ERS Medical North East

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We have a shared vision, strategy and culture that is based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding and meeting the needs of people and our communities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The company had developed a shared vision, strategy and implementation plan to achieve its objectives through ‘…a thriving team committed to pro-actively improving the wellbeing of our communities by enabling access to vital health and care services.’

An integral part of this vision was to embed group values across the company based on:

• Collaboration (…working as one team with a shared purpose to meet the needs of …colleagues, patients, service users, customers and planet);
• Agility (…listen, learn, and adapt to improve the business, each other and ourselves);
• Reliability (…do what we say we will do…take responsibility…and behave with integrity); and
• Empowerment (…confident and committed to taking responsibility to deliver the highest quality service).

The vision and key group objectives had been discussed and shared with staff who were able to demonstrate they were aware of its contents and objectives, and that they understood how this contributed to the delivery of a high quality service. Road shows to discuss the development of the vision, objectives and values had been held in 2024. Regular updates were provided through the group newsletter.

We have inclusive leaders at all levels who understand the context in which we deliver care, treatment and support and embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. They have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively and do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

We met with the registered manager, nominated individual, operations managers, learning manager and regional manager during our assessment at the service. They explained how the service operated, teams were managed, and how outcomes were measured.

The senior management team had the skills, knowledge and experience to undertake their roles and had a good understanding of the service. We were told by responders the registered manager, operations managers and team leaders were visible and approachable for staff and service users. This was confirmed through responses to staff surveys. Although the response rate was low, in 2025, 75% of responses to the staff pulse survey agreed ‘my manager or supervisor is approachable and supportive’ and 63% agreed ‘communication between control and crews is good’.

Development opportunities were available for all staff.

We create a positive culture where people feel that they can speak up and that their voice will be heard.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had a whistleblowing policy in place for staff to raise concerns where the interests of patients, service users, colleagues, or that of the provider were at risk. Staff were encouraged to raise day to day, general or low risk concerns with their manager in the first instance.

Further routes to raise a concern in confidence were also available, such as access to an external outsourced whistleblowing service, providers of an anonymous whistleblower hotline and online reporting system.

The policy emphasised victimisation of colleagues reporting a concern will be treated as a serious disciplinary offence, and that discouraging staff from raising a concern was not acceptable. Separately staff were encouraged to raise issues affecting them personally through the service grievance policy and procedure to address their concerns.

The service took part in the provider’s 'Your Say' survey. This enabled staff to identify problems and areas for action. The provider gave assurance that all comments will be read and shared with the local team to make improvements. We saw posters including a QR code to the survey on display. Managers within the service were asked to encourage teams to take part in the survey.

Service users and carers were encouraged to give feedback through direct contact with the service and through feedback forms and comments recorded on the patient record form. We saw that feedback was used to make improvements to the service. Managers were accessible to staff, service users and their carers for them to give feedback.

We value diversity in our workforce. We work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for us.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service had equality, diversity and inclusion champions in place and we saw it was open to all staff to apply for the role. Their role was to:

• help raise awareness of equality, diversity and inclusion, including company initiatives and activities;
• help to formulate, and support the delivery of the equality, diversity and inclusion strategy;
• be the first point of contact for colleagues …regarding any equality, diversity and inclusion concerns they may wish to share;
• encourage individuals to speak up on any issues or concerns they may have or on behalf of their team colleagues;
• share local issues with other equality, diversity and inclusion champions; and
• attend monthly meetings with the wider equality, diversity and inclusion team.

To undertake the role, champions needed to have cultural awareness and a positive attitude towards the provision of equitable services. Equality, diversity and inclusion training, and prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace were identified as mandatory training for all staff.

We saw staff were able to request flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues and the service put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

Opportunities within the service such as career development (management acceleration programme), management training, additional responsibilities, learning and education were available for all staff to apply.

We have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. We act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and we share this securely with others when appropriate.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service was managed by a nominated individual and a registered manager. Regular meetings were held by senior management of the service. These meetings had a standing agenda and discussed site reports, dispatch reports, operational reports, care and clinical issues, training, patient experience, training and health and safety. The senior operational report included updates on communication, incidents, ambulance behaviour.

There was a framework for team communication and meetings to ensure essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed. Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams to meet the needs of service users, such as with NHS staff. Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work.

The service had policies in place which identified audit checks to be carried out, such as infection prevention and control, environmental, health and safety, information governance and physical security, medicines management, and patient record forms. These were carried out on an annual, 6 monthly, monthly or weekly basis.

The registered manager had access to information on the performance of the service (call types, severity, number of transports, response times, time on the vehicle, feedback), staffing and service user care.

We understand our duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so our services work seamlessly for people. We share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service had developed relationships with the local NHS ambulance trust and NHS acute trusts, and with Healthwatch organisations in the local catchment area.

Feedback mechanisms were in place, for example lived experience workshops had taken place at a provider and local level involving service users, carers and partners such as Age UK, the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector and local authorities, which helped identify gaps and opportunities in how the service communicates and makes improvements.

The provider held regular engagement through monthly contract review and quality improvement group meetings with integrated care boards and local trusts ensuring learning from identified safety themes.

We focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across our organisation and the local system. We encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. We actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had strengthened local feedback and learning routes through the network of complaints leads. This provided a structured, collaborative way for operational, governance and engagement teams to review learning themes and share best practice locally and nationally. We saw shared learning was achieved from the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework, joint safety reviews, and thematic reviews.

The company had developed patient participation groups with the aim of creating a consistent framework that captured, assessed and acted upon the patient voice more systematically. These had provided feedback from individuals who had received care and assistance from the service.