HQ

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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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.

We observed staff treating the patients and their family members with dignity, respect and kindness. Staff explained everything they did and provided clear information and advice, supporting people to make decisions about their care.

We looked at service user feedback, which was positive. People commented on how caring, calm and professional the staff were. We heard about situations where the ambulance crews went above and beyond their role to support patients.

We observed a handover of a patient at the local hospital, and staff at the hospital commented on the polite, friendly nature of the crews and stated that their handovers were always professional and thorough.

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.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

Patients told us they were treated as individuals and staff mostly enabled them to have their needs met on time, where this was dependent on timely transport arrangements.

We reviewed patient booking and transfer plans and saw these were tailored to individual needs and circumstances.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff told us they encouraged patients to remain as independent as possible when moving to and from vehicles.

For mental health journeys, staff identified individual preferences, such as whether patients wished to be supported by male or female crew members.

Staff also asked what would make journeys more comfortable, for example playing a patient’s preferred music. Patients were asked if they wanted a family member or carer to travel with them. These preferences were recorded to ensure care was tailored to individual needs.

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.

Staff told us they responded to immediate changes in patient presentation or risks during secure transport.

Mental health risk assessments were carried out before and throughout journeys. Staff described using de‑escalation and grounding techniques when patients became distressed. They told us restraint was only used as a last resort and in the least restrictive way possible.

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 resources and facilities that supported safe working, including designated rest areas and opportunities to take breaks.

New starters in the mental health service were supported through induction and were allocated to shifts where they could observe experienced crews.

Staff told us they regularly debriefed with colleagues following challenging incidents. However, some staff described a culture where raising concerns was discouraged, and they reported feeling blamed when incidents occurred.