EMED Sussex

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 found that the service was not always responsive to people’s needs or circumstances. Leaders did not consistently ensure that transport arrangements were person‑centred, timely or flexible, and people were not always kept informed when journeys were delayed, cancelled or aborted. These issues particularly affected people attending time‑critical appointments such as renal dialysis and reduced confidence in the service’s ability to respond appropriately when needs changed.

Staff did not consistently plan or coordinate journeys to ensure equitable access or reflect individual preferences. Leaders did not routinely monitor the impact of delays, which could result in unaddressed inequalities and a disproportionate impact on more vulnerable patients. In addition, although the service had systems to capture patient feedback and complaints, people were not always clear how to raise concerns or how feedback had led to improvement. However, staff were responsive in their day‑to‑day interactions with people. Crews adapted their communication to meet individual needs, using interpretation services, pictorial aids and supportive approaches to reassure patients. Staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s condition during journeys and took action to prioritise comfort, safety and dignity. The service also provided accessible information in a range of formats and languages and complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service generally made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff considered patient’s communication needs and comfort. They used interpretation services, pictorial aids and supportive interactions to help people feel understood and reassured. Crews took time to listen to patients and understand how they preferred to move to and from the vehicle. They supported individuals in their chosen method, such as helping someone walk from their home to the vehicle even if this took longer than transferring them in a wheelchair.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always respond to diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The service did not always take account of patient’s individual needs when arranging transport. This included personal preferences such as whether people were happy to be transported by a private taxi.

The service did not always plan or coordinate care and support with people, partner organisations, or local services in a way that ensured continuity for people who used the service frequently. This included patients who were transported to renal dialysis several times a week and people living with dementia who would benefit from consistent arrangements and familiarity.

The evidence generally showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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 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.

The service ensured that any patient information gathered or shared was handled in line with data protection laws and had an up-to-date data protection policy. A data protection leaflet was available for patients to download from the providers’ website. Staff documented patient notes in a secure electronic record system, which maintained confidentiality.

The service’s website was user‑friendly and well laid out. It offered a wide range of information including contact details, frequently asked questions, team profiles and downloadable leaflets. Each leaflet was also provided in an easy‑read version, featuring visual aids and simplified text to support people with learning disabilities or those who prefer clearer formats. Leaflets were also available in a variety of languages.

Leaders told us call centre staff provided people who were not eligible for EMED transport with details of alternative transport providers. This included contact information, service descriptions, and guidance on possible response times or booking notice periods. Staff also used an information sheet to help patients understand what to expect. However, leaders lacked assurance that the process was followed as they did not monitor whether this information was consistently given.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. 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.

Patients often lacked clear guidance on how to share feedback or raise concerns. Some told us they were unaware of the complaints process, despite vehicles displaying QR codes and phone numbers for feedback. The provider’s website also included a downloadable complaints leaflet and online feedback section.

Patients told us they were not kept informed about how their feedback was acted on and some reported that nothing improved when they complained about late journeys and lack of communication related to lateness.

However, the service had a structured process for managing complaints. Staff completed an initial assessment of each complaint before directing it to the relevant operational team for a full review. The service sent an acknowledgement letter to complainants, advising that a final response would be provided within 25 working days. Staff informed complainants when this timeframe could not be met, and the patient experience team drafted the final response. The service signposted complainants to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) when concerns were not resolved locally.

The service received 305 formal complaints between April 2025 and November 2025, with an average response time of 33 working days. Leaders told us this equated to 1% of journeys. We reviewed 3 complaints that were investigated and saw resolution and apologies.

Feedback themes were consistent. Patients provided positive feedback about staff kindness and helpfulness, while negative feedback highlighted transport delays, poor planning, and uncomfortable journeys. Managers reported that feedback had driven service changes, such as introducing a ‘call ahead’ process to confirm patient details and reduce aborted journeys. However, we did not hear or see any evidence of how this had been implemented or evaluated.

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

The service did not always provide patient transport in a timely way, which meant that people did not consistently receive timely care, support, and treatment. These delays disproportionately affected individuals who relied on the service for essential, time-critical procedures, such as renal dialysis. When patients experienced late collection or delayed return journeys, their access to treatment was interrupted or extended beyond what was clinically appropriate.

At the time of the assessment, leaders did not routinely analyse the wider impact of delays across different patient groups or levels of vulnerability. As a result, broader inequalities in access were not consistently identified or addressed.

The service reported 9,033 aborted journeys over the previous 5 months. This meant the crews arrived but were unable to transport people and represented approximately 6% of all journeys. Cancellations were predominantly due to poor communication and booking errors. Records showed multiple instances where crews were dispatched unnecessarily because patients had already made their own way to appointments (2013 journeys), were not ready for collection when crews arrived (1031 journeys), or could not be located on arrival (1014 journeys). Leaders did not demonstrate that effective action had been taken to address the underlying causes of these repeated issues. This led to wasted journeys, delayed care, and inefficiencies within the service.

The service reported 31,445 cancelled journeys over the previous 4 months. Leaders told us only 1% of these cancellations were made by EMED and the onsite liaison teams were responsive and completed welfare checks.

However, leaders described a range of initiatives they had introduced to reduce the impact on people attending renal appointments. These included agreeing staggered appointment and pick‑up times with renal units, introducing a dedicated Hospital Ambulance Liaison Officer (HALO) at dialysis units, and ensuring wheelchairs were available at acute NHS hospitals to reduce roadside unloading. Leaders also told us the service prioritised early arrival for renal appointments to reduce anxiety and missed treatment. This was in response to patient feedback and even where this fell outside standard key performance indicators.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. 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.

At the time of the assessment the service had not monitored access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. Leaders had not analysed data to understand whether different groups such as people with protected characteristics or those who may be at increased risk of exclusion, experienced different levels of access, delays, or outcomes.

The service had an equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) statement that outlined its commitment to treating staff fairly, representing all sections of society, and eliminating discrimination. The provider had not completed equality impact assessments for its policies or procedures. This meant they could not be assured that their processes did not inadvertently disadvantage vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics.

However, people who did not speak English as their first language could access interpretation services by telephone, and staff had a range of pictorial resources to support communication with people who had additional needs.

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.