Western Medical Services Ltd

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 is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service delivered person-centred care and worked with people to ensure care was integrated between healthcare providers. People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstance.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

The service's booking process identified people eligible to use the service. The service could not transport bariatric patients, high consequence infectious diseases (infections that cause a significant health risk) or patients under intensive care. The service had a process to sub-contract bookings for bariatric patient transports.

Staff captured people's preferences to enable good care planning. They said it was harder to get this information for people in the community compared to hospital transfers as the booking person had limited knowledge of the patient. However, staff tried to capture this information when completing onsite risk assessments.

There were policies and procedures to support care of people with a learning disability or autistic people. The service had specific policies and considered their needs in other key policies.

Staff were knowledgeable about the service user group they provided care for and understood the need to build a good rapport with people. Staff felt processes enabled them to respond to people's changing needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Leaders and staff understood the needs of the service user groups for whom they provided care. Staff said training they received helped them provide care. They understood they needed to work closely with approved mental health professionals to ensure good care could be provided. The service’s processes included liaising with other professionals where appropriate and providing continuity of care.

Staff had access to assessment tools to communicate effectively with other healthcare providers and professionals.

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

The service had appropriate processes to share information with external organisations. Records showed safeguarding referrals were made to local authorities. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) received no information of concern in the 12 months prior to assessment and 1 statutory notification. At the time of our assessment there was no registered manger. However, the service had delegated the responsibility of reporting notifications to other individuals appropriately.

The service had up-to-date processes and policies to provide accessible information in line with standards. There were systems to hold confidential information, and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Staff kept patient information secure and understood their responsibilities to comply with GDPR.

The provider was registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The service had not reported any incidents of data breaches in the 12 months prior to the assessment.

The service had a Caldicott guardian to champion the principles of good information handling. They understood their responsibilities and were proactive in performing their duties.

There were systems to keep paper records and electronic devices secure. Confidential information was stored securely and there was a process to dispose of printed confidential waste. Staff received training in data security.

The service assessed the cost of a transport at the point of booking and prices for the cost of transport were made clear prior to confirming transport.

People using the service told us they received all the information they needed to use the service.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

There were processes to collect feedback from people using the service. They had electronic and paper-based methods to collect complaints. Leaders told us it was important to have a variety of methods as not everyone can use or has access to technology.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment of the service there had been 1 formal complaint. Leaders reviewed and responded to the person making the complaint in line with the service’s policy and procedures.

There was a clear up-to-date complaints policy. Staff understood the complaints process and viewed complaints as a learning opportunity.

People told us they either knew how to make a complaint or would be able to find out if they needed to.

The service had a programme of regular staff surveys. Records showed leaders reviewed survey results and responded to staff comments.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ran 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. Clinical advice and support was available at all hours through an on-call clinician and operations manager. The service was available for all age groups. Members of the public, healthcare providers and healthcare professionals could make bookings through a variety of contact methods.

Vehicles had support tools to help staff communicate with people with individual needs. This included pictorial cards enabling staff to communicate with a wider range of people. Staff had access to translation application on electrical devices. Staff said they had received no booking that required translators to be available, but this could be arranged at the point of booking.

The service transported people with a variety of different needs. Staff had access to specialist equipment to transport people safely.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Leaders of the service were aware of the needs of different patient groups who were eligible to use the service. The service carried out an internal inequality monitoring report to review the experience between different patient groups. Records showed there were no identified biases or preferences in care delivery.

The service collected data to identify reasons for cancellation or delays of transports. Managers monitored performance and understood the main reasons for cancellations or delays.

Staff received training in equality and diversity.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service was made aware of people’s known medical wishes during the booking process. People’s wishes not to be resuscitated were recorded on the booking system. Staff knew how to find information relating to people’s wishes.