positive feedback from partners. An Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) told us staff used their skills and experience to make people feel at ease in difficult situations. Feedback from AMHPs showed they had observed staff interacting positively with people.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients.

The provider had processes to support staff in making adjustments to respond to the changing patient’s needs.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Leaders and staff understood the needs of the service user groups they provided care for. Staff said training they received helped them provide care.

We received positive feedback from partners. They told us that they could make bookings in several ways which enabled them to perform their jobs more effectively in different situations.

The provider's processes included liaising with other professionals where appropriate and provided continuity of care. Staff received training to provide care for service user groups, this including specialist mental health training.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff kept patient information secure and understood their responsibilities to comply with UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

There were systems to hold confidential information, and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with GDPR. The provider was registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Staff received training in information governance.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care. An Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) told us they observed staff involving family members to support the patient’s wellbeing during transport.

Leaders responded to complaints and understood the importance of learning to make improvements to the service. Collecting feedback was difficult due to the type of service being provided, but leaders and staff understood the importance of asking for feedback and making people aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had processes to collect feedback from people who used the service. People using the service were able to complete feedback during a transport using an electronic system, or via the provider’s website. There were processes and policies to support the investigations. The provider responded to complaints and made improvements to the quality of the service.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care. We received positive feedback from partners. They told us the service was available at short notice and arrived on time.

Staff understood their responsibilities in making the service accessible. They were aware of criteria that would make transport unsuitable and felt supported to make decisions on whether conveyance was suitable. Where a patient was not suitable for transport, the commissioner would be referred to another service.

Service provision was designed to respond to the needs of people. There were policies and procedures to exclude people who were unsuitable to be transported. The provider monitored key performance indicators such as on time transport and cancellations.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Leaders were aware of the needs of patient groups. Staff were aware of the importance of treating people equally regardless of their background.

Staff received training in equality and diversity.