Archived: Swadlincote Station

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
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

As the service did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients, we were not assured that care was being delivered in a person-centred manner.

Without access to detailed patient records or direct involvement in care provision, the provider was unable to demonstrate that treatment was tailored to meet individual needs, preferences, or values. There was no evidence to confirm that patients were actively involved in decisions about their care, or that their personal circumstances were considered in the planning and delivery of treatment. This lack of oversight limited assurance that care aligned with the principles of person-centred practice.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. There were significant shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

As the provider did not maintain oversight of the clinical care provided to patients we were not assured that care was being delivered in a coordinated or continuous manner.

The provider did not routinely receive detailed patient records or formal handovers, limiting its ability to monitor the quality and consistency of care at events. There was no evidence to demonstrate that care was integrated with other services, or that patients were supported through transitions such as hospital conveyance. This lack of oversight restricted the provider’s capacity to ensure that care was joined-up, responsive, and aligned with patients’ ongoing needs.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs

The provider did not have a formal policy or procedure in place relating to the confidentiality of patient records. However, as patient record forms were not routinely received from the subcontractor, and no records were present on site at the time of inspection, there was limited risk of data exposure during our visit.

The service did not offer access to translation services or provide information in accessible formats to support diverse communication needs however, QR codes were available for patients to scan, allowing them to submit feedback to the service.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service had procedures in place to enable people to share feedback, including a scannable QR code displayed on the ambulance which allowed individuals to easily comment on the care they received. A standard operating procedure for managing complaints was in place, outlining the process for handling concerns should they arise. No complaints or feedback had been received in the 12 months prior to our inspection.

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.

The service operated by the provider was limited to attendance at music festivals and similar events and therefore does not offer open access to the public. As such, equity in access is restricted by the nature of the service model, which is dependent on event participation and contractual arrangements rather than patient need or referral.

Whilst the service may be available to individuals attending those events, there was no evidence to demonstrate that proactive steps had been taken to ensure equitable access for people with protected characteristics or those who may face barriers to receiving care such as individuals with disabilities, language needs, or differing cultural backgrounds. The provider did not have systems in place to assess or monitor whether care was accessible and inclusive for all attendees.

Given the absence of oversight over clinical care and the reliance on subcontracted staff, we were not assured that the service was actively promoting equity or addressing potential inequalities in access to treatment during events.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. We were not assured that staff and leaders always actively listened 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.

Due to the lack of oversight of clinical care the provider was unable to demonstrate that care was consistently equitable or met the varied needs of individuals. There was no evidence that the service monitored whether people from different backgrounds, including those with protected characteristics, experienced comparable standards of care or outcomes. Additionally, the absence of patient data and feedback limited the provider’s ability to identify disparities or drive improvements in equity.

Without systems in place to evaluate the consistency, quality, or inclusivity of care delivered at events, we were not assured that the provider was actively promoting equitable experiences or outcomes for all patients.