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
• Planning for the future

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 last assessment in 2016, 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.

Staff listened to patients’ descriptions of their conditions and reviewed their past and current medical and social history. This information was included in patient records and demonstrated a person centred approach. Staff remained calm and respectful which helped patients to express their individual needs without judgement.

Staff gave clear explanations of services available for patients to help them make a choice about their care. Patients felt involved in their care and understood their treatment options.

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.

Staff assessed patients’ needs holistically and understood the impact of their injury or illness would have on their work or home life. Staff and managers had initiated and maintained professional relationships with other services which helped patients access care in a more streamlined way. Patients were always given a choice of how they would like to receive care and treatment and what they could expect from their choices. Patients expressed how well they were informed by staff and knew what the next steps in managing their condition were.

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 including commissioners of the service, NHS England and the CQC.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. This was mainly electronic and staff were consistent in ensuring screens were locked if not being viewed and were away from public access.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Information leaflets were available in languages other than English. Staff spent as much time with patients as they needed, to ensure patients understood the information being shared.

Information on how patients could feedback to the service was clearly displayed and additionally was available on the trust website.

Information was shared with health partners in electronic format where possible. However, the variety of record keeping systems used across the regional health services sometimes prevented this. In these instances, staff provided written records for the patient or their representative to take to their next consultation.

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.

Managers regularly reviewed patients’ feedback and shared outcomes with staff. Although most feedback was positive, there were 3 complaints in the 6 months prior to the assessment. These had all been investigated and patients received an apology and were informed of actions taken as a result.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received using a QR code or on the trust’s website.

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.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. All areas were accessible for people with limited mobility or who needed to use mobility aids.

A newly arranged triage system had reduced waiting times for patients to be seen and made it easier for patients to access clinical advice and treatment when they needed it.

Patients had access to trained staff for their presenting conditions. There was adequate medical cover within the unit during opening hours. A doctor was in attendance between the hours of 9am and 5pm. Outside of these hours, clinical advice was available using a specialist advice line.

The patient’s pathway and time spent within the department was smooth and kept to the minimum possible. Patients were discharged or referred to other services in less than 4 hours of arrival.

Within the last 12 months, the urgent treatment centre had remained open during all of its planned hours. This was better than at previous times when extreme demand led to no new patients being accepted in the unit during its opening hours.

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

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. All patients were accepted and treated according to clinical need. Staff treated patients with understanding and empathy with a holistic assessment of health, work and social needs. Where people needed extra time for a consultation this was provided.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.