Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated effective as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service had policies and procedures to support staff perform their roles. These were based on national guidance. The service monitored performance. Staff reviewed patient needs and assessed eligibility to use the service.

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.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had processes to assess people’s needs. Staff assessed eligibility to use the service during the booking process. They reviewed people’s booking information and planned resources to meet their needs. The service reassessed patient eligibility as people’s needs changed.

Prior to transporting people, the service risk assessed an entire journey to plan care. This meant people’s needs could be met and reduced the risk of cancelled journeys due to unexpected events.

We observed staff responding to changing patient needs. Staff told us they had enough time during transports to meet the needs of people.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service delivered care in line with the NHS Non-Emergency Patient Transport Service (NEPTS) guidelines and relevant legislation. Staff had access to guidance and policies to guide decision making. The service deployed a ward coordinator to review patients in wards and assess eligibility to use the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked with staff in wards to plan discharge for patients eligible for transportation. Hospital staff on wards requested patient transport via email. Ward coordinators from the service visited patients in person on wards to check eligibility.

During our assessment we observed staff from the service sharing information with ward staff to understand people’s needs.

Managers said they used emails, memos, and one-to-one meetings with staff to communicate. They said shift patterns made it difficult to hold whole service meetings. Staff told us they were aware of incidents, compliments and complaints. However, not all staff were aware of the performance of the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service worked with wards to promote other services as a first option to use. Managers were aware transporting someone by stretcher was not the best option to promote independence if the person was able to self-mobilise and use other modes of transport.

The service created an assisted lifting and response team to care for non-injured people who fell in the community. The service attended people who had falls but did not require urgent care, for example they helped people back to seating or standing positions to prevent other injuries. The aim of the service was to prevent people needing hospital treatment following long waits on the floor.

The service did not routinely offer food and drink on transports. If required, the service would work with ward staff to supply food and drink. Staff told us they would ensure people who were transported home from hospital stays had basic supplies available to meet their nutritional needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

In the 12 months prior to our assessment the service carried out over 23,000 patient transports. The service monitored performance based on inpatient collections, and on-time collections for outpatients. Over the 12 months prior to the assessment, the service performed close to their targets. The service did not monitor drop off times. Managers said they did not monitor this because it would restrict staff ability to ensure people were safe at their destination.

The service monitored vehicles when on the road. Vehicles were tracked which enabled staff working at base to make real-time changes to plans if necessary.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and could explain how to gain consent to transport for both adults and children. During the assessment of the service, we observed staff gaining consent to transport.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood their responsibilities where a person lacked capacity to make decisions.

The booking process captured information where a carer or advocate was needed to support a person during transport. The service used this information to plan care.

The service did not transport people detained under the Mental Health Act.