Gateshead Hatzola Ambulance Station Also known as Gateshead Hatzola

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 inspection we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

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 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.

Staff explained that their focus was on being a responsive organisation. The service made decisions about patients’ care which ensured the focus was maintained on the relevance of their care and treatment. Supporting the needs and preferences of patients was paramount and the service supported them in making their own decisions.

Several examples of how the service worked in partnership to support the needs of patients were shared. The service had prepared a booklet about the customs of their community to provide practical advice in supporting the cultural needs of Jewish patients. A phrasebook following the accessible information standard was carried on the ambulance vehicle to support contact with patients.

To support the relevance and responsiveness of the service to the wider local community, the service had developed an outreach service. The service had used an ambulance vehicle to visit schools for children with special needs so that pupils were familiar with the service. Through its outreach programme, the service trained the wider community in basic first aid and life support. The service said it felt inclusive about helping people.

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.

The health and care needs of people in the local community were well understood by the service. Volunteer staff were also trained to support patients in the wider local community with other diverse health and care needs. Care and treatment were provided flexibly and supported the patient’s choice.

To support the care needs of patients, a hospital chaplain was deployed who understood the cultural needs of the community. The chaplain was enabled, where permission was obtained, to contact a patient transported to hospital to provide patient advocacy and continued support.

The service met the needs of people with mental health needs. A trained mental health lead was available to provide chaplaincy services and used a radio specifically to respond at all times to any patient mental health emergencies. Dispatchers and responders undertook suicide prevention training.

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

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

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 complied with the accessible information standard and a phrasebook following the accessible information standard was carried on the ambulance vehicle to support contact with patients. Patients, families and carers were kept closely and appropriately informed through regular updates during their contact with the service. Information governance arrangements ensured confidentiality of patient information and were strictly enforced.

A booklet prepared by the service about customs of the local Jewish community included examples and explanations to promote awareness of appropriate language. Volunteer staff supported people with information about care and treatment and other services available in the local area. The service worked closely with a Jewish family social care service and other partners in the community to access specialised assistance for patients requiring additional support.

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.

Feedback mechanisms were well embedded for each call the service received. Each patient call was sent a text with a link to a digital feedback form. The key performance indicator showed patient satisfaction of 98%.

A complaints policy was in place, which was reviewed most recently in March 2025. The policy explained how the service supported and investigated complaints Volunteer staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately, although no formal complaints had been received in the previous 12 months. The service shared 2 examples of complaint investigations where learning points were acknowledged. Learning and improvement were also 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.

Haztola ensured the local community could access the service easily. The service supported people to ensure an appropriate response. The Hatzola app supported the first contact, and a responder was allocated and dispatched immediately. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients to support access. The service deployed responders to any patient requiring an intervention, and not exclusively those from the Jewish community. Key performance indicators showed responders currently attended each call within 2 minutes.

The service provided cover at all times of day and night, and was arranging to recruit a further 6 volunteer responders so that 18 responders would be available to ensure this cover was maintained.

A hospital chaplain was deployed to support patients so that any communication difficulties were addressed if the patient was admitted to hospital. The chaplain could provide support until the patient was discharged from hospital and subsequently signposted the person to access post treatment support.

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.

Managers, coordinators and volunteer staff worked closely together to provide a service which demonstrated an active listening culture. The service responded to everyone regardless of their cultural background to provide an inclusive service. Although the service primarily supported the Jewish community in the local area, it also responded to calls from other people contacting 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 scored and dispatchers received monthly feedback on their scores to identify where any further improvements could be made. Equality impact assessments to support people with protected characteristics and ensure a fair and consistent response were not widely used. However, the service responded to all patients, regardless of their background. The service signposted every member of the public who contacted them to ensure people received an equitable service.

The service shared examples of feedback it had received and these were very positive.