South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We assessed 6 out of 6 quality statements.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has increased to good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and staff decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had a patient experience team, whose role included finding out the experiences of patients, friends and family and compiling feedback on how services could be improved.

Staff could access person centred patient information via the special notes on the system. These included Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Questions around DNACPR were included as part of the algorithm triage process.

If a patient had a history of violence and was deemed ‘dangerous’, a ‘Patient of Interest’ alert notified staff to proceed with caution. This was linked to both the patient’s file and their address, in case a call came from their home or a public location.

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.

Staff could access an interpretation telephone service with the ability to translate 240 different languages. We observed a call where the patient required a Bulgarian interpreter. The system for accessing the interpreter was quick, professional and helpful. Staff understood their responsibility in using an official interpretation service rather than reliance on family members and friends.

Staff had access to systems to support patients with hearing difficulties and advised us they would prioritise those patients in the queue.

The service did not always provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information.

Staff at the EOC who worked in clinical teams advised us they learned most of the transformation changes from their managers as they had insufficient time to check emails. Staff received a 6 minute ‘grace period’ from when they logged on, to when they had to be available for calls. Therefore, staff either did not read email communication notices, or had to do so in their own time. This was further impacted when information was not always shared before being implemented. For example, senior leaders made the decision to remove access to internet search engines, however, this was not communicated to staff prior to removal. This resulted in the IT department being inundated with tickets as staff were unaware of the change.

At the previous assessment we recommended the trust should review methods of communication between senior executives and staff to ensure important information was received and understood. Managers demonstrated the various methods introduced to communicate with staff. However, staff advised us they were either overwhelmed with too much information, had begun to disengage with the transformation programme, or found they did not have the time to review updates. Therefore, the service was still struggling to effectively communicate internally.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We spoke with patients who had used the service. They advised us they knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern. All patients we spoke with knew which trust was looking after them and that it was South Central Ambulance Service, who had transferred them to hospital.

We reviewed the service’s complaints policy, and it was up to date and ratified. It included steps for escalating a complaint and details of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The policy defined complaint categorisation, based on urgency and included a timeframe for responses. The service introduced a complaints manager in August 2021, whose role was to co-ordinate the response to formal complaints. The patient experience team responded to urgent and immediate replies within 28 days, and standard replies were provided within 56 days. We saw data that confirmed, the team were meeting these timeframes.

Staff also said they received feedback once a complaint file had closed.

At the previous assessment, we advised the service should share learning from complaints across departments. Staff advised us changes to practice after a complaint were shared across all areas of service. This was communicated via managers and the intranet. Therefore, the service had improved since the last assessment.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Performance statistics were divided by each site into North and South. The service used a traffic light system to show if staff were hitting targets for call times. Each member of staff in operations had their own traffic light system to keep them updated on whether they were hitting targets.

In the 12 months prior to assessment, the service received around 77,235 to 95,282 calls per month. Key Performance Indicators were based on individual commissioned targets.

Data showed in the 12 months leading up to the assessment, 95% of call answering times were above (worse) that the national provider median. During the same period, the services 99th centile answering time was consistently worse than the average of all ambulance trusts.

Whilst the trust was not performing when compared against their peers, between February and April 2025 there was a sustained improvement in call answering times, a reduction in calls that were abandoned and improved clinical call back times, with the trust meeting their expected targets. However, there was not sufficient time to demonstrate this was sustainable over a long period or embedded in the culture of the trust.

Trust leaders had actions plans in place to ensure continued improvement of call response times. For example, the service was introducing a new CAD system which was on plan to be implemented by the end of 2026. The trust was also increasing call handler staffing numbers, and had plans demonstrating improvements in staffing turnover and retention.

Staff and leaders actively listened to all information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Managers continuously monitored call and ambulance stacks. They liaised with their local operational commander if pressures were increasing, and resources were tight. The local operational commanders managed ambulance crews and liaised with hospitals if pressures increased.

Clinicians could refer patients to Urgent Community Response (UCR) teams to avoid hospital admissions. This team included a variety of professionals, including doctors, district nurses, occupational therapists, etc. They carried out same-day assessments and treatment within the community. The Urgent Care desk clinicians were able to directly dispatch specialist paramedics themselves, rather than go via the dispatch team. The specialist paramedics mostly drove cars rather than ambulances, this saved ambulance vehicles for other, more high risk, jobs.