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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

Where possible patient journeys were planned according to each person’s individual needs and preferences. One person told us “I didn’t have any specific needs, but they knew everything about me and who I was.”

For off-island journeys, staff described planning travel around safe times and tides and delaying transport where necessary. They prioritised people’s safety, ensuring individuals were not put at risk by travelling in unsafe conditions.

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.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. Safety was the top priority, and journeys were planned in coordination with the local services around weather and flight schedules where possible to minimise disruption for patients. Delays were communicated to the hospital and patients.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. We observed a journey where the patient was collected by staff within 15 minutes from the call coming in.

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.

People could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand. Information was communicated in a way which met people's communication needs. Staff used simple methods like writing and visual cues to help people communicate, including those who were non-verbal or deaf, and involved relatives where helpful to support understanding.

Staff could access support from external interpretation services when required. Records showed that staff across the provider had used this service over 5900 times across 68 languages in the 12 months prior to our assessment. This meant staff could assess people’s needs.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

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.

People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. Patients were encouraged to share feedback verbally, and feedback forms were available on vehicles.

Complaints and compliments were logged and managed through an electronic management system. In the 12 months prior to our assessment, there had been no formal complaints.

Clear and up-to-date complaints and feedback policies outlined how the service responded to feedback. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and learning was shared. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

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.

Delays could happen when crews had several jobs or to manage transports around weather and tide times for safety. Staff said this was managed using a priority list and by agreeing timings with the hospital. They said there was always an option to move things forward if care was delayed by working with other services such as the coastguard or helicopter emergency medical services to coordinate patient transports.

The service reviewed accessibility requirements for each patient, and this information was gathered by the booking system. Staff were aware of individual needs including accessibility, communication, additional requirements, and whether the patient was travelling alone. This enabled them to determine the appropriate skills or equipment needed for each journey.

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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

The provider completed equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. Protected characteristics are defined in the Equality Act 2010, this includes: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race and ethnicity, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.