Outdoor Medical Solutions 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People’s individual needs and preferences were considered in the booking process, and feedback indicated that staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

The service made every effort to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, including when on an end-of-life pathway. Staff knew what to do when patients became unwell during transit.

Staff felt leaders were supportive and approachable.

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 an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff demonstrated a consistently caring and compassionate approach towards patients. During an observed patient transfer, interactions between staff and the patient were positive and respectful. Staff introduced themselves and maintained a professional, reassuring manner throughout. They took the necessary time to ensure the patient’s comfort and warmth during the transfer. The patient told us their individual needs were consistently prioritised throughout the journey.

Staff reported they actively encouraged patients’ independence. During our observations, we saw staff providing appropriate support while also promoting independence where patients were able to do so safely.

The service sought and captured feedback from people who used the service, and we reviewed several highly positive reviews. One person described the service as “highly professional, efficient and done with the utmost care.” They also commented that the ambulance driver was “amazing in every aspect of the job,” demonstrating genuine concern for the patient, and providing care throughout the entire process. The person stated they would “100% recommend” the service for medical transfers.

Another review highlighted staff’s use of patience and good humour when supporting a patient who was confused and initially reluctant to be transported. Other people said, “I would highly recommend their service,” and “This was a reasonably priced, faultless service.”

Staff told us leaders actively encouraged them to raise concerns about patients’ care and treatment, both with managers and with hospital staff where appropriate. Staff reported they were able to do so openly and without fear of reprisal.

Staff reported having a positive working relationship with hospital colleagues. Hospital staff spoke positively about their experiences of working with the service and told us communication was effective. They confirmed they had not identified or reported any concerns about the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The booking process identified patients’ individual needs, including those living with dementia and those with mobility difficulties. We heard an example of how the service took account of a person’s cultural and religious needs.

A patient we spoke with was highly complimentary about the care provided by staff, noting that their needs were prioritised throughout the journey.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Information collected during the booking process helped ensure the service was accessible to all patients. Vehicles were multi‑purpose, and appropriate equipment was available. The service supported individuals in maintaining and promoting their independence, including those being transported as part of an end‑of‑life pathway.

The Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) policy provided staff with clear guidance on how to manage and verify the validity of any DNACPR order. Staff also received training on DNACPR as part of their induction programme.

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.

All personnel were trained in basic life support and were able to respond appropriately to patients who showed signs of deterioration. For high‑dependency transfers, staff were trained to carry out and document clinical observations, and to administer emergency medications in accordance with the Medical Director’s guidelines.

Staff were also trained in de-escalation techniques.

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

Staff told us the leadership team were kind, supportive, and always available to listen to any concerns. They also confirmed they were provided with adequate breaks between shifts. In addition to offering verbal support, the Paramedic Team Leader was trained in Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), a structured, peer‑led framework designed to support staff following critical incidents or traumatic events. We were told staff were offered counselling support if they witnessed any traumatic incidents at work.

A lone working policy was in place, outlining how risks were assessed and the control measures were implemented when staff were required to work alone.