ERS Medical North East

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
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This was the first rated assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

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

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

We saw staff were focussed on providing a service which considered individual needs and preferences. Staff were responsive to the needs of individual service users and decisions were made which ensured focus was on the relevance of individuals’ care and treatment. Supporting the needs and preferences of service users was important for the service and the service supported staff in making decisions based on the needs of the service user.

The service provided consistent delivery with all risks minimised through written and effective controls and procedures. The service was committed to high levels of care, treatment, respect and wellbeing for all users of the services it provided. The company promoted a strong, respectful, and caring culture through effective management, training, and awareness.

For example, the service used the ‘Conversation Guide: Talking to someone with mental health’ developed by Mental Health UK. This identified ways to spot the signs of poor mental health, have a supportive conversation, and signposting to other services.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Health and care needs of service users were understood by the service. Staff were trained to support service users in the wider local community with other diverse health and care needs. Care and treatment was provided flexibly and supported the service user’s choice.

We observed the booking process and once eligibility had been established the service user, their carer or representative was asked if they required an escort for medical reasons, anxiety, their condition or frailty. Service users, their carers or representative were also asked about mobility needs so the right transport for the service user’s needs was allocated. The service matched the correct type of transport for the service user’s needs, on the date and time requested.

Feedback we reviewed showed service users had a positive experience of using the service and felt well supported.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had key performance targets for the time to pick up a service user and for the time the service user spent on the ambulance. In the twelve months prior to our assessment, these were met with a pick-up time at least 95% less than 90 minutes and 98% less than 90 minutes spent on the ambulance.

The service complied with the accessible information standard and had policies in place to ensure information was accessible to all service users. For example, these took account of those with needs related but not limited to religious beliefs, race, disability, gender, marital or civil partnership status, sexual orientation.

The service had a contract with an external translation provider to facilitate full access, irrespective of English not being a service user’s first language. If the caller identified they would like to communicate in a different language to English, they were offered the facility to have a translator of their chosen language to join the call.

There were pictorial diagrams carried on the ambulance vehicle to help with the communication needs of service users.

The service made statutory notifications to external bodies when required.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service had a comprehensive complaints process in place; this involved full investigation, review and lessons learnt. We saw evidence of shared learning following complaint investigation.

For example, one complaint resulted in improvements to the vehicle allocation system, ensuring the correct equipment was always available for every service user’s needs. Further, improvements were also identified in the communication between hospitals, control teams, and transport crews to guarantee all equipment requirements, such as bariatric stretchers, were clearly confirmed and included in the care plan. These had been communicated to staff.

Another example was a response from the patient experience manager to a complainant. This contained an apology for any delay in responding, assurance that complaints were taken seriously, confirmation a thorough investigation had been completed, and findings had been included in an investigation report.

Acknowledgement was given that the service user had been inconvenienced. The service clearly accepted responsibility on this occasion and detailed immediate actions to prevent such an issue from happening again through increased bariatric capability on vehicles to ensure they can meet specific needs. The service referred the complainant to the next stage of the complaints procedure if dissatisfied.

Feedback methods were well established within the service for each call the service received. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Learning and improvement were supported through external feedback and benchmarking.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

All service users were able to access the service easily. All reasonable adjustments were met for service users on an individual basis, for example walking aids, bariatric equipment. Call handlers recorded individual needs and ensured these were passed to responders.

Further examples given were a service user who needed to travel alone to minimise infection prevention risks, a service user with a leg brace needing a stretcher during transport, and a service user with a nasogastric tube fitted who needed a nurse to accompany, and an ambulance with a stretcher.

The provider had developed initiatives to optimise planning for the transport of service users involving auto-planning within existing systems. The system analysed all journeys to recommend the most efficient and crew-friendly journey, although the dispatcher had the final decision.

The provider had also integrated existing call handling systems to allow automated real time estimated times of arrival by telephone and text. They estimated this saved over 7,500 hours of call handling time each year. Time freed-up helped the service provide a better quality service.

We saw staff made reasonable adjustments for service users to support access. The service deployed responders to any service user requiring an intervention within service level agreements, and individual requests for transport.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff worked closely together to provide a service which demonstrated they listened to service users and that they responded in a positive and active way. The service responded to everyone regardless of their cultural background to provide an inclusive service. We saw positive feedback from service users which reflected the overall way the service responded to needs of the local community through contractual arrangements, and to individuals needing the service.

The views and feedback of people in the local community were welcomed. The service trained staff in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. All calls received were audited and learning identified to identify where further improvements could be made.

Company policies included equality impact assessments to ensure people with protected characteristics were treated in a fair and consistent way and were not disadvantaged. The service responded to all service users and those enquiring about transport services equally, regardless of their background and signposted every member of the public who contacted them to ensure people received an equitable service.