Hearts First Ambulance Service 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff shared their experiences of caring for patients and how they treated them as if they were their family. This ethos was shared throughout the service and embedded in their core vision and values.

Patient transport services were booked in collaboration with commissioners. The service had effective systems in place to assess and record individual patients’ needs. Transportation was adapted to meet these needs.

Operational staff gave examples where they had planned journeys to support patients comfort by limiting journey times for those patients who were frail and vulnerable.

The service accommodated escorts to travel when deemed appropriate. This supported patients with complex medical and emotional needs.

The service’s repatriation journeys were subject to robust booking and planning processes. Where special requests had been made by patients and family members the service did their best to support this. For example, the service transported patient’s pets to relieve anxieties and worries about travelling.

The services policies and staff guidance were patient focused. Managers supported staff with training and clear service strategies and values.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service supported several other independent ambulance services to deliver transport for dialysis patients, hospital transfers and post treatment discharges. The service had high performance with minimal aborted or cancelled journeys in the last 12 months. Transport eligibility was assessed by the commissioner and patient booking details were shared with the service.

The service had regular patients who received consistent, reliable transport. Feedback from commissioners confirmed this. Ad hoc discharges and transfers were booked with 24 hours’ notice to ensure the service could provide the appropriate trained staff and vehicles to support the transport. The service monitored performance for all contracts and evidence reviewed showed an average of 98% compliance.

The service’s repatriation transport was coordinated with system partners and external agencies. Managers planned journeys with travel insurance companies. The service ensured transitions between health care facilities, airports and ferries was managed smoothly to support good patient care. The service’s bed admission team could arrange ward and intensive care beds for admission to NHS hospitals for patients returning to the UK. The service had received consistent positive feedback from patients and stakeholders regarding their repatriation service provided.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff understood the importance of clear communication with patients, family and each other. Staff had access to alternative means of communication, such as language line, Makaton communication boards, multilingual emergency phrase book and Wong Baker pain picture tools.

Operational staff would call patients and carers if transport was delayed, giving updates and provides assurances.

The service also provided a patient led safeguarding referral process allowing patients to raise concerns and seek support.

Service information was available on the services website detailing services provided and how to make transport bookings requests. However, there was no option for large print or easy read formats. Although policies mentioned that information should be accessible, there was no direct reference to NHS England’s accessible information standard and how the service was complying with this.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service supported patients, carers and commissioners to raise concerns and share feedback. From January 2026 to June 2026 the service did not receive any complaints. An audit of 5 complaints from November 2025 showed themes of journey delays. All complaints were actioned and closed within 5 working days in line with the services complaints policy. The service had no complaints referred to the Ombudsman in the last 12 months prior to our assessment.

Patients were supported to raised complaints and were updated through all aspects of the complaint investigation. Staff and patients received feedback and any outlined learning that had been identified. The service’s policies ensured patients were protected from discrimination and harassment when they raised a complaint.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

Patients could access the service when they needed it. The services monitored waiting times for collection and drop off to pre-arranged appointments for efficiency and timeliness. Managers and operational team leaders worked to keep the number of cancellations and aborted journeys to a minimum. Staff communicated unforeseen delays to the commissioner promptly and operation room staff would call to give live updates.

Operational room teams planned patients’ transport arrangements carefully, particularly for those with complex mental health and social care needs. For example, transport pick ups could be rearranged to support prolonged treatments in clinics to avoid unnecessary waiting for other patients.

The service supported patients with access by having robust planning and resources available to facilitate the required transport.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The patient transport service was commissioner led. Booking and eligibility for transport was predetermined by contractual agreements. However, the service was proud to deliver a consistent high standard of care and transport for those patients allocated to them. Commissioners shared they had continued high-performance levels and received consistent positive feedback from patients and system partners.

The service achieved good outcomes for people by supporting timely attendance at appointments and reducing the number of cancelled or aborted journeys. People received safe, person-centred care that reflected their individual preferences, communication requirements, and any reasonable adjustments needed to support their journey.