UCS 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

In the previous 12 months the service had not undertaken any EUC services for patients. Where evidence gathered from the Patient Transport Service (PTS) was directly applicable to EUC, we have used this evidence to inform our assessment and report findings.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or consistently promote independence, choice, and control. People’s complex needs were not always identified in advance, and reasonable adjustments were not consistently planned. Staff wellbeing was not always effectively supported, and some staff did not feel valued by managers or able to raise concerns, which limited assurance about the consistent delivery of person-centred care. Information was not routinely collected to support and monitor how people were treated as individuals or how independence, choice, and control were promoted.

This was the first assessment of the service, and the caring domain is rated as requires improvement.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

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.

Staff showed a strong commitment to providing a professional, caring service and spoke proudly about their roles.

Staff said they would ensure privacy and dignity for patients and described how they would do this.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff could describe the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. For example, staff recognised that long travel times may affect people’s religious observance, cultural dietary needs and personal beliefs. Where possible, staff identified these needs and planned reasonable adjustments to respect them during the journey.

The service did not gather patient feedback.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There were aides and equipment available to support people’s independence, such as patient hoists. Staff were aware of these tools and how to support people to use them.

Staff could refer patients to GP services and mental health services if they felt the need developed during transit.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff 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 told us that if required people were able to use familiar items of equipment and were encouraged to bring any belongings they needed with them, for example, their spectacles.

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.

Staff had access to resource and facilities which included being able to take breaks, designated rest areas, drink and food out of hours.

Staff felt valued by their colleagues but did not feel valued by managers. Staff did not always feel they were able to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service and told us their concerns were often dismissed or ignored.

Teams worked well together but that there were little opportunities to learn together or help develop the service through multidisciplinary working.

Staff did not have access to personalised support which recognised the diversity within the workforce. Most staff worked part‑time.