Cornwall & The Isles of Scilly – Bodmin

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered.

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.

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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’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 or sensory loss 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 had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff received training for these patients. Staff were able to access support through their line managers.

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

The service provided work under non-emergency patient transport service contract. This had clear eligibility criteria for people who the service could transport.

Leaders and staff understood the needs of the service user groups for whom they provided care. For example, dialysis patients had a dedicated co-ordinator to ensure timely pickup and collection for treatment. Patient’s had access to the co-ordinator to discuss any issues. The co-ordinator also visited the dialysis unit to speak to staff and patients.

The service was made aware of people’s known medical wishes during the booking process. People’s wish not to be resuscitated were recorded on the booking system and checked when collecting a person for transport. Staff knew how to find information relating to people’s wishes. 

Managers ensured patients who did not respond to planned collection times were contacted to make alternative arrangements and check on their wellbeing.

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

Staff were observed communicating with patients and their carer’s, providing information in a clear way, which could be understood. Questions asked by patients were responded to openly and honestly.

The service had up-to-date processes and policies but did not always provide accessible information in line with standards. There was a lack of patient information leaflets in the vehicles about how to raise concerns or complain about any aspect of the service. There were also no leaflets or assistance readily available for any patients whose first language was not English. However, there was a number on a panel inside the vehicles with contact details for PALS and information on how to raise a concern was on the providers website.

There were systems to hold confidential information, and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with The UK 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.

The provider had a Caldicott Guardian to champion the principles of good information handling. Staff received training in information governance. Records showed 43% of staff had completed this training. However, poor training compliance was not discussed at governance meetings.

There were systems to ensure electronic devices were secure. During our assessment we observed staff keeping information secure.

The service did not always make it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support (see Providing Information). Feedback could be given by patients through the provider’s website.

Despite this, patients were involved in decisions about their needs related to ambulance service provision. Leaders told us patients could give feedback about their experiences of care and support using a QR code in the vehicles. However, there was a lack of readily available patient information leaflets in the vehicles as previously discussed.

There was a clear up-to-date complaints policy. Staff understood the complaints process and viewed complaints as a learning opportunity. As care was funded through NHS non-emergency patient transport contracts, if people were not satisfied with a complaint response by the service, it could escalate complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

People, their family, and carers could feel confident if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Complaints or concerns were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in suitable time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions. The provider only had 1 formal complaint from February 2025 to February 2026.

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

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. Waiting times for collection and delivery to pre-arranged appointments were monitored for efficiency and timeliness.

Managers made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and professional guidelines. For example, managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible and at the patient’s convenience.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than expected whilst waiting for collection and return home. Staff planned patients’ transport arrangements carefully, particularly for those with complex health or social care needs.

Staff and leaders gathered information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The service conducted equality impact assessments on all their policies.

The service collected data to identify reasons for cancellation or delays of transports to identify themes or trends. They would then use this data to improve the service. Leaders monitored performance and understood the main reasons for cancellations or delays. The main reason for cancelled transports was due to factors outside of the service’s control, for example the person no longer required transport.

Staff received training in equality and diversity. People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation services by telephone.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their continuing needs which relied on ambulance transport. Their family or carer was involved if they wished.

Patients who had care plans and information about their wishes for resuscitation were encouraged to bring these documents with them when they attended appointments. Similarly, where individuals had medicines they needed to take whilst away from home, they carried these themselves.

Staff made sure any information provided to patients by the discharging service accompanied the patient and was taken with them once they arrived home.