E-Zec Medical Wellington

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 for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Patient and stakeholder feedback indicated that staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff told us the best part of the job was helping people.

People’s individual needs and preferences were considered in the booking process, and staff knew how to ensure a patient’s home was safe for their return.

The service made every effort to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, including when on an end-of-life pathway. Staff knew what to do when patients became unwell during transit.

To support staff, there was a range of wellbeing initiatives available. However, several staff felt pressured by the workload and found it difficult to take adequate breaks. Survey results indicated the number of staff who felt their manager was approachable and supportive had risen. However, some staff we spoke with did not feel comfortable approaching their manager and did not feel their concerns would be handled in a confidential manner.

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.

We scored the service as 3. 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 were caring. We saw examples of positive feedback, and staff at the local trust told us the ACAs and PTLOs were polite and went the extra mile to help. Staff told us the best part of the job was helping people.

The data validations administrator spoke to patients after their journeys and told us there were never any complaints about the staff.

We saw 6-months of patient experience survey data. Out of 328 responses, 96% of patients felt they were treated with dignity and respect.

The caring requirements of the job were reinforced in policies, which defined how staff should minimize exposure of other passengers to patient events, as well as how to maintain the dignity of a patient who has passed away.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

People’s individual needs and preferences were considered in the booking process. We were told a formal risk assessment was performed when required, to ensure the patient’s home was safe for their return. When this was not possible, staff were trained to ensure that the home was safe, applying their safeguarding knowledge. The control room team would call the patient the next day for feedback. This provided another opportunity to escalate concerns or support needs.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service supported individuals in maintaining and enhancing their independence, including when transporting patients on an end-of-life pathway. The End of Life policy provided guidance to staff on how to manage and check the validity of any Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) document, Do not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order, or Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, and how to document when a patient made a statement that they had changed their mind about their decisions.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

All staff were trained to manage patients who deteriorated on route. They received regular training on matters such as Health and Safety Welfare, Moving and Handling, and First Aid at Work.

The service had a policy that guided staff on the appropriate actions to take when patients became unwell or suffered an injury or fall in transit. This included how to document the event on the Patient Report Form (PRF) and report the incident for learning.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were told to approach their managers if they had concerns, but some we spoke with did not feel comfortable doing this, and some said they did not believe their concerns and requests were handled in a supportive and confidential manner.

Although the booking system flagged up when staff were due breaks, staff said they often found it very difficult to take sufficient breaks. Some staff told us they would call the control team to say they were taking a break, in the knowledge that this would affect later journeys. Several staff felt pressured by the workload. The Regional Senior Operations Manager told us breaks were an issue, and they were working with the control room team to plan journeys accordingly. However, the control room team was also under pressure due to workload, and they felt that appointing a control room lead would provide support.

We saw the results of 3 staff surveys taken from November 2024 to June 2025. The main themes were pay, management, workload, support and control. The number of staff responses had reduced from 64 in November 2024 to only 23 in June 2025. In the most recent survey, only 1 respondent felt communication between the crews and control room was good, and only 23% of staff felt they got recognition for doing a good job. The percentage of staff who felt their manager was approachable and supportive had gone up from 35% to 59% from March to June 2025. Staff who would recommend EMED as an employer had also increased from 26% to 45%.

Actions taken based on these results included setting up a regular engagement session with the Managing Director, senior managers completing ‘back to greens’ shifts on the road, looking at ways to enhance pay, and organizing communal team-building events, such as BBQs, raffles and charity cake sales.

There was also a range of wellbeing initiatives and employee benefits, such as a Life Assurance scheme, a ‘shining star’ award scheme, Blue Light discount card, access to a health and wellbeing app, as well as Mental Health First Aiders, who were staff trained to provide initial support and signposting if a staff member was experiencing a mental health issue or emotional distress.