HQ

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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

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

Staff knew how to ensure patients had equal access to their service. When office staff received booking information for patient transfers, they asked about any reasonable adjustments such as disability as part of their additional needs.

Crews had all the necessary information and knew what to expect because information was shared with them.

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.

The service worked effectively with a NHS Acute trust, mental health trust and community services to ensure transport was booked, prioritised and delivered in line with clinical need.

Crews communicated with ward teams before and after transfers to ensure continuity of care including handover of oxygen requirements, mobility aids and any changes in the patient condition.

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

Staff did not have access to tools such as symbol cards, picture boards or sensory aids to support people who were non‑verbal or had communication difficulties. During the assessment, managers confirmed that no communication aids were currently available for staff to use when supporting people with additional communication or sensory needs. This meant staff were unable to rely on appropriate tools to assist people who were non‑verbal, had sensory impairments or were neurodiverse. Managers told us they were in the process of purchasing suitable communication aids, and this work had begun during the assessment.

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 a complaints policy that allowed people to submit concerns in writing, by email or by telephone. However, there was limited evidence that people were routinely informed about how to make a complaint, and information about the process was not always visible or easily accessible during journeys.

We requested data from the service regarding the number of complaints received and the associated investigation reports; however, this information was not provided. As a result, we could not be assured that the provider was managing complaints in a timely manner, learning from them, or taking appropriate steps to reach a resolution.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the service when they needed to; however, access was not consistently equitable or well‑monitored. Waiting times for collection and delivery to pre‑arranged appointments were not monitored for efficiency or timeliness, which meant the service could not identify delays or take action to improve people’s experience.

Managers and staff worked to minimise the time people spent waiting for collection and return home, but this was not supported by any formal system to track or review waiting times. As a result, the provider could not be assured that all groups of people, including those with additional needs, experienced timely access to transport.

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.

There was limited evidence that the service routinely identified groups at higher risk of poorer experiences, such as people with learning disabilities, autism, dementia, sensory needs or complex mental health conditions.

The service did not collect or analyse data to understand whether certain groups experienced longer waits, more cancellations or poorer outcomes. Without this information, leaders could not identify patterns of inequality or take action to address them.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.