South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment in 2016, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care.

This service scored 85 (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 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. This was often difficult especially when patients may attend who presented a risk to themselves or others. Patient safety and ongoing care was always considered and staff treated them with empathy and understanding. This included in difficult situations when patients may have presented a risk to themselves or others. We heard how staff spoke with sensitivity to patients and reduced any risks. It also allowed patients to access the treatment they needed when their mental health needs may have affected a patient’s judgement.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs and spoke with great sensitivity to gain details of their condition. Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition so they could make decisions about ongoing care. This often involved staff directing patients to other services and, if required, supported them to access those services. Staff arranged ambulance transport for ongoing care if needed and made patient appointments with specialist services at the time of the patient attendance. Patients felt staff could not have done more to support them and communicated treatment options clearly.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Professional relationships were mutually respectful and were used to improve patient experience of the service. There was a genuine culture of openness and offering support to staff with patient needs at the centre. Conversations with commissioners and other specialist services had the patients’ needs at the centre when arranging how services were delivered.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Patients were seen in individual rooms and conversations were not overheard by other people.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for patients. For example, by ensuring the premises were accessible for patients who had mobility issues, or needed help with communication.

Staff ensured patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, how to complain and supported people in accessing the services. Staff took the time to explore patients’ individual needs when assessing their condition. This included finding out about situations at home, work and how they could advise the most efficient care pathway for the patient. Patients explained how they had received onward appointments for specialist care shortly after leaving the department and were impressed with the speed of the service. Staff created and maintained professional relationships with specialist departments to create smoother patient pathways for ongoing patient care.

Staff demonstrated sensitivity when speaking with patients and focused on their individual needs.

Patient information leaflets were available in a wide range of subjects and alternative formats and languages.

Managers ensured staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff explained choices to patients and their families or carers. Staff used their clinical knowledge and skills to provide an initial diagnosis. They explained options of treatment and the impact this may have on patients. For example, if no x-ray service was available, staff assessed the patient’s condition and if appropriate, gave a choice of attending another emergency department or returning the following day when x-ray would be open.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues. Staff allowed patients to describe their conditions and supported patients to provide relevant information about the impact on their life at the time. Staff were able to provide medicines to reduce risks. Other services were contacted to help provide appropriate care for the individual. Patients felt staff listened to them and acted in the patients' best interests.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. They had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through a staying well service. Staff felt able to speak with team leaders or managers if they had any concerns. Managers made adjustments to working conditions in order to support staff when health issues presented a challenge.

Managers demonstrated a focus on providing support that staff could easily access which would promote wellbeing. Managers contacted staff personally after a challenging shift or after an emotionally difficult patient consultation to offer support.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were lower than the average for the provider.

Staff appraisals proactively included conversations about career development as well as individual staff wellbeing. Staff confirmed these were useful conversations and helped them identify what opportunities they could access for career progression.

Managers encouraged staff to feedback their thoughts about the service. Managers built opportunities for this into every shift and staff meeting. Managers made sure they were visible to staff within clinical areas and were always available to offer advice when asked. Managers noticed when staff may need further support and offered options. Staff told us they had been given opportunities to feed back any thoughts and these were always considered and acted on where possible. Staff comments were documented in team meeting notes and actions were monitored in further meetings. Staff had no problems in speaking with managers, offering their ideas and felt staff and managers worked as a team.

Actions from staff surveys were in progress and monitored for effectiveness. The staff survey results were part of trust’s specialist practitioner urgent and emergency care department and not specifically to the urgent treatment centre. Managers identified issues relevant to the centre. Improvement objectives included team working, staff being encouraged by managers to contribute ideas in work and additional actions to promote staff wellbeing. These actions had all been completed and staff described an improvement in the culture of the department.