Archived: Bristol Ambulance EMS Also known as Bristol Ambulance EMS

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding. This meant people were protected by a strong and distinctive approach to safeguarding, including positive risk-taking to maximise their control over their lives.

There was enough skilled staff to keep people safe, who were supported through structured induction, supervision, appraisals and development opportunities. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse and were supported by clear safeguarding policies. Managers monitored performance effectively, ensuring safe, high‑quality care tailored to people’s individual needs.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

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

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff received training specific for their role on how to recognise and report abuse. They completed safeguarding training for adults and children to level 3. The service had a safeguarding lead, who was trained to level 5. The training included an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These were legal frameworks designed to empower individuals who may lack capacity to make decisions about their care, and to ensure that necessary, restrictive care was in their best interests, proportionate, and not unlawfully restricting their freedom. Compliance with safeguarding training was over 94%.

There was always a manager on call to support staff with safeguarding concerns.

The service worked in partnership with hospitals and local authorities when raising concerns and fed information back to staff for learning.

The service had up-to-date policies and procedures that outlined staff responsibilities and provided clear guidance on reporting safeguarding concerns relating to adults, children, young people and staff.

We reviewed a random selection of recruitment files held by the service which demonstrated references and disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks had been completed in line with recruitment policy and legal requirements. As part of the employee risk assessment process, when a DBS check indicated a record of convictions, leaders followed a company risk assessment tool to determine if the applicant was appointable.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service employed enough staff to meet the needs of service users. Managers accurately calculated and reviewed the number of staff and skill mix needed for each shift using an electronic rostering system.

Recruitment files were checked and found to contain proof of identification, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, references and employment history in line with legal requirements.

There was a structured company induction covering the initial training requirements for the role, and we saw evidence of this being completed in line with company policy.

There was a schedule of mandatory training modules for all staff that was documented in company policy. There were processes to monitor and manage completion of training. At the time of the assessment, mandatory training compliance was above 86% for all modules.

The service provided extensive driver training, and some of the staff had legally recognised Emergency Driving Qualifications and were able to drive under blue lights.

Staff were supported to maintain and further develop their professional skills and experience. The service offered several apprenticeship opportunities providing staff with clear opportunities for progression.

Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development. At the time of the assessment, we were told appraisal compliance was reduced as a number of staff had recently been transferred to another service provider under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) regulations. However, a new system was being introduced so appraisals and one-to-one’s could be recorded electronically.

There was a clear and appropriate approach for supporting and managing staff when their performance fell below that expected by the service. Managers identified poor staff performance promptly and took appropriate action to support staff to improve.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.