UK Event Medical Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of patients who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

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

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action. Staff spoken with had awareness of how their work contributed to achieving the aims and objectives set out within the strategy. Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and delivering a high quality of service.

Leaders promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development, for example the service had apprenticeship schemes and career progression available to all eligible staff. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and carers as well as staff could raise concerns without fear.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff reported the leadership culture to be inclusive and spoke about feeling valued and respected. Relationships between staff were positive, with strong teamwork and collaboration.

Team and individual staff achievement, and success was recognised and celebrated. Staff told us they were thanked for their work.

The registered manager oversaw the running of the service. There was a senior leadership team who had specific responsibilities such as the general manager who oversaw care, quality and compliance.

Staff had access to the senior leadership team by phone, email, text message and from planned contact across the operational area, senior leaders such as the general manager had scheduled open drop in sessions for staff to access if they required.

Team leaders were at the same location as the staff and provided the first point of contact.

The registered manager and leaders had a range of experience, skills and abilities to run the service, and they understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. Leaders were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff felt the leaders supported them to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

Leaders had taken incidents seriously and knew how to deal with concerns when raised which promoted a positive culture in the service. Leaders undertook patient facing activities to assess for themselves how the service was running. We were given examples of leaders undertaking clinical shifts to provide support for staff and to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing staff.

Staff were invited to team meetings and could directly access the registered manager to ask questions or make suggestions. Information was cascaded to staff via drop in sessions, staff meetings, emails, messages and through team leaders.

There wasn’t a current staff survey but senior leaders informed us that there would be one released later in the year and that they would use any findings to make improvements.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff were encouraged raise concerns and offer ideas; the culture allowed staff to be confident their voices were heard.

Staff told us when they had raised valid concerns or felt they would be able to, were or would be supported, without fear of detriment. When concerns were raised, leaders investigated sensitively and confidentially. The local senior leadership were aware when whistleblowers had raised serious concerns and took steps to investigate and address the matters raised.

A risk register and management reports contained analysis of concerns over time and associated action plans.

Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. There were policies to support the complaints process.

We saw no examples of issues being escalated through the freedom to speak up process, but we saw other incidents being managed promptly which resolved the issues without the need for escalation

Leaders acted to improve where there were any negative experiences for staff with protected equality characteristics. Leaders took steps to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce within their place of work, and throughout their employment.

Staff told us they had opportunities to apply for project work, new roles and to undertake external studies through an open application process.

The service acted to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff, with a clear focus on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those from excluded and marginalised groups. Staff felt everyone was treated fairly and that they would be able to report behaviour or attitudes which were negative in style.

Any staff employed with disabilities would be offered reasonable adjustments to support them to carry out their roles well. No examples of this were given as there were no members of staff who required reasonable adjustments. We were given examples of staff being on light duties following sickness or whilst pregnant.

Governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying, monitoring and mitigating risks. We identified weaknesses in recruitment governance, including inconsistent application of the provider's policy for staff with positive DBS disclosures and insufficient evidence that enhanced supervision arrangements had been implemented and monitored. The provider was also unable to demonstrate that staff undertaking driver competency assessments held recognised assessor qualifications, reducing assurance regarding staff suitability and competence.

Governance processes had not identified several environmental and medicines management risks observed during the inspection. These included inappropriate oxygen cylinder storage, inadequate segregation of full and empty cylinders, unsecured clinical waste storage, and discrepancies in medicines stock management and audit records. Although audit processes were in place, they had not identified or escalated these issues, reducing confidence in the effectiveness of internal assurance.

Mandatory training compliance was above the provider's target overall (89% against a target of 85%). However, compliance was lower in several key subjects, including oxygen administration, positive behaviour support, medicines awareness, mental health practical training, infection prevention and control, and information governance, indicating oversight was not consistently effective across all staff groups.

Despite these concerns, the provider had clear leadership and governance structures, with visible and approachable leaders who promoted an open and supportive culture. Staff felt valued and able to raise concerns, and leaders responded to feedback by introducing service improvements, including enhanced clinical education and workforce wellbeing initiatives.

Leaders monitored incidents, complaints, audits and performance through established governance processes. The service consistently met contractual key performance indicators, and learning from incidents and feedback was shared with staff and commissioners. The provider also demonstrated a commitment to workforce development through apprenticeship programmes, career progression opportunities, regular appraisals and clinical supervision. Staffing remained stable, with low sickness absence and no significant vacancies affecting service delivery.

The service had not reported any data breaches and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly.

We reviewed several service level and provider policies and found these were up to date and readily available to staff. There was leadership oversight of the accuracy and validity of each policy.

The service worked collaboratively with two NHS ambulance trusts and other healthcare partners to deliver urgent and non-urgent patient transport services. Staff described positive working relationships with commissioners, hospitals and ambulance trust partners.

Leaders maintained regular stakeholder meetings where performance, incidents, safeguarding concerns and quality metrics were reviewed. KPI performance remained above contractual expectations, with compliance ranging from 88% to 92% across key transport measures.

The provider worked closely with partner organisations to improve services. Learning from incidents, complaints and staff feedback resulted in service developments. Safeguarding concerns were shared appropriately with NHS ambulance trust partners and learning was fed back to staff.

The service also supported workforce sustainability through partnerships with external training providers, offering apprenticeships, accredited qualifications and career development pathways.

The service promoted a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Incidents, complaints, audits and feedback were reviewed to identify learning, with outcomes shared internally and with external partners where appropriate.

Leaders demonstrated that learning had led to service improvements, including the introduction of a live incident reporting system and personal safety alarms following an increase in violence and aggression towards staff.

Staff were encouraged to contribute ideas for service development, resulting in improvements such as additional moving and handling equipment, enhanced arrangements for mental health transfers and targeted clinical education.

The provider also supported innovation through apprenticeships, accredited training pathways, regular supervision and appraisals to promote staff development and maintain competence.