ERS Medical North

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

The service demonstrated some responsiveness to identified risks. Leaders took immediate action to address issues identified during the assessment, including removing out‑of‑date equipment. The service had improved vehicle checking and cleaning processes, demonstrating that previous areas for improvement had been addressed.

However, learning from incidents was not consistently used to drive wider service improvement.

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 service usually made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. 

The service provided care that was responsive to people’s needs. Staff adapted journeys when circumstances changed and escalated concerns when transport was no longer appropriate. We observed staff working with hospital teams to resolve issues and support safe transfers. 

Staff ensured patients had equal access to the service. Office staff asked about any reasonable adjustments such as disability or sensory loss as part of their additional needs. Crews received this information and knew what to expect. Staff followed the service`s reasonable adjustments policy, which referenced the Equality Act 2010 and NHS England's Accessible Information Standard.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, learning disabilities and dementia. Staff were able to access support through training and senior staff. Staff adapted the service to take account of young people aged between 16 and 18 years of age.

We reviewed 5 patient transport records and saw staff gave patients choice and involved them in decisions. Records demonstrated that staff assessed individual needs and identified any factors that could affect the safe transfer of patients. Where standard transport arrangements were not suitable, staff adapted their approach and used appropriate equipment or alternative methods to meet patients’ specific requirements. Staff also considered patients’ clinical needs, comfort and dignity when planning and undertaking transfers, and ensured relevant information was documented and communicated to support continuity of care. This demonstrated a person-centred approach, with staff taking the time to assess risks, identify appropriate solutions and tailor transport arrangements to meet individual needs safely and effectively.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served from the point of booking through to transportation. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant.

Patients, carers or representatives are encouraged to provide information about any support requirements to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place.

The service had systems to help support patients in need of additional needs or specialist intervention. Patients are routinely asked whether they require an escort for medical or support reasons. This may include patients living with anxiety, cognitive impairment, frailty, communication needs or those who require an advocate to support them throughout their journey. This helps ensure patients feel reassured, supported and able to access healthcare services safely. Staff showed a commitment to listening to patients and responding appropriately, matching the right type of transport to the patient's clinical and mobility requirements on the requested day and time wherever possible. 

Managers ensured patients who did not respond to planned collection times were contacted to make alternative arrangements and check on their wellbeing.  

The service usually supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. 

The service complied with NHS England’s accessible information standard. Crews could use communication aids for non-verbal, speech impaired or neuro-diverse patients. We saw some vehicles had pictograms onboard with phrases and smiley faces, which helped staff to ask children or people who were speech-impaired how they felt, including pain scores.

Staff were observed communicating openly with patients and their carer’s, providing information clearly and honestly. Staff used accessible communication methods when necessary, including translation tools when English was not a patient’s first language.

Paper and electronic patient records were stored securely and shared appropriately.

Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service encouraged feedback from people, their families and commissioners through feedback cards, meetings and electronic systems. Senior staff followed up concerns raised by patients, and complaints were recorded and managed through organisational systems. Inspectors found limited evidence that learning from complaints and feedback was routinely shared with staff which reduced assurance that learning was embedded.

The local NHS trust retained responsibility for complaints and investigations. Where complaints involved the ambulance service, the provider was informed and contributed to investigating and learning.

From April 2025 to March 2026 the service received 5 complaints, 3 of the complaints related to staff attitudes. Complaints were actioned and closed within 5 working days in line with policy. 

Patients were updated throughout investigations and staff and patients received feedback and learning. Policies ensured patients were protected from discrimination and harassment when raising complaints.

The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. 

Waiting times for collection and delivery to pre-arranged appointments were monitored for efficiency and timeliness. 

People generally experienced transfers that were well organised, although staff and inspectors noted that delays sometimes occurred due to factors outside the service’s direct control, such as waiting for medicines or incomplete information at referral. In some cases, limited or inaccurate handover information affected journey planning and caused delays or changes to transport arrangements. While staff managed these situations professionally, improved communication at referral would help to further enhance people’s experience

Translation tools were available, and staff described how they supported people with communication needs and disabilities. Bariatric equipment and specialist resources were available when required. However, not all reasonable adjustment resources were consistently available on vehicles, for example dementia-friendly boxes. Any unforeseen delays were communicated to the NHS trust by a senior manager.  

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. 

The patient transport service was commissioner led with bookings and eligibility determined by contractual agreements. The service delivered a consistently good standard of care and transport for allocated patients. 
Commissioners reported high-performance levels and positive feedback from patients and system partners.

The service supporting timely attendance at appointments and reduced, cancelled or aborted journeys. People received safe, person-centred care that reflected their preferences, communication needs and reasonable adjustments.