Outdoor Medical Solutions 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Patient journeys were planned around each individual’s needs and preferences, and the service ensured all patients were treated equitably. Staff were trained to carry out risk assessments to maintain safety throughout patient transfers. Patients were also able to provide feedback or make complaints, which were listened to and acted upon appropriately.

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 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.

Patient journeys were planned according to each person’s individual needs and preferences, and we observed how this information was recorded within the booking system. We were also shown how the system was used to select the appropriate resources required for each journey.

Staff were trained to carry out dynamic risk assessments to ensure patient transfers were completed safely, and they understood how to request additional support or cancel journeys when required.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Leaders and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the needs of the patient groups they supported. There was regular communication with the hospital to ensure the service continued to meet the needs of the local community. The service level agreement for inter-hospital transfers, which was previously paramedic-led, had been reviewed and, following ongoing monitoring and discussion, was adapted to be delivered by technicians and emergency care assistants.

Communication with hospital staff was effective. We observed patient handovers taking place smoothly, with all essential information appropriately shared.

Managers told us they reviewed journey data to analyse delays. We were told patients were sometimes delayed during inter-hospital transfers, but hospital staff felt this was more likely due to traffic and communication between the hospitals.

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

Patient information was collected at the time of booking and recorded in the booking system, which also highlighted any language or communication barriers. Staff used online translation tools and translation guides available in the vehicles, and we were told they remained mindful of individual patient needs, providing verbal explanations and taking additional time when required.

To communicate delays, the service liaised with the hospital or contacted patients directly for private transfers. Although the service did not currently provide patient information leaflets, they were planning to introduce QR code cards that could be given to patients and their families, enabling them to access relevant information on the company’s website.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

There were effective processes in place to gather feedback and complaints from people using the service. Service users were encouraged to share feedback verbally, and feedback forms were available on the vehicles. Posters and stickers were also displayed, informing people how to provide feedback through the website, by telephone, or via social media channels.

Complaints and compliments were logged and managed through an electronic management system. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, there had been one complaint, which was handled in accordance with policy and fully resolved. We were also shown an example of how feedback about a squeaky ramp led to an immediate fix. Ten compliments had been recorded over the same period, although staff told us they frequently received verbal compliments that were not always captured in the system.

Clear and up-to-date complaints and feedback policies outlined how the service responded to both positive and negative feedback, as well as how learning was shared with staff.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service reviewed accessibility requirements for each patient, and this information was recorded in the electronic booking system. Staff were aware of individual needs, including mobility issues, dementia, learning disabilities, and whether an escort was required. This enabled them to determine the appropriate skills or equipment needed for each journey. Translation guides and online translation tools were available on vehicles, and staff had access to remote support at all times during operational hours.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

We were told how the service ensured all patients were treated equitably and were given an example of how they had accommodated a patient’s beliefs during transport. The service completed equality and human rights impact assessments for its policies to proactively identify whether any aspect could adversely affect people with protected characteristics or their human rights. Staff had also received training in Equality, Diversity and Human Rights.