Outdoor Medical Solutions Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This key question has been rated good. This means people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service completed risk assessments prior to each patient journey, actively involving the patient in the process. When required, staff carried out pre‑travel home visits to assess accessibility and determine the equipment and resources needed to ensure the patient’s safety and comfort. Records showed patients were fully included in these assessments and decisions. Staff were trained to take and record clinical observations for high-dependency transfers.

The service had established standard operating procedures for conducting manual handling risk assessments and for the safe transport of children and young adults.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Leaders accessed the latest clinical updates from the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (JRCALC), which develops and publishes evidence‑based clinical guidelines for paramedics. Staff told us they were kept informed of any changes to policies and procedures arising from these updates.

The service had an escalation procedure for managing patients who deteriorated during transit, ensuring staff understood their responsibilities, acted within the limits of their training, and recorded any incidents appropriately. We also reviewed the End‑of‑Life policy, which provided clear guidance to staff on the safe and respectful transport of patients with a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Booking information was recorded electronically and transmitted to crews via their personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, which also alerted staff when a patient presented an infection risk.

We observed staff safely transported patients and provided timely, relevant information to receiving healthcare professionals. Hospital staff told us that communication with crews was good, and that verbal handovers were effective. We were given an example where this was particularly valuable when a patient’s condition had deteriorated during transport.

The service had a policy to guide staff on how to ensure the patient’s safe onward travel in the event of a vehicle breakdown.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

The booking system included dedicated fields to ensure that patients’ individual needs were identified and planned for, including requirements around nutrition, hydration and toilet needs.

During our observations, staff took care to offer support when needed while also promoting independence where patients were able to manage aspects of their care themselves.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service level agreement with the hospital did not include specific journey‑time targets. However, it carried out internal performance monitoring, including tracking cancellations, as well as delays to collections and drop-offs. This information was used constructively in discussions with the hospital to support service planning and improvement.

Hospital staff told us the timeliness of transfers was largely influenced by hospital activity levels, traffic conditions and communication between hospital sites. They reported that delays were not attributable to the reliability or performance of the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff obtained consent to transport people. Staff received training in consent and demonstrated a good understanding of the consent process. They liaised with hospital staff if a patient refused to travel.

We reviewed a staff policy that clearly defined the principles of consent and provided guidance on assessing capacity to consent. The policy also outlined the procedures for aborting or cancelling journeys, including circumstances where a patient chose not to travel.