UK Event Medical Services Limited

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

This is the first assessment for this service under the current registration.

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.

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 a reasonable adjustments policy to which staff adhered. This referenced legal frameworks such as the Equality Act 2010 and NHS England's Accessible Information Standard.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through senior clinical staff, safeguarding leads, referring organisations and specialist learning disability or mental health teams where required.

Staff were aware that some patients aged between 16 and 18 years of age were children and adapted the service to take account of this. They described adapting their approach by using age-appropriate communication, involving parents or carers where appropriate, completing safeguarding assessments and ensuring suitable child restraint systems were available when required.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed.

We reviewed 10 patient transport records to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. Records demonstrated staff considered patients' communication and mobility needs, documented individual preferences and made reasonable adjustments where required. Where appropriate, patients were offered choices about their transfer, including whether a relative or carer accompanied them, and staff recorded consent to transport.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system such as commissioning NHS ambulance trusts.

The service had systems to help support patients in need of additional needs or specialist intervention.

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

The service complied with NHS England’s accessible information standard. Crews could use communication aids for non-verbal, speech impaired or neuro-diverse patients. Vehicles had pictograms onboard with phrases and smiley faces, which helped staff to ask children or people who were speech-impaired how they felt, including pain scores.

Staff used accessible ways to communicate with people when their protected equality or other characteristics made this necessary, for example, they used interpretation and translation services and made reasonable adjustments.

Information was available on the services website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated.

Patients were involved in decisions about their needs related to ambulance service provision. Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. We saw there were QR codes in the vehicles, which patients could use if they wished to feedback. The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The local NHS trust from whom the service subcontracted retained responsibility for complaints and their investigation. Where such a complaint arose, the service was made aware of the matter and were involved in investigating and identifying learning from this.

People, their family, and carers could feel confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Complaints or concern 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. We reviewed 2 formal complaints and noted they had been fully investigated and responded to within the timeframe set out in the local policy.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and leaders could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. We saw an example of additional training needs being introduced for staff involved in a complaint.

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, the service achieved 88% or higher in key timeframes. Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not stay longer than expected whilst waiting for collection and return home, we saw that the service achieved 90% compliance in patient pick up after their appointment had been completed. Staff planned patients’ transport arrangements carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs.

The service made sure resources were where they needed to be at the time required and informed external contractors of the availability of private vehicles. Unforeseen delays were communicated to the NHS trust from which the service sub-contracted by the registered manager or senior duty person.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback, which enabled collection of information about equity of patient's experiences and outcomes.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation services by telephone. There was a range of pictorial information to assist staff in engaging with people who had additional needs.

Patients who had care plans and information about their wishes for resuscitation were encouraged to bring these documents with them when they attended appointments. We saw examples of this being recorded within the patient records that were reviewed. Similarly, where individuals had medicines, they needed to take whilst away from home, they carried these with themselves.

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