Ambicorp Ltd

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

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 the 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.

At our last assessment we did not rate this service as that was not part of the methodology at the time. At this assessment the rating is 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.

Score: 3

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.

The service offered private bookings where they worked in partnership with people and families. They had prerequisites to accepting these bookings, care homes or hospitals were contacted to ensure that people did not come to harm as a result.

As a patient transport service, the service did not plan any care beyond the transfer of the patient. Staff responded to peoples needs during the journey to ensure they were as comfortable as they could be.

Score: 3

As a patient transport service, the service did not plan any care beyond the transfer of the patient and mostly carried out specific transfers on the request of hospital trusts. Staff supported patient choice and continuity as much as possible during this process.

Score: 3

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

Staff had access to translation services and communication aids.

If a patient was private the fee was clearly explained at the point of booking.

Score: 3

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People could share feedback with the provider. People were provided with details of the service when transported. Contact details for the service were on the ambulance.

As part of the assessment process, we found old QR codes that led to the website of another service who previously owned the ambulances. We were provided with evidence that these QR codes were removed immediately following the assessment.

The service had a clear process for investigating complaints. All complaints were triaged through the same responsible person then investigated by the most appropriate person. As part of the assessment process, we reviewed the complaints files. The service ensured duty of candour was followed as part of the complaints process. The result of the investigation alongside any learning was shared with people, staff and any other services involved with people’s care.

Score: 3

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

The service mostly carried out transfers upon the request of hospitals. Staff at the service responded to whatever was needed from the perspective of a person using the service as well as the hospitals they were transporting people for. Office staff were available 5am to 10pm every day, then a staff member would be available on call 10pm to 5am.

Score: 3

Staff and leaders tailored their care, support and treatment in response to peoples needs. Staff and leaders emphasised that they always did their best to take everyone who was scheduled and that transports were successfully completed, if it was safe to do so.