E-Zec Medical Wellington

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

Patient journeys were planned around individual needs and preferences, and staff were trained to perform risk assessments to ensure the transfer of patients was safe.

Journey information was given to patients prior to travel. We were told the patient leaflets had recently been updated. However, we did not see any patient leaflets in the vehicles we inspected

Patients were able to provide feedback and make complaints that were listened to and acted upon. Staff told us not all vehicles had feedback posters in, but patients received a text message inviting them to give feedback.

Stakeholders raised concerns about contract performance and the ability to provide a service that met the needs of the community. The service was working closely with the Integrated Care Board (ICB), the trust, and NHS England to implement improvement actions.

The service had unsuccessfully attempted to introduce a patient forum to discuss issues and barriers to access and was working with the ICB to be included in an existing patient forum.

This service scored 62 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patient journeys were planned around individual needs and preferences, and we saw examples of how this was entered into the booking system. We were told how the booking system was used to select the appropriate vehicle for each journey.

Staff were trained to perform dynamic risk assessments to ensure the transfer of patients was safe and knew how to request additional support and cancel journeys if necessary.

There was an End of Life policy, that ensured staff were aware of the Preferred Priorities of Care (PPC), which is a document where people can record their wishes, beliefs and preferences for future care, especially at the end of their lives.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Stakeholders had expressed concerns regarding contract performance. Data highlighted the service was failing to meet several key performance indicators in relation to journey times. This presented a potential risk to the continuity and consistency of patient care. EMED was actively collaborating with the ICB, the trust, and NHS England to develop and implement a comprehensive action plan aimed at ensuring the service aligned with the needs and expectations of the community.

However, there were strict eligibility criteria to ensure those in need could access the service, which included aspects such as medical condition, mobility, support and escort requirements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patient information was taken at the time of booking and entered on the booking system. The booking form highlighted whether there were any language or communication barriers. Following a booking, a confirmation letter was sent to patients. Prior to travel, the Data Validations Administrator phoned the patient to confirm journey details, check the information supplied was still correct and that they still needed to travel.

We were told the patient leaflets and website had recently been updated; however, we did not see any patient leaflets in the vehicles we inspected. Staff told us not all the vehicles had feedback posters in. However, patients receive a text message afterwards to enable feedback. Patient information was available via the providers website with an in-page feature that allowed the user to adjust the website settings to improve accessibility.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients were able to provide feedback about the service. The Data Validations Administrator phoned a selection of patients after their journey and followed a questionnaire to gain their experience of the journey. We were told the main themes were timekeeping, comfort of vehicles, and booking issues. She never received negative feedback about the staff.

The service reviewed complaints to identify themes and to feed into improving the service. Complaints were managed by the patient experience team. We were told there had previously been staffing issues within the patient experience team, but this had been resolved. Complaints were logged onto the quality management system which enabled them to be filtered into service areas such as discharge and renal. This allowed themes and trends to be analysed which fed into service improvement discussions. There was a complaints, stakeholder concerns and compliments policy which set out a timeline for handling feedback.

We also saw 6-months of patient experience survey data. Out of 328 responses, 93% were satisfied with the standard of driving. Only 9% were dissatisfied with the handling of their booking, and 3% dissatisfied with their experience whilst in the ambulance. We were told this data was reported within contract review meetings and discussed amongst EMED and ICB Quality Leads to determine themes, trends, and any actions for improvement.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Stakeholders recently raised several contract concerns including resourcing, delays to renal patients and inadequate PTLO cover. Data from the past 6 months indicated that patients frequently experienced delays during transport, resulting in late arrivals to renal and other medical appointments. EMED was actively collaborating with the ICB and an action plan for improvement was underway. We were told this included exploring more realistic KPIs.

The eligibility criteria ensured that access to the service was available to those who needed it.

After staff feedback, rather than reverting to the centralized national EMED booking team at weekends, maintaining the local control room operatives on Saturday’s was being trialed with the aim of improving performance at weekends.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We were told E-Zec Medical Wellington had attempted to introduce a patient forum as part of their service delivery plan, but had to date been unsuccessful, in part due to a lack of patient participation. However, we were told they were working with the ICB with a view to being added to an existing patient forum. The hope was that this would allow them to discuss barriers to access and booking issues with patients.

The Data Validations Administrator also contacted a selection of patients after their appointment to find out about their experience of the booking process and journey.