EMED Sussex

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people feel well-supported, cared for, or treated with dignity and respect.

People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and compassion by frontline staff. Patients consistently praised crews for being polite, caring and respectful, and we observed warm, sensitive interactions during the assessment. Staff responded well to people’s immediate needs, acted when individuals became unwell or distressed, and used communication aids to support people with communication difficulties.

Leaders monitored patient feedback, and survey results indicated high levels of satisfaction with staff behaviour. However, opportunities to gather more detailed and meaningful patient feedback were limited.

Staff spoke very positively about the support they received during the TUPE process, which provided reassurance about leadership visibility and day‑to‑day support. Although formal staff surveys had not yet been undertaken, leaders recognised this gap and were planning to introduce staff surveys alongside a staff forum to strengthen ongoing engagement and feedback. However, operational practices, such as routinely extending return journey times, prioritised efficiency over personalised care and negatively affected people’s dignity, wellbeing and independence.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Patients told us they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity and described crews as polite, friendly, caring and respectful. This feedback reflected what we observed during the assessment. Crews communicated warmly and sensitively with patients waiting in hospital discharge lounges. Feedback reviewed during monthly governance meetings echoed what we heard and saw.

Leaders reviewed patient feedback regularly and told us it provided assurance about the kindness, professionalism, and approach of frontline crews.

We spoke with 7 members of staff who described managers and colleagues as caring and supportive, particularly during the TUPE process

The provider collected patient feedback through online surveys. Initial response rates were very low: with 4 responses received in July and September 2025, and 1 in August 2025. Leaders recognised this and took action to improve accessibility and engagement with the survey. As a result, 75 surveys were completed in October 2025. Of these, 74 respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the respect shown to them, while 1 respondent was unsure. Survey results showed that 70 respondents felt the crew were able to meet their needs; 3 gave neutral responses and 2 reported dissatisfactions.

However, the survey design did not include free-text comment boxes or opportunities for patients to provide richer context or narrative feedback. This limited leaders’ ability to explore themes in greater depth or fully understand the reasons behind dissatisfaction, which reduced opportunities for more targeted learning and service improvement.

The evidence showed a good standard The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment reflected their needs and preferences. The service recognised or responded to what mattered to people using the service. Patients consistently spoke positively about crews, describing them as kind, respectful and supportive during journeys, and staff used their own observations to respond to people’s needs and escalate concerns appropriately, despite limitations in the booking and scheduling system.

The evidence showed shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service placed restrictions on who could accompany people during transport journeys. Only certain patients, such as those living with dementia where familiarity was considered essential, were eligible to travel with a carer or loved one. Leaders told us this was due to limited space in vehicles but this limited people’s ability to influence their own care and reduced opportunities for personalised support. However, during the factual accuracy process the provider advised that the percentage of patients transported for renal dialysis by regular staff members had increased from 20% (at the time of our inspection) to 37%.

The service needed to improve how it promoted the Patient Zone to enhance independence and choice. The Patient Zone was an on-line application linked to the service’s transport booking line which supported patients and loved ones to book and track journeys. However, none of the people we spoke with had used it.

Following our inspection, we noted the results of the Healthwatch research project (published February 2026) identified that awareness was very low. We noted the Healthwatch research project spoke with 151 patients who had recently used the service and 73% of respondents were not aware of the Patient Zone and of the 27% who were aware of it, only 38% had used it.

However, the service used communication tools to support patient choice, promote understanding and adapt care to individual needs. Crews used picture card booklets to help people to indicate how they were feeling or what they needed. This supported people who were non‑verbal or had communication needs and helped crews adapt care to individual needs during transport.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

People told us that crews were caring, listened to their concerns and responded to their needs. This was reflected in most feedback collected by the provider. Staff prioritised people’s immediate needs, comfort and preferences. We saw several examples where crews responded promptly and appropriately when a person’s condition changed, including contacting a team leader for advice or calling an ambulance when required. For example, when a patient reported new pain during a home transfer, the crew assessed the situation, did not move the patient and called a team leader for advice.

Staff told us the booking team advised patients in advance that food or snacks would not be provided during journeys, although bottled water was available. Patients were encouraged to plan and bring their own packed lunch or snacks. Crews told us they encouraged patients to use the bathroom facilities before starting their journey. They carried urinals and bedpans for urgent situations and, where possible, stopped at service stations to support patients’ comfort and dignity.

We saw positive examples of staff responding to people’s immediate needs. For instance, staff noticed a patient had no food or drink available following transport home after treatment. The crew purchased items for them to ensure they were safe and comfortable before leaving. We also saw examples of crews responding appropriately when people’s conditions deteriorated. Crews pulled over to a safe location, called 999, and began first aid or resuscitation as required.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They supported or enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service had measures to support staff wellbeing and enablement. There was a structured support package for new starters, which included an employee benefits handbook outlining opportunities for career development, health and wellbeing support, and involvement in charitable initiatives.

The service had designated wellbeing staff representatives whom staff could approach for advice or support, and mental health first aiders were available across all sites. This contributed to a more supportive working environment.

The organisation recognised staff achievements through its ‘Shining Star’ awards, and mental health first aiders were available across all sites, contributing to a more supportive working environment.

Leaders carried out welfare checks for staff working long or late shifts and had authorisation processes and caps on overtime. These measures helped manage fatigue, reduce the risk of burnout, and support staff wellbeing and safety.

Leaders told us that staff were deeply committed to patient care and were sometimes emotionally impacted when patients experienced delays.

The service had not yet completed any staff surveys, which reduced leaders’ ability to assure themselves that staff wellbeing needs were being consistently identified and addressed. Leaders told us they planned to begin staff surveys in 2026; however, this created a missed opportunity for learning and improvement.