Isle of Wight NHS Trust

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. 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 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.

The service tailored care to meet individual patient needs and preferences. Staff supported patients living with dementia and demonstrated a calm, patient approach, using clear communication to reduce distress and respond to individual needs. Staff told us they had completed dementia training, and training records confirmed this. Where available, staff used patient passports to understand communication needs, preferences and risks, supporting person-centred and safe care during journeys.

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.

Managers had a good understanding of the diverse needs of the local population and the challenges in meeting those needs. Although the service worked towards national targets, staff consistently described how their primary focus was to meet the needs of the local population. Care provision was responsive to a range of patient groups, including end of life patients, dialysis patients, stretcher patients and patients requiring repatriation to the mainland. The service facilitated transfers across services and supported outpatient appointments, ensuring continuity of care across settings. Same-day discharge activity accounted for a significant proportion of demand, and the service employed a dedicated hospital liaison role to support the coordination of these journeys. This helped to ensure patients were transferred in a timely way and supported flow through the wider healthcare system.

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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust had a public-facing website which provided information for members of the public and professionals. This included details on how to make a complaint, how to request information in line with the Freedom of Information Act, how the service responded to and learned from incidents, and information on careers. The website also provided information about the ambulance service, including the services it offered. Accessibility tools were available, allowing information to be displayed in different languages, text sizes, and colour contrasts to support a range of user needs.

Managers also produced and distributed a Patient Transport Service Choice leaflet to support GP surgeries to discuss eligibility with patients. In addition, they launched the Isle of Wight Patient Transport Service web page, hosted on the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB website. This clearly outlined eligibility criteria and alternative travel options.

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.

Information on how to provide feedback about care and treatment was available on the trust website. This included processes for compliments, concerns and complaints. A trust-wide complaints policy provided staff with guidance on managing and responding to complaints.

The Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) team provided a key route for patients, carers and representatives to share feedback, compliments or queries. The team supported individuals who were unable or reluctant to use standard feedback processes, ensuring all patients could express their views.

The Patient Transport Service (PTS) received very few complaints. Where issues were raised, most commonly relating to eligibility, the service took action to address concerns and improve service delivery.

The service ensured learning from complaints was shared with staff to support improvement. Managers communicated learning through regular updates, including daily morning briefings, monthly PTS newsletters and individual staff discussions. Managers also provided direct feedback to staff involved in complaints, helping to close the feedback loop and support improved practice. For example, the service initially declined PTS eligibility for a patient who was blind and a double amputee, in line with national guidance. Following a review, managers spoke directly with the patient and reinstated transport after confirming relatives were unable to provide support.

Other examples of listening to and involving people included concerns about long journeys for short appointments, unsuitable travel timings for island residents, and poor coordination between transferring hospitals. In response, the service strengthened operational links with another hospital trust by establishing direct contacts to better align appointment scheduling with ferry timetables.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The Patient Transport Service (PTS) did not consistently meet its arrival timeliness standards over a 6-month period under the June 2025 contract. The contract with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) set a 90% compliance target, however, the service achieved an arrival rate of 64.8% for outpatient journeys. This shortfall was linked to a limited vehicle fleet and small operational footprint, which reduced the service’s ability to respond to sudden increases in high-priority demand. As a result, over one third of patients did not arrive within the specified 75-minute pre-appointment window. The service also did not meet contractual targets for returning patients home during the same period. The team achieved a 77.5% compliance rate for completing outpatient collections within 0 to 60 minutes of patients being declared ready, below the 90% ICB target. This was due to the need to prioritise time-critical activity, such as dialysis and CT appointments, alongside urgent mainland transfers and ward discharges to support overall hospital flow. As a result, waiting times for routine outpatient collections increased.

To address these shortfalls, the service maintained regular communication with key clinical teams to support patient experience. Transport staff worked collaboratively across the trust and liaised with high-volume departments, including eye, fracture and podiatry. Where delays occurred, clinical teams adjusted appointment times and transport staff kept patients informed of expected arrival times. The service also improved efficiency by combining journeys where appropriate, using the same vehicle for both discharges and outpatient transport.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Managers and staff worked proactively to ensure the service remained accessible to the island’s population, despite the challenges associated with geography and health inequalities. The service recognised patients living on the Isle of Wight faced increased risks of delayed care and reduced access to treatment compared with mainland residents. To address this, managers worked with system partners to improve access to mainland services. For example, the service collaborated with cross-Solent transport providers to support timely patient transfers for outpatient appointments that could not be delivered locally. This helped to ensure patients could access specialist care without being disadvantaged by their location.

The service also planned for and responded to the complex demographic needs of the local population. Managers understood the island had an ageing population, with a projected 36% increase in residents aged over 85 by 2030, alongside higher levels of deprivation and long-term conditions compared with national averages. Staff used this population data to inform service planning and tailor care to those most at risk of unequal outcomes. By aligning resources with local need, the service reduced the risk of gaps in provision for vulnerable patient groups.

The service ensured its care provision supported safe, dignified and equitable access for people with a range of physical needs. Staff used a variety of specialised equipment, including different wheelchair sizes, leg raisers, vehicle winches, secure restraints and stair-climbing chairs for patients unable to manage steps. Crews also carried bariatric stretchers supporting up to 400kg, vacuum mattresses and essential clinical equipment such as oxygen and defibrillators. This helped to ensure patients with complex mobility and health needs could travel safely and without barriers.

All staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and human rights. This covered key principles, relevant legislation, policies and procedures, and how to raise concerns. The service also completed equality impact assessments for policies and procedures to ensure they did not disadvantage people with protected characteristics.

The service incorporated patient feedback and lived experience into its governance processes to support improvement. Managers gathered feedback through a range of methods, including accessible paper forms, informal feedback during journeys, public engagement events and liaison with care homes and supported living services. In addition, a patient representative with reduced mobility and long-term conditions was a member of the Ambulance Quality Sub-Committee, supported by the Trust Patient Council. These approaches helped to ensure the views of people at risk of inequality informed service development, including booking processes and transport accessibility.