South Western 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 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.

At our assessment in September 2018, we rated this key question 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.

Patients felt listened to and able to describe their situations, what they were feeling and how this was different to their usual health condition. This was due to the way staff spoke with patients and callers. All staff were calm and respectful and allowed time for people to respond. Staff checked with patients what they wanted to happen and responded with explanations of what support and help was available.

Patients who were waiting for an emergency ambulance were contacted by skilled clinicians to review any change in their condition and provide appropriate advice.

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.

At times of high demand staff described what their actions would be. This could mean they did not stay on a call as long as when demand was lower. Clinicians constantly reviewed lists of people who were waiting for an ambulance to identify where other pathways could be used and free up more ambulance resources.

Managers reviewed calls taken, times spent on calls, what the issues were and how to provide an appropriate service for the demand. The service had invested in increasing numbers of trained clinicians who could review patients’ needs. This meant they could increase/decrease the priority for an ambulance attendance and if appropriate, discharge them from the service.

Clinicians could arrange for an alternative pathway to be used or provide advice on actions patients could take to improve their condition. This was called ‘hear and treat’ and proved to be effective in reducing the number of patients transported to hospitals by ambulance. This was a positive effect as it meant fewer patients would be waiting to be seen at hospital emergency departments and more ambulance crews would be available to answer 999 calls. Mental health specialists also provided support and staff could dispatch a specially designed vehicle to provide support that would meet the needs of the patients. This was available in most areas of the Southwest region and was provided as a partnership between commissioners, mental health services and SWAST.

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.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. Performance of call taking was reported to the Ambulance Quality Indicators programme. Patient safety incidents were reported to NHS England.

It was not part of the policy to provide information about delays in ambulance responses. This was because demand was constantly changing and depended on the severity of other patients’ conditions. Clinical staff referred to delays to explain why they were offering other pathways but did not give an exact expected time of arrival for the ambulance.

Information from this service was provided to patients verbally in a clear way and was tailored to patients’ individual needs.

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.

The service had no physical contact with patients or callers so did not provide complaints leaflets, but the SWAST website held clear information on how to complain and what to do in an emergency.

Complaints involving emergency operations centres were reviewed by the quality assurance team and actions identified. During February and March 2026 13 actions were completed following complaints investigations. Any delays to complaint responses were kept to a minimum and rationale was documented. Staff received feedback using a variety of methods. The newsletter called Talking Point was shared with staff and contained improvement actions, learning points, education available and any changes to the service.

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.

Processes supported staff to identify patients who were in the greatest need and provide support when there was extremely high demand for the service. At times of high demand other ambulance services adjacent to the region would support responding to life threatening situations.

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.

The provider had undertaken quality and equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

People with the greatest clinical need were prioritised without bias to protected characteristics or ethnicity. Staff were skilled in ensuring patients understood instructions and used clear and simple language.

People with mental health needs were provided with specialist advice and support.