Medisec Ambulance Service Limited

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

At our last assessment we did not have sufficient evidence to rate this key question. At this assessment the key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care Patients felt able to ask questions and said staff answered them openly and clearly.

We saw, and patient feedback confirmed, that care was delivered with kindness, empathy, and compassion. Feedback from surveys and external stakeholders supported these findings.

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.

Description: We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We reviewed feedback from service users, between July 2024 and July 2025. Patients completed patient surveys for the service, and all 34 responses were positive. There was evidence from those surveys that staff made sure that patients were comfortable and had food available to them after discharge.

A patient said “They made sure I was comfortable offering to make me a drink or something to eat. The whole journey was made such a lovely experience as we all chatted as we went along thus making the long journey seem not so long”

We also saw examples from patient surveys and external stakeholders, of managers and staff members going above and beyond for service users. Examples included providing for end-of-life patients transport journeys even after their shifts had ended and at times providing a free of charge service for these patients.

There were 2 pre-planned conveyances during our assessment, and we observed staff treating the patients with dignity, respect and kindness. Staff always introduced themselves to service users and explained their role. Staff were discreet, respectful and responsible when offering support. Staff took time to talk with patients and their families in a kind and considerable way. An example of this was the transfer of a patient from an acute trust to a care home. The staff ensured the patient who was minimally dressed, remained covered, warm and comfortable throughout their journey.

Description: We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service a 3. The service treated patients as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met patient’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs. For example, they highlighted the importance of providing continuity of care of for a patient whose first language is not English, by making sure the staff member who spoke the native tongue was always on the journey with them.

Staff were sensitive to the community who used the service, which meant that most service users were personally known to staff. The service always maintained confidentiality. During the assessment we observed a handover during a secure transfer of a patient with mental health needs. The provider acted as the patient’s voice and made sure their wishes were respected, as they had said they did not feel comfortable travelling with unfamiliar staff. In response to this, the service ensured that known staff supported the journey. This approach protected the patient’s dignity, promoted trust and demonstrated patient centred care by placing individuals’ choices at the centre of the decision making.

Description: We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

We scored the service a 3. The service promoted patient’s independence, so patient knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

For secure transport, decisions about which staff members accompanied patients were made by the contractor arranging the transfer. These decisions were then recorded as part of the booking process.

We saw that patients were encouraged to remain as independent as possible when moving to and from vehicles. Staff had access to specialist equipment to meet patient’s specific needs. All vehicles had ambulance trolley stretchers onboard, which could accommodate bariatric patients. Paediatric stretcher harnesses were also stored onboard to accommodate patients of all ages. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to use this equipment to support patients safely.

We saw 4 electronic patient records which showed how staff took account of individual circumstances when planning and carrying out journeys. This included considering personal needs such as whether patients are approaching end of life, anxious or in need of extra assistance. Staff added this information to booking notes electronically so teams could prepare in advance. Crews also checked certain details with patients and relatives at the point of collection, for example whether the family member could travel with them. These steps supported choice and ensured patients could remain connected to their families during transport.

Patient survey feedback confirmed this approach, with patients highlighting that staff respected their preferences and needs, However, while staff updated booking records with this information, the service did not audit this separately to identify patterns or learning.

Description: We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service a 3. The service listened to and understood patient’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff understood and respected patients advanced decisions about their care. They checked appropriate documentation such as do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) and recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place and fully completed before transporting the patients.

We saw staff communicate clearly with patients and respond quickly when they noticed they were uncomfortable, uncovered or distressed. Patients were well cared for during transfers, and staff offered reassurance throughout the journey. For example, one patient was anxious about going to a care home they had not been before, and staff spent time talking to them and reassuring them of their worries.

Patient feedback supported this, with one patient commenting “They took me in the lift to the lounge and found accessible seating, and” (the staff member) “wheeled me to the toilet twice and was so kind”.

Description: We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

We scored the service a 2. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We saw evidence that staff could share feedback about their work and suggest improvements, and they expected managers to respond. Staff reported that they felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. The teams worked together and took part in joint training where needed. Staff also reported that they had access to personalised support that recognised diversity in the workplace. For example, hosting religious celebrations for staff members.

Staff had access to resource and facilities for safe working, including rest areas, designated break spaces and food and drink outside of normal hours. However, we observed a staff bathroom that was not accessible or clean at the time of the assessment.

The service confirmed they used an electronic system to record lone working and safety incidents in real time. However, they did not carry out audits of this information so they could not identify wider patterns of learning related to staff safety and workload pressures.

The provider and local leaders promoted an inclusive culture and ensured staff with protected characteristics felt respected. Whilst feedback from patients, families and stakeholders was shared in governance meetings, staff told us they did not always see this feedback themselves.