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

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. Some patients reported being encouraged to mobilise independently in ways they felt were unsafe. In addition, 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.

We looked for evidence that patients were treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion, and assessed whether their privacy and dignity were respected. We asked patients to describe their experiences and whether they felt respected, understood, and involved in their care. We also considered whether staff made every effort to take patients’ wishes into account and respect their choices to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Despite the concerns identified, staff consistently treated people with kindness, compassion, and respect. Patients and families described staff as reassuring and professional. Staff took appropriate steps to maintain privacy and dignity, respond to immediate needs, and provide emotional support throughout journeys.

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 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.

Patients told us staff were helpful, respectful, reassuring and kind. Staff also gave examples of how they supported relatives and carers during journeys.

Staff showed a strong commitment to providing a professional, caring service and spoke proudly about their roles. They told us they always introduced themselves and explained their role to patients, which was confirmed by the 4 patients, relatives and representatives we spoke with. Feedback consistently described staff as compassionate and respectful.

Staff said they ensured privacy and dignity during hospital transfers. Feedback we reviewed also highlighted that staff treated people with kindness and protected their privacy.

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.

Patients physical, cognitive or sensory needs were not identified and assessed at the booking stage to ensure appropriate staff and adjustments were in place. Patients told us their needs were not always fully considered. For example, ability to mobilise was not always considered by staff.

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 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 and wellbeing.

Patients were encouraged to be as independent as possible when moving to and from vehicles. However, some patients told us they felt this was unsafe and put them at risk of falls. 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.

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.

Patients and their families told us they received emotional support, reassurance and advice. Feedback showed staff were skilled at easing patients’ concerns, and people told us they felt listened to and that staff responded appropriately.

Staff observed patients and intervened where they saw people were uncomfortable, uncovered or distressed. People told us they felt cared for during transfer between locations. They mostly were able to use familiar items of equipment and were encouraged to bring any belongings they needed with them, for example, their spectacles.

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.