- SERVICE PROVIDER
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
This is an organisation that runs the health and social care services we inspect
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Emergency and urgent care
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 02 -03 September 2025
We carried out this assessment to assess if improvements had been made since the last inspection in July 2022 when the emergency and urgent care service was rated as requires improvement. We assessed 32 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We found the quality of care had improved however there were still areas where improvement was needed.
At the last inspection there were breaches of regulation in relation to, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing.
At this assessment, improvements were found, and the service was no longer in breach of safe care and treatment.
However, the service was still in breach of 1 regulation in relation to governance.
At this assessment, we found that the emergency and urgent care service had a positive learning safety culture based on openness and honesty, where events were investigated, and learning was shared to promote good practice and continuous improvement. There were established safe systems of care in which safety was monitored and assured. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. Staff had effective and embedded understanding in how to protect patients from abuse. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced people who worked together effectively, to provide care. There were good links between operational and educational teams which supported staff to receive the clinical training and guidance needed to deliver safe care that met patients’ needs. Medicine management was safe and met people’s needs.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Electronic systems were used successfully to share patients’ assessment of needs when they moved between different services. People’s care and treatment were routinely monitored to continuously improve it. Outcomes were mainly positive and consistent and mostly met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Their privacy and dignity were respected. People’s needs were listened to and staff responded to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff.
We found the service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. The service had systems and processes in place to make sure everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
There was a clear vision and improving culture. Staff were proud to work at the service and of the care they delivered. Local leadership was capable, compassionate and inclusive. There was an improving freedom to speak up culture and the service valued diversity in the workforce. The service collaborated and worked in partnership with the wider health and social care services to support care provision, service development and joined-up care in their local area, and for the wider healthcare community.
However, we found that there were areas where governance, oversight and consistency required improvement. While leadership and organisational culture were improving, these were not yet fully embedded across all parts of the service. The governance framework had been revised following a divisional restructure, however, the implementation of this framework had not yet achieved full consistency or reliability across all operational areas. Variations in governance processes, gaps in assurance, and limitations in the availability of timely and reliable information limited leaders’ confidence in consistent oversight and decision making.
Although there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff, mandatory training and appraisal completion did not consistently meet the trust’s target. There were also lapses in vehicle cleanliness.
While staff confidence to raise concerns had improved, not all staff felt assured that issues raised would consistently result in timely and effective action. In addition, although the service had clear plans to strengthen public engagement, equity of access and public facing information, these initiatives were at an early stage and their impact was not yet fully demonstrated at the time of assessment.
People's experience of this service
People who used the service told us they received care that was kind, compassionate, and respectful. Staff had demonstrated professionalism, maintained their dignity and privacy, and provided emotional and practical support tailored to their individual needs. Communication had been clear and accessible, ensuring they understood their care and could make informed decisions, with family involvement where appropriate. Care had been person-centred, culturally sensitive, and responsive. People had felt safe and been provided with high-quality treatment throughout their patient journey.